Comments

I neglected to mention in support of my previous comment that you may find some of the ideas in the following study I did helpful in your goal setting, although the content is somewhat dated now: “<a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00597621?null" rel="nofollow">Expatriate ‘experts’ in Indonesia and Thailand: Professional and personal qualities for effective teaching and consulting.</a>” International Review of Education, 37, 4: 453-472.

Jonathan, I read your paper and believe you have done an excellent and thorough job. Congratulations! I am sure it will be of immense practical assistance to others at the same career point as yourself. Let me suggest that you think through some tough questions. Two questions that come immediately to mind are: 1. Why do you believe a career in this area is possible? Given that more countries are 'graduating" from aid, that Australia, among others, is providing scholarships and graduating more and more people from developing countries with specific technical and development expertise, and that posts and projects seem to be recruiting more nationals than expats these days, is it reasonable to expect that a "career" is possible for expats, especially in the medium/longer term? Your answer to this question may help with the next: 2. What knowledge, skills and experience do you bring to this career? Is it administrative ability? Is it a specific set of cultural competencies including a language? As you note, and also as Ashlee points out in her comment, professional training in an area such as health, education, engineering and so on is important. Equally important, I think, is that significant professional experience on top of this is essential. Without this kind of expertise, I worry that you may end up in the kind of unhappy situation, for all parties, that I saw several young people in overseas postings experience where they were attempting to 'manage' activities and people -- both nationals and expats -- with vastly more technical credibility and in-country experience of which they had little or none. In other words, I suggest that you need to do a really "tough-love" analysis of yourself, your goals, and career opportunities over the longer term. The outcome from this analysis may be very much more positive than these questions imply and I hope, given your enthusiasm and commitment, that this is the case! Then there is the more routine and mechanical stuff: networking, keeping CV's right up to date (and in approved formats) for immediate use, monitoring vacancies and opportunities, etc. Finally, I recommend you develop a very tough hide to tolerate the way donors and contractors often behave towards their employees and consultants in this area. Cynical? Sour? Maybe, but I assure you it is realistic and some of your own remarks allude to this!

Hi there Patrick, Great to see a response to my blog. I think your blog covers interesting and important points. But I think it is a shame to have titled it as such, as it is not really a response to my blog. Donor dependence wasn't the key point in my blog. In fact your summary paragraph about shifting a focus from meaningful participation was a central component of what I was saying in the blog (or at least a message I was attempting to get across). I think the discussion on value for money is a crucial one to be had, and its connections with the measureable, quantifiable results-focus of many donor agencies now. (Not that results are bad but the pathway to them is complex.) But on the donor-dependency issue, I think there is a distinction to be made between chasing the money and getting the money: the former can have insidious impacts on NGO-direction similar to getting the money. There is so much more to pull apart in this discussion and I hope other writers can share their perspectives too.

Thank you Patrick. I'm looking forwards to reading your paper. Are you aware of anything similar done in the Pacific? Kind regards Terence

Some years ago I did some similar work in India with 15 NGOs but rather than look at poltical work per se I looked at empowerment (which most NGOs claim to do) in relation to their accountbailty to the aid recipients, and I found a clear statistical correlation, which generally supports the broader argument of this blog. The paper can be found as "Accountability for Empowerment: Dilemmas Facing Non-Governmental Organizations" also in World Development and is linked to at http://def.acfid.asn.au/resources/development-approaches/participatory-empowerment/Accountability-World%20Development%20Final.pdf

Great paper Jonathan. I would add UNV to the volunteering opportunities (however it is pretty competitive and you have to be over 25...). My tip would be to learn a strategic language. In many Australian schools and universities, there still isn't enough focus on language. When I was still a journalist, at 23 I was lucky enough to land a job working in Indonesia. When I arrived, I didn't speak a word of Bahasa Indonesia, but after two years I had reasonable proficiency. That (plus a masters degree and my professional experience and overseas experience) has opened further doors to NGO and think tank work in Timor-Leste and Indonesia. If you are looking at international job ads, multilaterals often require working proficiency in French or Spanish on top of English, even for desk jobs. So I would say, be careful not to neglect language. Many of the top schools in the US offering masters in development-related fields require you to demonstrate professional proficiency in a second language in order to graduate. Even if you want to work in another country where your second language isn't spoken, having a second language in itself demonstrates your capacity to be multilingual. Another strategy young people can use is just moving to a cheap (safe) place where there are lots of NGOs and then volunteering/interning/building networks at various places until a job comes up. It's much cheaper for NGOs to hire someone who is already in the country and who already has understanding of the language and context (AYAD and other volunteer programs are also a good vehicle for this with less risk - many people stay on to work in-country after doing a volunteer assignment and building their networks). Don't do it without a safety net of savings though and make sure you have appropriate health and travel insurance and know the visa rules. Also, reach out to networks before going and do your research. Even if it doesn't result in a job, it will probably be fun anyway and boost the CV... and it is one of those things that is much easier to do when you are young and not with family/mortgage etc. (This may be a controversial suggestion -- a whole bunch of clueless people showing up in a fragile/least developed country could obviously create more problems than good - also short term 'voluntourism' stints are rarely very helpful). I would also say, once you have experience and skills you can offer, don't be afraid to ask to be paid! There are a whole lot of people in their 20s who are seemingly interning forever at the moment. The economic situation in the US etc is compounding this... it is very much the culture in DC as well. Get in, prove yourself, get value from it, but don't intern for the sake of interning. You need to be getting something - either professional development and skills training, an exciting life experience, some kind of fulfillment, contacts/referees... or money. If you can't come out of an internship able to say that you have contributed to certain projects or learned new skills then it probably isn't worth your time. Do a time/cost/benefit analysis. I've seen people making photocopies with an impressive Masters degree. I've also seen a number of job ads for unpaid internships (with no living or support allowances) that last for as long as a year in large organisations that could probably afford to pay their interns something. If you are skilled enough to be value-adding to an organisation for a year, you probably deserve at least a basic living allowance. It's easier said than done, I know. Another thing to consider is that there are some large private companies out there handling development work as well through contracting etc. And diverse skills are needed in many countries, so having professional training in an area in health, construction, hospitality, education, engineering (especially for WASH) etc can be an extremely valuable way to contribute to development. I'd also add that a (positive) web presence is helpful in being recruited these days - LinkedIn, relevant writing on blogs or in newspapers, an online CV, an interesting Twitter feed on development... these things can all help and can be a way of reaching out to new networks. I'm no expert though (I'm also in my 20s and early in my career too) so I'd be really interested to see what suggestions others (especially those who are older and wiser) have to share.

Thanks Margaret. The point about implicit/explicit is that it wasn't necessarily company policy to include women - but something recognized as being beneficial (probably both intrinsically - for women themselves, and instrumentally - for the company and the broader community) by company leadership. It would be fascinating to unearth more research with other mining company representatives to see how they see it (if at all) and what factors are important for their decision making. In parallel it might be useful to foster better theories and evidence on the possible impacts of women's inclusion (in both processes and outcomes). Does it, in fact, lead to broader community support? Does it lead to better use of benefits? Does it lead to better environmental mitigation strategies? If responses to these questions showed positive developmental gains (or not) that would be useful for both companies and governments - as well as development practitioners.

Dear Nick and Georgia This is really interesting research. Thanks for doing a blog to bring it to the attention of the Devpolicy audience. It raises so many issues that it’s hard to know where to start. One issue that stands out for me is your argument that mining company management recognised implicitly (how does that work? doesn’t someone have to recognise something ‘explicitly’ for it to become company policy?) that development benefits would be more likely to be achieved if women were involved so women’s involvement became part of the business case during the community negotiations. It isn’t usually women who are responsible for disruptive activities when local communities are dissatisfied with some aspect or other of mining operations, but your research suggests the company thought that women were important for building broader community support for this troubled mine. Yet in the event there is little evidence of positive development impacts in the villages. So we’re left wondering why women in other mining communities envy Ok Tedi women’s ‘gains’. The only conclusion I can draw is the rather sober one that women’s expectations in PNG are so low that anything is better than nothing. Women frequently gain very little from the enormous wealth and benefit flows generated by mining projects and they bear most of the costs, see recent research by the Porgera Environmental Advisory Komiti cited in my <a href="https://devpolicy.org/benefits-from-mining-in-papua-new-guinea-where-do-they-go/" rel="nofollow">blog</a> of 10 September. The second issue your research raises for me flows from this – if it was clear to the Ok Tedi company that positive development gains required more women’s engagement, why is women's participation not a much greater focus for mining companies in general? Granted they will face opposition from male beneficiaries and maybe even the state, but if mining companies were to adopt common approaches to women’s participation in negotiations and benefit streams, wouldn’t this lead to greater acceptance of women as more equal participants? It would be great to get a comment from mining company representatives or the PNG Chamber of Mines and Petroleum on the feasibility of an industry approach.

ODE and its technical partners (Professors Patricia Rogers and Howard White) should be commended for a very clear, methodologically sound and informative discussion paper for AusAID practitioners on impact evaluation (IE). AusAID has asked for comments and observations; mine are only minor. 1) Perhaps the team could provide a short note (potentially in a separate document) that highlights the difference between monitoring and evaluation and how they each add value to AusAID. 2) There is a recommendation that AusAID link with partners based overseas who place an emphasis on experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations. However there are likely to be academics scattered throughout Australian universities who could be implementing partners and sources of technical support, potentially at lower costs. 3) Highlight in the document a ‘one stop call’ for people within AusAID who want to undertake an evaluation and need to know what design would best suit their program. The evaluation options illustrated in Annex A are likely to require specialist knowledge to understand and implement.

Thanks Tess for your post. I agree that the distinction is important and by mentioning that "the donor could decide to reduce funding for certain activities that support the regime" I was including donor support provided for arms of regimes. Perhaps I should have mentioned a ‘termination of funding' - not just a reduction. It could be that Canberra views continuing support for Detachment 88 of greater national importance than terminating support based on allegations of human rights abuses. I’ll let others in more informed positions judge or comment on the merits of that decision. However, it does bring to the fore a broader question, should we stop funding for arms of regimes that have been proven (or alleged) to have committed human rights abuses regardless of the potential implications for our national security? On your second point, in my view reducing aid in certain areas (that support the regime) while maintaining aid for areas that support the most vulnerable people (if practical) should not be undertaken with the primary goal of pressuring the regime to change course. It should be more of an implicit donor statement along the lines of “We don’t agree with what you are doing so we are going to stop funding certain activities. However, we remain committed to helping your most vulnerable citizens and would like to continue aid activities in certain areas”. Targeted non-aid sanctions may be used for the purposes of pressuring the regime although, as you point out, it might lead to unexpected consequences.

Hi Biman, I would suggest some members of the so-called ‘anti-growth coalition’ are based in Canberra and that ‘breaking’ the coalition would be a tricky business. Australia’s announcement that the Seasonal Worker Scheme will only take 2,600 workers per annum for example, while 37,000 backpackers work in Australia’s agricultural sector each year, is scandalous. Much greater commitment to ‘regional integration’ is needed in this regard. I agree with you that there may be opportunities to pursue economic opportunities through internet-based service provision (legal counsel, accounting, music production etc). However I think we need to ask whether Pacific states exhibit the necessary preconditions for this to be an area of genuine comparative advantage (at least in international trade). Ie. are telecommunications affordable?, is there domestic and regional telecommunications infrastructure? Do local workforces have specialist knowledge in ICT?, are wages competitive? Etc. Maybe some of these conditions exist in Fiji (?) – but do they exist across the region? Even if all the necessary preconditions are met, a key question remains as to whether service provision reliant on ICT would provide sufficient (or even significant) employment generation for growing island populations? Maybe there needs to be a greater emphasis on labour-intensive sectors like agricultural exports. While ‘old hat’ to some, agriculture is still a key source of export earnings for far more Pacific islanders than services provided over the internet. Agricultural exports also link to other key sectors – such as tourism and the ‘traditional economy’ of local food production – and are vital for generating livelihoods. Pacific agricultural exports are still dominated by traditional commodities – like sugar, coffee, cocoa, copra etc – and more could be done to ‘value add’, or to find ‘niche markets’ for higher-value Pacific products. Perhaps here there is a role for improved marketing to consumers in Australia, New Zealand, China etc? (and any new marketing should probably be pretty tech-savvy). I note that Pacific governments could do a lot more to ameliorate quarantine issues for agricultural and horticultural exports. Australia and New Zealand could also do a lot more to assess new products for market entry. However this may require ‘political leaders to pursue reform, particularly of monopolistic structures’ – such as local ginger grower associations, or north-Queensland taro lobby groups. Again, more commitment to regional integration needed here. Finally, the Australian and New Zealand governments should urgently review the rules of origin requirements for Pacific exporters. This would show practical support for ‘regional integration’ and may provide some certainty for Pacific manufacturing exports (for textiles, clothing and footwear exports from Fiji in particular). See: https://devpolicy.org/new-rules-to-expand-pacific-exports-only-if-action-is-taken-fast/ Wesley Morgan

I would suggest that the review of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat is a particularly sensitive document in the context of the upcoming review of Pacific Plan (to be undertaken in 2013). The draft review of the Forum Secretariat argues that the Pacific Islands Forum should develop a 'second generation Pacific Plan’. The review’s authors argue however that Forum member states need to take greater responsibility for the Plan and that one practical way this might be done is to establish a new ministerial level group to oversee the Plan’s implementation (in addition to the annual leaders' meeting). They suggest such a ministerial group could meet in conjunction with the existing annual Forum Economic Ministers’ Meeting and that this would help to ensure that regional initiatives are better reflected in the national priorities of Pacific governments (and vice-versa). Whether these recommendations will be supported by Pacific governments remains to be seen. I think it's fair to say that political commitment to the Pacific Plan has been tested in recent years. The diplomatic stoush between Fiji and Australia and NZ has drawn away some of the oxygen from Forum-wide initiatives, and the 'gains' to island countries from regional trade negotiations have been less-than-inspirational so far. Political energy has also been put into 'subregional' initiatives - like the Melanesian Spearhead Group and the Polynesian Leaders Group - and Forum consensus is being tested by how the region deals with non-independent territories (New Caledonia and French Polynesia for example). It's good to see that public consultations about a 'second generation' Pacific Plan are planned, and that public submissions can be made directly online. The next couple of years will be very interesting with regard to the future of Pacific regionalism, and the future role of the Forum Secretariat is likely to be up for discussion for some time yet.