Comments

We also need to be prepared for the fact that whilst the elections provide something of a circuit breaker, the upheaval since last August has had some really profound effects on the very fabric of constitutional democracy in PNG and there will be a number of fundamental issues to be resolved when the dust has settled

AusAID promises performance-based funding of NGOs Noting that some $500 million of Australian ODA was channelled through NGOs in 2010/11 to both domestic and international NGOs, a change of emphasis in their accreditation to “increase the focus on effectiveness, transparency, accountability, innovation and results” is noted. NGOs are voluntary non-profit organizations that may be uniquely qualified to assist in the preparation, management, and implementation of projects, essentially because of their involvement and knowledge of local issues, community needs, and/or participatory approaches. If NGOs do have specific expertise by comparison with other forms of delivery mechanisms including Development Banks, Management Companies, that expertise must always be tested under open tender and the evaluation criteria shall reflect the unique qualifications of the specific assignment, such as local knowledge, experience of key staff, scale of operation, delivery effectiveness and efficiency and evaluated past performance. To subject NGO’s to a lesser form of procurement and contract management than other forms of delivery mechanisms, may produce a governance structure that is not open and transparent, and may not deliver a ‘NGO’ capable of effectively and efficiently delivering the project. E. John Blunt is an Institutional and Public Procurement Expert with extensive experience in leading public procurement reforms in a variety of international development environments. He has worked in the Pacific, Asia and Africa. He is currently on assignment with the Southern African Development Community Secretariat in Botswana.

Thanks Ben. I agree that some candidates are vying for the seats for all the right reaons. As to whther they will win is a different matter. Like you, I am hoping for the best but we must be prepared for the worst!

A fascinating and entertaining account, Satish. I don't know if this is occurring in other parts of the developing world, but it at least some parts of the Pacific election day seems to have become an occasion to throw a big, island-wide party. In the northern Pacific these festive scenes can also be witnessed on election day, albeit not as extreme as what you've described in PNG. In reference to incentives, some aspiring and incumbent candidates are definitely running for all the right reasons. But as PNG's national pot gets bigger by the year, raising the stakes for the political class, many are probably also incentivized to gain power for other reasons. Let's hope the former lot outnumbers the latter. I'll never forget this line, told to me by a gentleman working in PNG Finance: "We're about to be hit by a tsunami of money. But is our house in order?" Let's hope these elections will usher in enough good leaders to get the house in order!

Thanks Richard for another useful review. So inclusion, incentives, and institutions really do matter for development, and elite capture really does exist?! I don’t disagree with any of the major points put forth by Acemoglu and Robinson, or Diamond. I think most of the factors they point to are all valid, to varying degrees, across different countries and contexts. Inclusion, incentives, institutions, geography, history, culture – all these (and more) have shaped the paths and prosperity of nations. It’s almost impossible (if not impossible!) to disagree. And I think all of this applies even to small micro-states such as ours in the Pacific. But there’s one particular thread in this discussion that I really agree with. This has to do with the temporal dimension of development and change. As Diamond states, “One can’t just suddenly introduce government institutions and expect people to adopt them and to unlearn their long history of tribal organisation.” We need to remind ourselves that self-discovery, assimilation, integration, and reconciliation are complex and often time-intensive processes – and development, fundamentally, is all about these things. All societies are in a continuous state of evolution. But sometimes they enter periods of major transition and change. In my view, most Pacific societies are still in this uneasy period of transition, from traditional to mixed and modern systems of governance and organization. Naturally, some societies transition faster and more effectively than do others. I can think of a couple countries in the region that seem to be getting this process right. In my country, the Marshalls, we are still trying to figure out how to effectively transition. We’re navigating in still unfamiliar waters. We have gained independence and have put in place the ‘hard’ institutions of a modern state, but somehow we haven’t quite figured everything out. We’re still struggling to reconcile our past with our present and future, our traditional systems and values with more modern ones. Sometimes it’s an ugly process – and some systems and values are probably irreconcilable. But we keep moving and we keep trying. We don't always have the right leaders in place to manage this transition, but many of our leaders are trying their best to steer the ship in the ‘right’ direction, so that we don’t end up on the reef, a failed nation. But when it’s not always clear what this direction is, no one really knows how fast we should be sailing. Many things matter for development, and often times time itself is a major matter.

Keeping it simple (The KISS Principle) Professor Jared Diamond has made some interesting points is his essay ‘What Makes Countries Rich or Poor”. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/07/what-makes-countries-rich-or-poor/?pagination=false For those who already know Prof. Diamond’s credentials, experience and writings, this should come as no surprise. What is so refreshing is that the Professor has actually taken the time and effort to visit countries like PNG’s and get out into the kunai roots and base his observations on first hand experience. Some of the issues raised in the paper are noted below together with some simple questions these issues raise. Issue: Given a level playing field, those countries that have an inclusive political system seem to do better than those who have an exclusive system or a political elite running the country. Examples provided include the contrast between North and South Korea. Question: Does that mean aid should not be given to exclusive regimes? Some may feel that aid to these exclusive regimes only helps them retain power. For example, if North Korea spent more on their food production and public health and less on their rockets, parades, ideology and hero worship, their people might be looking at the same standard of living as their relatives in the South? Issue: Many countries with a high average personal income and wealth are those where their societies have a long history of developing central government. People from these countries have had in many cases, hundreds if not thousands of years to adapt to this concept. In cases where a foreign central government system has been imposed on a country where none existed before, this does not work well. PNG is cited as a classic example. Question: If countries like PNG had been allowed the time to develop their own brand of central government, would what developed now be better accepted? Issue: Individual ownership of land and resources as opposed to group ownership tends to encourage greater incentive to produce more. Also, where countries were initially sparsely populated, those who then arrived had to work hard to survive and developed a work ethic of achievement. Australia is among those countries used as an example. Question: Should nations like PNG now pursue land alienation and encourage private ownership of resources? Question: If the pioneering ethos of the first European settlers provided the basis of wealth in Australia today, could this only be a temporary situation? Could today’s young people have lost the competitive edge as the challenges of the past no longer exist? Issue: Those countries with rich natural resources might be expected to have rich societies but this often does not seem to be the case. Extractive industries seem to promote the development of a political elite or worse, dictators who then ends up controlling the nation’s wealth. Many African nations are used as examples. Question: Should aid be targeted at geopolitical objectives to replace corrupt regimes with democratic and inclusive governments? What ethical basis is there to promote regime change from without? If signing up to the United Nations declarations is the ethical benchmark, why isn’t the UN as a global body applying the necessary means to ensure these declarations are enacted everywhere or has the UN been effectively ‘white anted’ from within? Issue: Population increases and lack of available birth control methods in poor countries seem to go hand in hand. Women are constantly caring for large numbers of children who are seen as creating a more secure future for their parents. This could mean that half the work force is unavailable for almost any other purpose. It also could mean less available resources to go around in the future. Question: Do aid giving countries have the right to try and promote change to a society’s customs and culture? Question: Is the education and liberation of women a decision aid giving cultures should make if this is contrary to the recipient’s culture and customs? Issue: Climate and rainfall might cause the soils of tropical countries to leach out faster than those of temperate countries. Disease and health problems are also factors affecting the average wealth of the nation. Questions: Should aid giving countries give food aid and so encourage the food dependency of countries where limited food production and limited resources inhibit large scale and broad acre food production using expensive machinery and fuel costs? Is food aid only likely to increase a recipient’s population to the point it will never be self-sufficient and always dependent? Wouldn’t it be better to encourage reciprocal trade rather than an aid dependency? The Real Question: If the concept of overseas aid is been effective, what benchmark is used to evaluate this view? If continued aid is still required, could this be due to the creation of a self fulfilling regime in itself and encourage permanency in those who promote it for their own objectives? Observation Given the immense number of studies and papers currently being written about how aid money should or could be spent and what should so called developed nations do to help so called developing nations, perhaps it would be better for everyone to start thinking about the simple basic issues first and leave the endless esoteric postulations and academic pontifications for a later date?

Great! Please do write a blog. As I am presently writing indicators for a new, major project in Indonesia, I wish I had your knowledge and insights right now. So if you can do the blog yesterday, it would be very helpful!!

Robert, publication of my thesis is forthcoming (next month or two) and I would be happy to put something together for the blog on learning as that is the central tenet of the thesis. In essence, I argue that our heavy focus on the instrumental nature of indicators as the measures for success means we miss some of the good stuff (and the bad!) because we don't seek to dig further into what is really going on and reflect on what this might mean for how we deliver our programs. My big push is to look at a broader range of evaluative methodologies to learn from development work that builds on the approaches already being utilised. Chris.

Geoff, thank you for explaining the detail in a cascade approach. I note in the Independent Completion Report for the project you describe, the outstanding AusAID Indonesia-Australia Basic Education Partnership, that this approach was very positively evaluated indeed. As educators, we could analyse to the advantage of improving project impact, why it is that such good practices often seem to get lost in subsequent projects. My hunch is that during project design and implementation stages, the time pressure on donors, contractors and advisors alike lead to surface approaches in much the same way that examination pressure leads to surface approaches to learning among students.

Christopher, your final suggestion is excellent and one that would really add weight to the assertions in M&E that we are truly interested in learning (when I suspect that 90% of the real agenda is accountability). It would be great if you could find time to write a blog here about your work on learning as, being research-based, it would advance the discussion considerably. In any case, can you provide a reference or a link to your work?

Hi Owen, Great to read your reply. I particularly appreciate the observation about the forces of demand operating to encourage a surface approach. This acts as a very useful counterbalance to the forces demanding depth that I have been seeing recently and my general view (confirmed by you also) that donors seem content to supply surface development, although this would likely be hotly denied. Best wishes, Bob.

Hi Bob, Thank you for a most useful application of notions of 'surface and deep' to 'development.' I am currently coming to the end of an Australian Volunteers International assignment in a university in north west China, and soon to start another similar assignment in Vietnam. The issues presented are dear to my heart. Your blog (that I was a little surprised I could access, given certain restrictions in China) provided something of a 'refresher' in Western ways of thinking and expressing. I saw your reference to 'context' as critical, to the extent that context has the potential to significantly impede open intellectual debate. Within a 'Western development provider' constituency, I would hope that what you present receives a considered hearing as I strongly support the positions presented in the blog. Part of the challenge is the difficulty, both technically and politically, in evaluating and reporting on the effectiveness of development. Further, currently the 'surface approach to development' is so often accepted with such appreciation that the need for, and added benefit of, a 'deep approach to development' would be seen as unnecessary by many 'donors' and 'recipients.' I hope that during my year in China I have been 'walking the talk' at the coalface of Chinese university classrooms. The students are receptive!