Comments

The issue of human development achievements in PNG and the disparities they reveal is an issue of fundamental importance. To this extent it is pleasing that David Freedman picks up on this in his comment, which is based on a powerpoint file used during a 15 minute presentation at the Deakin conference. Yet the comment reflects some key misunderstandings of the research in question, and misrepresents its purpose. I will quickly outline the grounds on which I make this statement. As was made clear at the Deakin conference the research is a first attempt to derive internationally comparable sub-national HDI scores for PNG provinces and districts. These scores will be the subject of significant scrutiny and will undoubtedly be revised heavily before being used for further analysis. The estimates of income per capita, which are currently extremely crude, will be the subject of significant further work. It is obvious that there are determinants of income per capita in addition to roads, and that for some parts of PNG roads might not be especially important in this regard. The main point I make here is that given the very preliminary nature of the research in question, it is premature to compare the HDI scores presented at the conference with the work of the NEFC in 2004 or for that matter any other indicators of development levels in PNG. David Freedman notes that the research is based on data that are mostly more than 10 years old, labeling this as unfortunate. The HDI scores presented at the conference will, after the further scrutiny mentioned above, serve as baseline for monitoring. They are in no way intended to show today’s realities, to the extent that quantitative measures can do this. (This point was made to David prior to the submission of his comment, but he has ignored it). The intent is to update these scores using those calculated using more recent information (including that mentioned by David in his comment), and then compare these newer scores with the baseline information. David Freedman’s comparison of the HDI scores presented at the Deakin conference (putting aside that this is a misuse of these scores) with the NEFC’s District Development Index is reflects two key errors or misunderstandings. First, the HDI scores are intended to be internationally comparable, so that achievements in human development in PNG can be compared with those in other developing countries. What this in effect involves is comparing the PNG sub-national HDI scores with those published in the UNDP Human Development Report. The latter use estimates of income per capita, not poverty incidence, which is a very different measure. In this context, the question of whether it is better to use the poverty incidence or an estimate of income per capita simply does not arise, and to ask it is quite misleading. Second, the NEFC’s District Development Index and the HDI index presented at the Deakin conference use different methodologies. The former is formed by taking the arithmetic mean of achievements in health, education and poverty, the latter by taking the geometric mean of achievements in health, education and income. In other words, the former is calculated by adding together these achievements, and the latter by multiplying them by each other. Each index also uses different ways of normalizing these achievements. The HDI index presented at the Deakin conference is consistent with current UNDP HDI methodology, while the NEFC’s index follows an older methodology. This means that even if I used exactly the same achievements as the NEFC to form the index presented at the Deakin conference, the resulting indices would yield different rankings. David’s comparison of these rankings totally misses this point, and that his reasoning for the difference in rankings is flawed. Of course the difference will be due to one index using poverty incidence and the other using an estimate of per capita income, but it is also due to their different statistical properties. I will end one a more positive note. David Freedman is totally correct in pointing to the need for good quality data. The NSO clearly requires more support to produce such data.

Thanks for your comments Ashley, and Richard. There was no specific estimate of the impact that second hand smoke had on under five mortality in the reports. However the WHO report cited in the blog did estimate that an additional 600,000 people died each year from second hand smoke globally, over and above the 5 million premature deaths that occurs amongst smokers. I agree, Ashley, that an increased excise tax would have a higher impact on the poor than the rich (ie is regressive) assuming those people are addicted and find it hard to quit. But raising the real price of tobacco through excise taxes is a particularly powerful way of discouraging uptake of tobacco use in the first place, especially amongst the young and the poor. Combined with other measures (banning tobacco advertising etc) an increase in the price of tobacco is a smart and cost-effective way of reducing tobacco use before it becomes addictive. Thanks again for your thoughtful observations. Ian

Nik, you sour and grumpy old man! 😉 No, I reckon you're quite right. First, government isn't business. Incentives are different, the processes aren't the same and the objectives are far more difficult to quantify. 'Managerialism' -- the endless focus on targets, indicators and evaluation -- has come under criticism in developed country governments. I don't see why developing countries should be any different. All that management mumbo-jumbo just gets in the way of doing things. School pupils or the sick aren't 'customers'. They're people. And I think Wesley hits on an important area, too. As a person with experience in several Pacific islands myself, one thing that didn't happen half as often as it should was true consultation. I don't mean the occasional Powerpoint presentation at a workshop, but carefully-designed procedures to work out what people actually want, or even – shock-horror – actually putting locals in positions of responsibility. Too often a short-term outside technical assistant would come and do what 'economic theory' or textbooks said. As we all know, in consensual, non-conflicting cultures, where people often communicate verbally rather than in writing, it can be difficult to confront the view of outsiders. Unsurprisingly, people in many of the Pacific island countries don't make their views known in quite the same way as urban Australians. There are few incentives for the deliverers of aid to actually listen to people want; either to design consultations procedures well enough to reflect people's views, or to actually do what people say on the few occasions that their views do get heard. To repeat, why not just ask people what they want? One of the culprits for both this and the wider problem that you discuss -- the influx of starry-eyed idealogues -- is the universalism of economic theory. Mainstream, neoclassical economics underlies a lot of aid intervention. This sort of economics imagines that people are self-interested, individualistic utility-maximisers who respond primarily only to material incentives. Economists, particularly academic ones, tend to imagine that on this basis they've broadly solved many of the problems of development, and all that needs to be done is to drop in to developing countries and tell governments what to do. But in much of the world, and especially the Pacific, this type of economics couldn't be more inappropriate. People tend to be communally-minded and social and often to do things for intrinsic reasons rather than material gain. The economic answers haven't been found (and the global crisis proves that the ‘answers’ don’t even work in the rich world); they depend on context. And knowledge comes in many forms, some of it tacit and non-formal. What works in Washington may not work in South Tarawa. And in the end, yes, we need to listen very hard to the experienced people who've been 'in the field' (I don't much like that expression as it suggests that the field is different to normal reality). Spanner monkeys like you probably know much more than the grand academic theorists. It also means that we should listen much more to what local people actually want. As you imply, there’s probably no need for fancy big ideas. There’s definitely a big need to get back in touch with reality.

Hi Nic. Interesting blog. I would suggest that the phenomenon Robert also refers to, of development workers as 'highly qualified dreamers who have no interest in understanding or in building on experience' may be more prevalent in the Pacific than elsewhere. I would be interested to see what others think, but perhaps it is due to a relative dearth of 'institutional memory' ... While there may be some 'soured and grumpy older men and women from the field' their valuable experience in addressing development challenges is often hard to tap into. It seems to me further that 'the Pacific' is a wildly complicated region, with divergent cultures, experiences of colonialism, resource endowments, political structures, trading histories etc. And each Pacific island country faces wholly unique domestic challenges. I think this complexity is often glossed over. To understand the key policy challenges of countries of the region takes a considerable investment of time and energy. Yet, many aid workers are transient. New advisers/consultants/volunteers have a high rate of turnover, and each new aid worker needs to learn the issues anew (and are surely more susceptible to the latest 'fad'...). Perhaps the challenge is building more 'institutional memory', and better linking those 'sour and grumpy men and women in the field' to new, would-be, dreamers. Open, and collaborative, policy discussions seem a great place to start.

Distressing stuff, particularly given the ultra-high profile of attempts to deal with malaria and HIV/Aids. Thank you for the work put in here - also for Ashlee's extra thoughts. Speaking of government crackdowns, research like this must surely add backbone and encouragement to Nicola Roxon in her present battle?

Interesting piece Ian. During my time in Indonesia, the impact of smoking on development was clear, particularly in the expenditure priorities in poor households outlined by the World Bank report. Child and youth uptake of smoking is also a significant issue in Indonesia - something which clearly impacts on child development and health (as does second-hand smoking in households -- was there any correlation between smoking and under 5 mortality in the reports you cite? I would be interested to know). The tobacco companies in Indonesia are pervasive and will promote smoking aggressively to children and youth, even giving away cigarettes at festivals and young-person oriented events to get people started. However, would excise taxes be enough or could it create an even bigger problem for expenditure in poor households? Would people pay more and keep smoking if prices raised from taxation, and dedicate less of their limited income to essentials such as nutritious food? As much as smoking was seen as being cool in the West in the past, in some countries in Asia smoking is now correlated in people's minds to manhood, coolness etc (even, crazily enough, to health by some people thanks to completely misleading advertising campaigns that still continue). There is also the addiction element. In Indonesia, from my experience, men are usually the ones who smoke so they may continue to purchase cigarettes, even if the prices rise, while women may be left to try to feed children with even less money etc. So there are gender considerations tangled up with the purchasing decisions. In my mind, governments need to crack down on the companies first -- strict rules on advertising would be a good place to start, as would some strategic public education campaigns on the dangers of smoking. Then perhaps a slowly incremental excise tax combined with some kind of assistance for people wishing to quit.

I really enjoyed the launch, especially the discussions about business inclusion into aid and how it can help its effectiveness in Papua New Guinea. I believe the DPC is onto something here!

Robin, This is an excellent post. I'm not sure that splitting the Bank into two (IBRD for middle-income countries and IDA for low-income countries) is the answer, but I certainly agree that IDA will need a lot of attention. IDA is facing a crisis: traditional donors are cutting aid, and its biggest recipient (India) has crossed the graduation threshold. Rethinking IDA - who will fund it, and what it should fund - is perhaps the biggest challenge facing Dr Kim. IDA16 (the current IDA round) ends in June 2014, so he has only two years (or less, really) to put a new deal in place.

Dear Roger, Thank you for your comment and sorry for my delayed reply. With respect to the numerous evaluations available can you please direct me to any publicly available impact evaluations of Child Sponsorships that you are aware of? Kind regards and thank you again for your comment. Terence

the above chart indicates proposed economic activity been showecased around economic activies (mining- gold,copper,oil &gas, agricultural sector and the fishing industries). It's quite a resemblence in the chart but it is more or less likely on the ground. Sure enough, challenges will be faced on this prediction.

I have never met Nik Soni but I think I would like him very much, judging by the sensible and honest views he presents here. It is perfectly understandable why so few voices are raised publicly on the issues Nik discusses as this is a sure way to ruin one's career. People who challenge policy directions and decisions or deign to question a donor's or project management company's competence are not welcome. Perhaps the loss of focus of much development activity is not only because of fads but also because development assistance is drowning in a sea of confusing goals relating to aid effectiveness and to implementation activities on the ground - the Millennium Development Goals, Education For All Goals, Thematic Strategies, the Paris Declaration, the Jakarta Commitment, project goals and objectives - to name only six. Time and energy are required to address these, as well as the fads Nik refers to. Let me add to his short list by including sector-wide approaches and donor harmonization. Both of these are great topics for a retreat in an expensive hotel rather than getting out into the field to understand where practical help is needed. One thing puzzles me, however, and perhaps Nik can provide an answer. In my heart I know that more aid funds might help more people. And I have no intention of standing in the way of that help. But what puzzles me is why we continue to plan to 'supply' ever larger sums of money for aid generally and to certain countries in particular, when we are not really at all clear about what the actual 'demand' is on the ground, apart from the assurances of 'government officials' than more and more of X and Y is certainly needed. Is not the supply creating the demand, or am I missing something? Help! The only matter on which I disagree with Nik is his reference to 'soured' and grumpy old men and women from the field. I suggest that what makes people really grumpy is the years in the field of seeing what works and how it works, and then to watch this valuable local knowledge buried by the arrival of Nik's highly qualified dreamers who have no interest in understanding or in building on that experience. This, I suspect, is especially prevalent in the field of education where everyone is an expert. After all, a higher degree in politics or chemistry or any field other than education is OK as clearly the holder has been in the education system a long time and knows a lot about education. Or do they?

Mr Wood's question on child sponsorship and its effectiveness seems founded on a very limited source of information (2 evaluations of child sponsorship), by his own admission. I have worked in the development field for more than 30 years, in a variety of organizations and countries, two of which operated child sponsorship. My experience is that child sponsorship is an invaluable way of helping children and their families and communities lift themselves out of poverty because the sponsor usually commits for a longer period of time (substantially more than an institutional donor - the more traditional form of NGO funding). This ensures the time to empower families and communities, and make sure interventions are sustainable and sustained. All my experience shows that long term interventions which empower people and take the time to learn and adapt interventions to be most effective, are an important factor in successful development. To see a six year old child enter school and then graduate years later is quite amazing. So while child sponsorship may be "uncool", the fact is it works, and I would suggest works better than most other forms of NGO funding. Perhaps approaches have to be "uncool" to be a success? Lastly, back to My Wood's complaint about the lack of evaluations. There are many evaluations of sponsorship programs out there - Mr Wood seems to have missed the trees for the wood (sic) and needs to get in the field and find them.