Comments

Beautiful analysis, thank you for sharing!

This is an important report and interesting summary - thanks for the succinct account.

Hi John. Thanks for the comment. Is there any public record of this? There is no press release from the IMF indicating the report has been delayed or won't be released (as as the case for PNG). When I did the research on PNG's standing in 2016 relative to other countries in the East Asia and Pacific region, I put Laos in a separate category of some open engagement with the IMF. Specifically, the IMF did include commentary on the performance of the Lao economy in press releases on 8 September 2016 and also on 15 March 2016 following visits by the Managing Director Christine Legarde. There is nothing similar for PNG. Possibly PNG needs a visit by the IMF's Managing Director? Cheers Paul

Hi Caroline. I'm not aware of any Australia data on what happens with the workers income and impact in their home countries however there is good data from a number of studies about what happens when workers remit income as temporary seasonal workers. I would recommend John Gibson and David McKenzie's work. <a href="http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDEVIMPEVAINI/Resources/RSEImpactPaperv8.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Here is a World Bank paper</a> on the topic. Cheers, Henry

Papua New Guineans face great difficulties if they wish to participate in the Seasonal Worker Program. The information provided by DFAT lists an agent based in Port Moresby and also lists his phone numbers and email addresses. If a person who wants to participate in the scheme can get him to respond to their inquiries they then must obtain a passport . Before they can get a passport they must get a birth certificate. These things can only be obtained in Port Moresby and only by paying money. If they live in Southern Highlands or East Sepik, they face an expensive air fare to get to Port Moresby and then the costs associated with the passport and living in Port Moresby while they wait for these documents to be produced.. But they are unlikely to get a response from DFAT's agent. I have twice tried to help men who I thought would make excellent seasonal workers: mature, good horticulturalists, hard workers; good speakers of English; and very keen to learn about new ways of growing and selling vegetables and fruit from their Australian experience. One lived near Tari, the other near Maprik. I emailed and phoned the person listed by DFAT numerous times on behalf of these men but have never received a response. When I asked DFAT what to do, I was referred back to the agent. I can't know for sure, but it is possible that DFAT paying someone to do a job that they are not doing is the problem here.

Paul, Lao PDR also suppressed the IMF Article IV assessment (late 2016). So untrue that PNG is unique, but your point stands and is perhaps reinforced by the company PNG has chosen to keep in this regard.

Thank you for the interesting piece, which I have only just come across. As several other comments above have noted, private sector engagement is an umbrella term, which captures a wide variety of efforts of development organisations to work with business. For donor agencies, private sector engagement represents a shift away from a focus on bilateral work with developing country governments. One aspect of this that the DCED has attempted to capture (see <a href="http://www.enterprise-development.org/implementing-psd/private-sector-engagement/" rel="nofollow">here</a>) is the internal changes that donor agencies are making to better engage with the private sector. The DCED has recently produced a briefing note on the changes are being made in policies and procedures, staff roles and team structures, in order to pave the way for strategic private sector engagement (which can be found <a href="http://www.enterprise-development.org/implementing-psd/private-sector-engagement/#Find_what_you_need_DCED_guidance_and_knowledge_products_on_private_sector_engagement" rel="nofollow">here</a>)

Have we got data from the workers themselves?

Hi Joshua, In the past - before the ban on project fees - Provinces set their own maximum project fee limits. Now, the national government's ban on project and school fees has meant that project fees are not meant to be charged. (It's worth noting that the PNG government has back-flipped on this policy a few times). Despite the ban, some provinces, such as East New Britain, are charging project fees because they have their own education act. I can't tell you what the upper limit for secondary schools is, because our research focuses on primary schools. However, during <a href="https://devpolicy.org/in-brief/upng-anu-academics-begin-health-education-research-20160615-2/" target="_blank">recent fieldwork in East New Britain</a> we were told that the official upper limit of project fees was 300kina for upper and lower primary schools. Officially, primary schools did not charge fees in Gulf - though some unofficially charged fees.

I take your point Henry but I disagree that the sort of research I have identified can be left on the back burner while we focus on getting Solomon Islands & PNG better integrated. It needs to be happening now so that the findings can be factored in to any scaling up that is envisaged or planned.

Thanks for the comment Tess. I agree there needs to be a broader discussion on these programs and as you note, the impact of emigration can be significant, meaning it should be assessed alongside any effects from immigration. However before we get to the longer term future of labour mobility for Pacific development, I think there needs to be more focus on those countries struggling to participate in the present. Tonga and Vanuatu have effectively gained access to both the RSE and SWP however other countries have struggled mightily. It's hard to discuss further development, marketing and assessment of the SWP if the numbers from countries with larger populations like PNG and the Solomons are in the tens instead of hundreds or thousands. While there is an argument all of this should be addressed concurrently, there are clearly capacity issues and resource constraints for migration and foreign policy development on an issue as "niche" as Pacific labour mobility. Cheers, Henry

This is a very clear presentation of some important data on this issue. This whole discussion remains lacking in information about how these migration schemes are perceived in labour-sending countries. There is a growing and multi-layered discourse in the region around whether countries should participate, who should have the opportunities (with particular reference to female participation and the rural/urban divide) and (increasingly) the negative effects whether cultural, social or economic. All of this needs to feed into how these schemes are further developed, marketed and assessed if it is to be part of the longer term future for Pacific development