Comments

Very interesting. No doubt about the needs, particularly for capacity building, and the eight sectors are well chosen. As to the third, what capability do we still have (I know the South Australian government has been active). Perhaps we can give the Leyland buses a further lease of life!

Thanks Garth. That would be intriguing to test experimentally.

When World Vision surveyed Australians in 2009 we found that 30% of respondents wanted to be in the top 5 aid donors by volume and a total of 68% in the top 10. 63% agreed that "Australia should be a world leader in reducing global poverty". I took this to mean that a majority of Australians wanted Australia to be amongst the leaders in aid but not necessarily out in front. This suggests to me less interest in competition and more basing our response on our relative wealth in the world.

Thank you Pete, Good comment. One way of thinking about this is that the fact the UK test did have an impact is pretty good evidence that beliefs on efficacy are not the sole constraint on support. Numbers and levels clearly have an effect, though only -- apparently -- in combination with more social/normative factors. That said, we are also planning to test efficacy and the like. Stay tuned. Terence

hi terence, very interesting study - like Weh my mind goes immediately to what is the substance that ppl think of when we talk about aid? just the volume of $ or do they think of the impact that is achieved by aid?if the questions presented impact data, showed progress as well as highlighted further inroads to be made, perhaps the response to too much/too little/just right might produce interesting findings? thanks though for prompting such an interesting discussion

Thanks again Kylie, Two really good points. On the first, researchers in the UK have some provisional findings suggesting that normative communities are very important in shaping attitudes to development, which fits very nicely with what you're saying here. On the second, I like the idea of what we might call 'momentum bias'. i.e. whereas I'd thought the trends would show people what could be done by giving a point of reference to the past, as I take it what you're suggesting is that people see the trend and are affected by it (thinking, I guess, 'there's some good reason for it, so let's keep going'). That said there seems no obvious evidence of "momentum bias" in the UK (aid is trending upwards, but people are still unhappy about this on average) (although of course any effect might be being masked by other effects). Intriguingly, one point I didn't cover in the blog was that the the trend information did quite dramatically decrease the proportion of Coalition voters who think the government gives too much aid. This is a finding I'm still puzzling. Although my guess is that the trend data showed Coalition supporters that the govt. had reversed the Rudd increases and therefore they were somewhat more sated in their desire to cut. Thanks again for great comments. Terence

Hi Terence, Not a problem. I actually had few extra thoughts after I posted: - Changing norm perception isn't just about numbers, but identification and legitimacy as well. A Coalition-voting audience (the most supportive of aid cuts in your opinion poll) might be more convinced by a petition to increase aid signed by 50 Coalition voters, than one signed by 50,000 Labor voters (or 500,000 Greens voters). A petition supported by an influential social referent for the Coalition voters (e.g., a Liberal politician) may add to the effect. - Presenting descriptive information is often ineffective in changing attitudes, as it can appear to normalise the status quo, even more so if it suggests momentum. So I'm not too surprised your condition showing declining aid volume wasn't convincing for participants (it may have actually been counterproductive if participants inferred declining normative support for aid in Australia along with those figures). I'd be really interested to see any followup studies! Cheers, Kylie

Thanks Kylie, That is a great comment, with a really interesting suggestion. Resources permitting I would love to run that test. The article looks excellent too -- thank you. Terence

Hi Terence, Interesting study! The results are in line with a mass of social psychological research that finds norms guide beliefs and behaviour above and beyond attitude persuasion (e.g., aid volume) Norm perception can be derived from individual behaviour, information about the group, and institutional signals. Given that the institutional signaling in Australia is pretty dismal, I wonder if the most effective method of garnering support for increasing aid would be to highlight the number of in-group members (Australians) who support aid increases, rather than emphasising the majority who don't? Your previous opinion poll study showed 43% oppose the cuts- that's (to extrapolate) over 10 million Australians who support aid increases! I wonder how this phrasing would change support compared to a control? Here's a great <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sipr.12022/epdf" rel="nofollow">review article</a> about norms and social change: "Some interventions aimed at influencing norms simply present individuals with new summary information about the group, hoping to replace the individual's personal and subjective representation with this summary information." (p.189). Would be interesting to see this approach applied to perceptions of aid. Cheers, Kylie

Thanks for the clarification, Simon. Yes, I did notice that in the summary of the report but had been given contrary information. Great to have Kate's work acknowledged again.

Solid Waste Management is truly a concern in these two cities and other centers as well. If only we have a good management system with substantive regulations on SWM and strict compliance, then I think we will at least avoid all these problems.

Thanks Frank I’ll be in contact to get a copy of the policy as it isn’t available on any websites. There appears to be general agreement that the SME sector is important for more inclusive growth in PNG – and I certainly share that view. The leadership challenge is putting that objective into practice – both in policy formulation as well as implementation. Unfortunately, the new policy sounds as if it may be quite close to the scheme <a href="http://www.businessadvantagepng.com/return-of-png-government-sme-scheme-encourages-business-development/" rel="nofollow">described by Minister Maru</a> early in 2015 which the Prime Minister subsequently described as “unfortunate” – so it would be good to get more details. The <a href="http://www.adbpsdi.org/2013/11/getting-settings-right-on-sme-policy-in_11.html" rel="nofollow">ADB’s work on SME policy</a> suggests that broad business policy settings are vital – making it easy to start up and run a small business; creating an environment in which successful businesses are able to grow; and supporting the development of human capital through education and training. “Special policies can have unintended consequences and can ultimately undermine the broader objectives of social and economic development.” I hope that relevant organisations in PNG can make clear to the government the likely consequences of any policy based primarily on taking over existing businesses rather than growing new ones (as implied by your comment). There will be an active debate on the issues – this <a href="http://asopa.typepad.com/asopa_people/2015/02/we-must-ensure-that-protecting-small-business-will-deliver.html" rel="nofollow">Crocodile Prize entry</a> and subsequent discussion indicates some of the passion and issues. When reading the media reports of the policy, I was gobsmacked by the objective of creating 500,000 SMEs by 2030. This sounds great but appears based on some very, very optimistic modelling. PNG’s business community should ask for such models to be peer reviewed. My experience is that “money tree” models lead to poor policy decisions. A distinction between the informal sector and the SME sector may also be important in any revisions to the 1992 IPA Act. Pending getting more details, it is not clear from media reports that there has been the necessary hard headed analysis of what actually delivers on the goal of improving well-being for the citizens of PNG. There is much to be learnt from PNG’s own experience with the “reserve list”, on its experience with failed forms of protectionism especially on “infant industry” arguments, and learning from other Asian nations of what actually stimulated inclusive growth. I’ll also be interested to see if the policy talks about removing the foreign exchange restrictions and addressing the over-valued Kina which are hindering the opportunities for PNG’s small businesses to export. Cheers. Paul. PS I'll pass on the Zimbabwe comment. The Australian Financial Review headlines last month got me into trouble. Time will tell. But the SME policy, as well as the recent agriculture policy, seem to be more “muddling down” rather than “muddling through”.