Comments

Joel, I don't think it's an adequate response to the complete failure of the multi-decade health systems strengthening approach in PNG to say that more time is needed. One wants rather to say: when you are in a hole, stop digging. Nor is it convincing to say health system strengthening has worked in Bangladesh or Thailand or Ethiopia. Likely these countries had more political will. Technical assistance and training (which is what health systems strengthening is) can work where there is political backing but will struggle otherwise. It is striking that, as you say, the new strategy doesn't reflect on past failures in the Pacific. One of weaknesses of aid is its relentlessly forward-looking nature and its failure to learn the lessons of the past. Surely it is time to go beyond rhetoric around systems strengthening, and try to find out what approaches have worked better, and support those. In the PNG, that would mean working more with the churches, more with the private sector, and more with in-line positions.

Very thoughtful response Deborah and thank you for bringing into this public discussion the cultural dimensions of development interventions which are primarily shaped and applied by donors and practitioners from Western democracies and societies. We forget our own development processes. Whilst I found Jim's speech interesting, and applaud his acknowledgement about how important long term approaches to capacity building are, I also found it troubling that the cultural and anthropological aspects were again missing. I think you have summarised them very clearly. Building trust and learning about the cultural dimensions in capacity building efforts takes time and courage on the part of donors and practitioners. You run the risk of severe criticism if your raise cultural relevance as a practitioner (or as an informed donor representative). In a climate of quick wins, donor driven interventions, and moral outrage about corruption, cultural competence is no longer an open conversation. Australia has not come to terms with the significance of collectivist societies and communities in its own work and responses in Indigenous communities. What this means for leaders, communities, individuals and organisations is rarely discussed in the development policy space. We construct problems around collectivist societies and do more harm in the process. The ramifications of this deep cultural knowledge and understanding (and respect), for development models and practice are immense. Heather's and Peter's work from the ECDPM remains some of the most well informed research on capacity building around and your own writing is also very important. Heather's work was heavily informed by her deep engagement with PNG and other partner country PS leaders. Success is not ours alone to judge and I agree such assessments are flawed.

Hi Jim, One more comment. Beyond your ten suggestions, which are largely issues of donor supply, I believe we most especially also have to look at the countries' demand for capacity development. For me, the main conclusion of ADB's study of capacity development in the Pacific was that it is largely a compromise, a compromise between what donors can and wish to supply in the form of professional, technical assistance and what the island countries are able to receive. This is a compromise between the donor technical supply and the Pacific countries' social, cultural and political situations. The island context is most constraining. This prevails and the islands need designs for interventions that not only understand the sector, professional aspects but also country context. In the end it is the Pacific's choice. Steve

Terence, I appreciate you're putting a position knowing that it will be critiqued and have taken the time to answer all the posts. I suspect your position will be very much welcomed by both the Australian government and the private sector. But I have a counter position for you - no development agenda can be transformative and effecive unless it addresses inequalities of wealth. First, as others have said, inequality is recognised as bad for the economy. The IMF, World Bank, several UN agencies and even the World Economic Forum have recognised that inequality is a threat to both economic growth and social cohesion. Second, it's indefensible that a tiny minority capture such a large percentage of the world's resources and, with it, political power. It's abundantly clear that the concentration of wealth in the hands of this tiny minority (the 85 people Oxfam identified that own more than 50% of the world's population has now dropped below 80 and this year they predict the richest 1% will own more than the remaining 99%) is the result of global policy making. That has all occurred under the guise of 'development' policy and in the interests of stimulating economic growth (as your post suggest development practitioners should focus). The idea that economic growth can eliminate poverty without addressing the inequitable accrual of wealth has been exposed by economist David Woodward. Prior to the financial crisis, the world's poorest 60% received only 5% of income generated from growth while the richest 40% received 95%. Since the financial crisis the rate is even worse. So if we continue to try and eliminate poverty using an economic growth model, the world must increase consumption 175 times. Obviously, with finite resources, this would solve poverty by ending humanity. A question for 'aid practitioners' (noting that even large INGOs, UN Agencies and governments have moved away from aid policy to 'Development Effectivenes') should be - What does civil society in the target countries think are important development objectives? In the Asia Pacific region civil society engaged in shaping development policy have collectively agreed that Development Justice must be a priority for any development agenda. The first of the five transformative shifts they demand is 'Redistributive Justice' - redistribution of wealth, resources, power and opportunities between states, between rich and poor and between men and women. (See all the statements of the Asia Pacific Regional Civil Society Engagement Mechanism <a href="http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/submissions/" rel="nofollow">here</a>). Countries that have made any progress in reducing national inequality have done so in ways that are very clearly in the interests of the most marginalised. Thailand reduced its inequality levels when it introduced a universal public health scheme and significantly increased the minimum wage. Malaysia similarly reduced inequality through social protection (though both countries continue to have high rates of inequality). China is addressing inequality through increases to minimum wages in the hope that it will also strengthen local economies (in the knowledge that low income earners spend more quickly and more likely on locally produced goods). OK too much already ...

. . . I was going to recommend FrontlineSMS as an example of one company offering open source i.e. free ways of setting up mobile phone data collection. I see that Google is warning that it "may be hacked", possibly due to what Sucuri identifies as an old wordpress installation. Sucuri and VirusTotal rank it as clean however. For the alerts, see VirusTotal <a href="https://www.virustotal.com/en/url/318ea22ad8c56755d4a07c175880cf1e6535d7c6343e40545ec00c8381e7fba3/analysis/1437106418/" rel="nofollow">here</a> and Sucuri <a href="https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.frontlinesms.com/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Meantime, <a href="http://opensource.com/life/15/3/frontlinesms-humanitarian-foss" rel="nofollow">here is an article</a> about its background.

Thanks for the response Ash and sorry about the tardy reply. You’re right, the findings suggest that donors are in a tricky position when it comes to supporting anti-corruption efforts in PNG. But I think they can still play an important role. What should they be doing? I think there is a role for institutional strengthening in PNG, but I suspect it would achieve more by focusing resources at the sub-national level. With a <a href="http://www.pngperspective.com/news/district-development-authorities-to-replace-jdbpc-/" rel="nofollow">move to District Development Authorities</a> more power is going to reside at the districts in PNG; anti-corruption responses need to follow this devolution. At the moment we know very little about the most basic aspects of district-level finances, as a <a href="http://www.ago.gov.pg/images/Report_No3_DSIP.pdf" rel="nofollow">recent Auditor General’s report shows</a> [pdf]. This is where donors could do more; at the moment much of the institutional strengthening is at the national-level. I also think there is a role for donors to strategically put diplomatic pressure on PNG, particularly when anti-corruption agencies are attacked. Australia could do that more easily if it shut Manus. In addition, there’s a need to respond to the broader socio-economic conditions in which corruption occurs. It’s a bit much to expect people in PNG to become fervent anti-corruption warriors – although a surprising number still are – in the midst of a weak state and poor economic opportunities. These are issues that are difficult to address, but an essential part of the mix none-the-less.

There has been plenty of work done on capacity development approaches which has delved into these issues more deeply (e.g. the major research undertaken by the European Centre for Development Policy Management, reported in <a href="http://ecdpm.org/publications/capacity-change-performance-study-report/" rel="nofollow">Capacity, Change and Performance</a>, by Heather Baser and Peter Morgan 2008). My work in this area (<a href="http://leadershipstrategies.com.au/Capacity_Across_Cultures_Global_Lessons_from_Pacific_Experiences.php" rel="nofollow">Capacity Across Cultures: Global Lessons from Pacific Experiences, 2014</a>) suggests that if you look in Pacific countries for the institutional capacity that we value in western countries, you won't find much evidence of it, because that kind of capacity is not what is generally valued in those national cultural contexts. That is how you end up with a judgement about 'weak capacity' which I believe to be fundamentally flawed. But if you looked for the kinds of capacity that are valued in those cultures, then you would find there is enormous capacity (it's just that it's the kind of capacity that donors don't value as much). For example, in cultures where benevolent and autocratic leaders are valued, then it doesn't make sense to have flat-structured public sector institutions for example - they won't work effectively. In cultures where collectivist values underpin decision-making, then it doesn't make sense to build performance systems built on individualist values. In cultures which value the maintenance of harmonious relationships over the delivery of tasks for the sake of ticking boxes, then it doesn't make sense to think that action plans can drive an institution at the cost of harmony between people. And in cultures where uncertainty and ambiguity are seen as threats to well-being, then it doesn't make sense to introduce high levels of rapid innovation and expect them to stick. So from my perspective, having worked on these issues in the Pacific for 30 years too, it's the frame of reference of donor agencies and aid programs that is the biggest challenge, not Pacific capacity. My book includes case studies of Pacific Islanders who have thoughtfully reflected on their involvement in capacity development processes. It also includes some approaches for how aid programs can do things differently, if there is a genuine interest in contributing to Pacific capacity for developmental outcomes.

Jim, I couldn't agree more with your concern. For the Pacific check out the results of ADB's 2006 to 2008 <a href="http://www.adb.org/publications/series/capacity-development-series" rel="nofollow">capacity development study</a>, most especially the summary publication entitled: <a href="http://www.adb.org/publications/learning-success" rel="nofollow">"Pacific Choice: Learning from Success."</a> Steve Pollard

Although this is not the focus of our work at the moment (we'd be very happy for someone else to take this on!), we think that this existing distribution channel (ie the one 'owned' by small community-based entrepreneurs and shop keepers that runs from district centres to remote rural communities) could be used to courier basic medical supplies to trained health workers serving remote rural communities. Please see: <a href="http://www.colalife.org/2013/03/08/could-the-private-sector-supply-remote-rural-health-posts-in-zambia/" rel="nofollow">'Could the private sector supply remote health posts in Zambia'</a>. We believe that this would be far more efficient and would have a bigger development impact (money in the pockets of local entrepreneurs) than trying to set up a parallel public sector system to do the same thing. Even if this could be done it will take many decades and would be massively costly and in striving for this we are asking the already overstretched public sector to achieve something that even Coca-Cola (or any other producer of fast moving consumer goods) can't do and prefers to leave to others.

@Benjamin - this is right. Coca-Cola does not do 'the last mile', it's the small entrepreneurs serving those communities at the end of 'the last mile' that do that and they do it for many other products too (cooking oil, talk-time, salt, torch batteries, washing powder, etc) not just Coke.

Dear Jim, Very interesting blog and something we are definitely working on in the context of developing countries. Outside of capacity building for government officials, we are looking at the role of the private sector to also engage their employees in capacity building and technical assistance initiatives. The problem is not so much...the opportunity that is in front of us but the system that is needed to allow for smooth, efficient, and effective capacity building programs to take place (with measurable outcomes). Not sure if you are following the FfD3 event but in the draft final report "capacity" and capacity building is mentioned 40 times. Technical Assistance is mentioned six times - knowledge (sharing) is mentioned 14 times. Now....it's how do you turn this into opportunity and measurable (successful) efforts. Saludos cordiales,

The evidence from Colalife proves that the MOST robust supply chain is one where micro-entrepreneurs are incentivised and make money from the process. If I interpret your wording 'robust' to mean that which occurs typically in the Western world then this won't work to benefit players along the supply chain, isn't inclusive of small players and will suffer failure to reach the last mile.