Comments

What can be grasped from this program that government managed to relocate the community to one place with substandard housing. The problem is: who live there and what they do for their living. This simple question will drag our views on infrastructure provision versus equity. In one part, the government has put an effort to solve the housing problem in some Sucos. However, the plan without any deeper assessment took place. People who lived there might be impoverished class and farmers who subsistence from agricultural cultivation. For them might be difficult to maintain this type of prefabricated housing, and where to keep their pigs, goats and other pastoral products. Meanwhile, there is no spaces and sheds provided to store them. I have been to one of these locations, no water connection there and absent from bitumen roads. This can be claimed as "Palliative Plan", which indicates that the plan is not solving the root of housing problem, instead to help the local more expose to other problems such accessibility, mobility and deprivation. I would suggest, one of the solutions, it might be more plausible to subsidise the communities in the Sucos with some funds for upgrading their existing housing, privies, and provide communal water source (Lavanderia). At the same time promote comparative advantage of the area for it sustainability.

A recent, and excellent, article arguing why the best innovations happen when you don't try: http://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/is-the-best-way-to-be-innovative-not-to-try/

Agreed with the article

Agree.

Thanks for this post, Jo! Related to this, in case you (and other readers) haven't seen it already, Devex and PSI recently <a href="http://psiimpact.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Devex-infographic_FINAL.pdf" rel="nofollow">released results</a> of a survey on 'what the next generation of development professionals will look like'. However, I was disappointed to see there's no specific mention of cross-cultural competence, either as a key 'approach' or a 'soft skill' that development professionals will need.

Yes, it will but it is worth it. We know from the accommodation trial that there is virtually zero interest in this sector in hiring SWP workers. I don't see why tourism would be different to accommodation. So good to get backpackers out of horticulture -- where a significant number of employers are already interested in hiring SWP workers -- into accommodation and tourism.

Thanks for the article Stephen. Do you think that the shift of backpackers away from horticulture to tourism will mean that any expansion of the SWP to tourism, construction, and aged care (as demanded by the Pacific Island Countries under PACER-Plus negotiations) will undermine Pacific employment in those sectors?

While the withdrawal of Australian commitments to the 3MDF Fund in Myanmar is extremely regrettable, there are serious inaccuracies in the following sentence that should be corrected: "One can imagine the dismay the Australian decision would have caused on the part of the Myanmar Government, which had fought long and hard to keep the scheme going after a premature and politically-driven US Congress decision in 2005 to withdraw from an earlier version of the program, the World Health Organisation’s Global Fund." First, there was no such entity as the World Health Organisation’s Global Fund. The author is probably referring to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which has nothing to do with WHO. Second, the US Congress had nothing to do with the decision by the Secretariat of the Global Fund to withdraw from Myanmar, an action recommended by the then Principal Recipient in Myanmar, the United Nations Development Programme. Third, following the withdrawal of the Global Fund, a group of donors (including Australia) established the Three Diseases Fund for Burma, the forerunner of 3MDG. I was a member of the 3DF Board and it is quite an exaggeration to say that the Myanmar Government " fought long and hard to keep the scheme going." Indeed, between 2006 and 2012, the Government was hostile to the Fund because it did not channel funds directly to the Government. It obstructed access to field sites, tried to cancel the first annual review, and stationed security officers outside Board meetings. Obviously, the political climate has changed and 3MDG is now welcomed by the Myanmar Government. Australia's abrupt withdrawal from the Fund is short-sighted and will indeed affect relationships with the Myanmar Government and fellow donors. But let's ensure that views are based on the facts.

Thanks Terence for an excellent critique. I remember being quite sceptical when I read Booth's blog post - you've done a good job of outlining some of the problems with such economic determinism. An argument that I find very convincing, and which is of increasing popularity (and one that you flag briefly), is that different forms of governance are appropriate for different stages of development. It is hard to imagine that the same institutions are needed in both (i) the 'catch-up' stages of economic development, where the key objective is to accumulate capital and move toward the technology frontier, and (ii) later stages of development where research and competition are more important. Yet this is what much of the debate on institutions and growth has assumed - as have the many cross-country regressions linking growth to different measures of institutional quality. David Dollar has <a href="http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/05/31/what-institutions-do-asian-countries-need-to-keep-growing/" rel="nofollow">just written</a> on this very theme. This is also a point made by Acemoglu and Robinson in Why Nations Fail - i.e., that 'extractive economic institutions' can achieve growth to a point (as did USSR), but that later stages of development (beyond a certain level of GDP per capita - around $8000) require 'inclusive economic institutions'. I'm not convinced by their argument that Chinese growth will stagnate due to the absence of 'inclusive economic institutions' - to me seems too much like wishful liberal thinking, conflates economic institutions with political institutions, and assumes that there is only one model of 'inclusive instutitions' (periodic democratic elections for key leadership). But I do accept their broader argument that different institutions are needed for different periods of economic development.

Thank you, John, for the article. I agree with Bal on the concern regarding influx of foreign entities who are using 'street sellers'. It is not only that, they themselves are also selling at 'buai' stalls as we go further into the provinces. The sad thing is, those in the informal economy do not know their rights. How can we get the message to the 'everyday' PNGean, about their rights?

Thank you Bal and Dorothy for your responses. I concur with Dorothy that due to the absence of the policy it really affected the enforcement of the Act. Apart from that as was highlighted in the article we also recognised from the outset (during the review process ably led by Dorothy and her team) that the lack of ownership at the national level has led to stagnation. Now that the Department of Community Development & Religion is the lead implementing agency of the National Informal Economy Policy it is hoped that they also play a leading role in the administration of the amended Informal sector law. How are we going to achieve that while taking into consideration the Organic Law on Provincial & Local Level Government is something that CLRC has been doing its best to develop a way forward. I am sure they are already at the cusp of finding a solution. Aligning the policy with the law has not been easy and I can tell you (as a member of the review working group) CLRC is doing its very best to make the law more effective than the last. We also note that in trying to make the enforcement effective the administering authorities (particularly the provincial and local level government) do have adequate resources to enforce it unlike the currently status quo. This could mean that there could be an increased focus on how the new District Development Authority (DDA) will assist the respective LLGs to enforce this Act. These efforts have to be backed up with alot of civic awareness and training so that these administrators know their roles and responsibilities. However, we also realise that the lack of participation and ownership by the informal economy participants has led to endless conflicts and other problems. Therefore, CIMC through the informal economy sectoral committee is proposing that we organise the informal economy participants into associations/chambers so that they can be able to have a voice. The UNWOMEN/NCDC Safe Cities Market Project provides a great platform for doing this. Furthermore, these voice mechanisms can play a pivotal role in funneling important information (such as the Informal Sector Development & Control Act) to its members so that atleast we accomplish some sense of "order". We are hoping if that can be factored into the new law or made as one of the major policy recommendations for government's consideration. Bal, your concern on child labour is something that I believe CLRC is taking into consideration. There are also other efforts from International Labour Organisation and Department of Labour and Industrial Relations to develop a child labour policy. This will complement the Lukautim Pikinini Act that was recently passed. All in all because of the complexity of the issue the law is not able to cover all areas of concern. Yet there will be recommendations made that would have an impact on the financial sector and other areas as per the policy directives.

Thank you Dorothy for making clear some important things that are worth considering.