Comments

You might be right about people forgetting their generosity Stephen. As far as I can tell the Household Expenditure Survey asks people to record expenditure in a diary during a two week period based on the date they were first contacted by ABS. If the period covered did not cover a peak giving time eg just before the end of the financial year, then it is likely that donations would be undercounted. ABS does also ask respondents about big infrequent expenditure over the previous 12 months eg household appliances, car insurance but I don't think they prompt for charitable giving. In addition people may also be forgetting to diarise regular automatic bank or credit card payments.

Hi Julia, Thanks for the comment. I actually wrote about GiveDirectly recently after reading that same blog post. You can find the 'in brief' here: https://devpolicy.org/in-brief/cooling-the-hype-on-cash-transfers-20140325/ I think the post is excellent, and also liked Chris Blattman's response (which i discuss in more detail in the link above). But I do still like the idea of Cash Transfers of this nature setting a baseline of effectiveness that NGOs and donors must meet in order to justify their work.. Though I will concede on your point that 'best buys' are difficult to assess, GiveDirectly certainly doesn't make analysis of effectiveness any easier. Cheers, Jonathan

Hi Jonathan I wondered what you thought of this critique of GiveDirectly, one of GiveWell's top charities: http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/givedirectly_not_so_fast Assessing 'best buys' in aid is a complex business. Julia

Hi Paul - you're absolutely correct to publicise this problem. Congratulations on your clearly exacting and comprehensive piece of work. The photographs tell the story of the animals' welfare conditions eloquently. I'm disturbed by the reply from Dr Henckes, which in my opinion is quite unsatisfactory. It is abundantly clear that GIZ has power to effect improvement in the animals' conditions. Dr Henckes acknowledges that "GIZ has been aware of wildlife being held in captivity in U Minh Thuong National Park ... not in keeping with western standards ... ". Dr Henckes goes on "U Minh Thuong park considers it important for the many tourists that visit the park to see these rare animals". In other words, GIZ recognises the cruelty being inflicted on these unfortunate animals. But GIZ goes on to say that it is important for humans to be able to see them - in other words, Dr Henckes provides support for the animals' current conditions. If GIZ were serious about the animals' condition they would not put forward the claim that "it also argued that if released into the wild, they would not survive or would be captured and killed". This statement, unsupported by evidence, goes no way to justify animal cruelty. If this were true (an unlikely case, as veterinarians could readily advise as to which animals would be unaffected by habituation and therefore able to survive in the wild - probably a sizeable number) why doesn't GIZ seek an undertaking that no further animals will be taken from the wild? Dr Henckes is silent on this point in his reply - why? If GIZ is concerned about the animals' welfare (it acknowledges they are kept in unsatisfactory conditions) surely they would be adamant that no further animals would be captured? Providing an opportunity for animals to be viewed by humans can never be an ethical basis for animal cruelty. It is up to western nations, especially when they have funding leverage, to do what they can to improve the lives of both humans and animals - especially when the funding leverage is part of an environmental programme. Paul, I again congratulate you for bringing this to the world's attention, and for publishing the responses from those who have an ability to influence a better outcome for these unfortunate animals. Alastair Lucas AM

It is great to see that a greater focus will be on mutli- and inter-disciplinary work. I hope that this extends to issues related to growing youth populations, their needs and their capacities. With the significant populations of under-25s across the Pacific states and territories 'youth' should be a cross-cutting issue factored into the development programs and agendas of SPC, looking not only at potential impact, but also involvement.

Thomas and Peter, Iam working on a project to convert waste to energy in Port Moresby.Should you have any info/data related to rate of waste dump at Baruni dump, please let me know. Dennis

HI Paul, Great post. As you've noted many, including Poyle, are suggesting that UBS deal is clearly illegal as it didn't get referred to parliament. Of course O'Neill argues otherwise. What do you think? In your view is there any way that the deal could be constituted as legal. Are there similar deals that have gone ahead without the approval of parliament? Cheers, Grant

The discussion here is stimulating. Two brief notes I may add. First, the recent experience of the Nauru rule of law crisis has important bearing in this discussion. The Nauru crisis saw the sacking and suspension of Australian born Chief Magistrate and Chief Justice respectively. It was an assault on constitutional democracy. Yet, Australia was relatively silent, dismissing it as an ‘internal issue,’ of what was a serious constitutional upheaval. It was described as ‘extraordinary’ by the then Chief Justice. It clearly demonstrated the extent to which the asylum seeker issue can compromise Australia’s objectivity and leverage on issues of democratic governance in the region. It supports the view here that the potential for PNG is no different with the Manus deal in sight. I have projected that in my article late last month on the Nauru case on ANU Pacific Institute: http://pacificinstitute.anu.edu.au/outrigger/2014/03/21/australias-blind-eye-while-rule-of-law-under-siege-in-the-pacific/ Second, and pointing to Michelle’s brief but clear assessment on PNG’s political maneuverings, O’Neill may or may not be around to see the Manus deal through till 2017. PNG political landscape is unpredictable as its cliché - the land of the unexpected. A genuine threat to the Manus deal would be the Opposition Leader Belden Namah should he form a new government. One would assume Australia is very much aware of that. But with its extensive connections and historical ties, it would be difficult for PNG, under a new leadership, to completely throw out the Manus deal. Instead drastic changes could be made to the terms of the agreement such as the resettlement arrangements and the right for asylum seekers to seek redress in PNG courts. In any case, one may argue that Australia’s leverage would continue to be undermined. The recent public plea by both O’Neill and Abbott for a Pacific wide asylum seeker resettlement scheme may only have the effect of escalating this dilemma. I think the last thing the people of Pacific would like to see is for Australia, an establish democracy and an emblem of good governance, to back down and be 'silent' when their institutions of justice and democracy are tampered with by their political elites.

I think this is relatively less studied and interesting area of study. The reasons for development cooperation are not always explicit and development cooperation policies or the foreign policies of the donors and recipient countries may not tell the complicated and whole story about it. I think, in addition to the ideological, business, economic and political factors, historical and socio-cultural factors might be equally important. Similarly, when we talk about the interest or motives of the emerging development partners (or donors), we need to consider the fact that there has occurred sea changes in the interests, motives and tendency of the so called traditional development partners. The question of reciprocity/non-reciprocity is also important in development cooperation. Moreover, the motives, interest or incentives for development cooperation varies over time and among different governments or regimes.

Serena, what an inspiration. A very positive story for PNG and a powerful testimony of the potential that lies within our young people to change PNG for the better. God bless you and the VOICE.

Thanks Karl, Stephen and all. A very interesting conversation. If I may add my two toeas worth. A member of parliament Paul Tienstein was sentenced to prison this week for misappropriation of public funds. Other prominent PNGians who colluded with him are also likely to face the same fate. These outcomes are occurring over five years since the allegations were first uncovered. O'Neill himself has a shadow in the past and a more recent allegation related to the Paraka lawyers payment scandal. He is currently facing a fair bit of scrutiny on the domestic front in relation to the issues that Stephen highlights but also in reference to the Paraka issue. Yet he is emboldened enough to sack several senior members of his cabinet - and while on the surface the reasons relate to the UBS loan I am sure many are asking what else is happening behind the scenes. Recently he reaffirmed his partnership with the National Alliance party - the very actors that he fought so hard to remove in 2011 and 2012. What is behind ONeill's stronghold on PNG politics today? And how long can he hold on to this power before PNG's political chess game catches up? What's the binding factor with all these relationships of same players and teams with different names and uniforms? - money? Policy? Friendship? Whatever is really happening beneath the tables where the megaphones on bilateral relations blare, Australia's asylum seeker policy is certainly dependent on O'Neill's support. If this means O'Neill and others in power have one less but very important scrutinising actor to contend with then the better for them. If Teinstein's sentence and if the national task force on corruption headed by Sam Koim (although many question Koim's independence from O'Neill) remain as adamant about their cause as they have shown, then ONeill's time will come to reckon with his voters - even as marginal, remote, poor as most of them are. When this happens a big question will be whether Australia will take a stance beside the voiceless majority of Papua New Guineans on corruption and bad policy even if it means upsetting O'Neill. Unfortunately a key partner to the many silent and voiceless people of Papua New Guinea and one who they (used to) look to for support to critique bad decisions, bad policies and corruption - Australia - has compromised it's ability to do so. What then of the millions of Australian dollars spent on well intended development? Just like its treatment of this issue on the domestic front, Australia's international policy and strategy on the PNG front is narrow and shortsighted. Like Stephen and others I believe that the ultimate price will be high for Australia.

What's in a name. One person's cash transfer is another person's dole payment. The question is whether it is unsustainable welfare (a bit like one-off bed nets), or is it like Chris Blattman says a first step to longer term interventions. I have nothing against welfare payments but recipient governments are probably best placed to assess run and manage such schemes, otherwise they are ripe for 'rent seeking'. I have seen quite few local NGOs in places like India target the 'poorest of the poor', but ignore the state collected data and criteria, only to find themselves providing hand outs to the 'not quite so poor', or even the 'mildly rich'.