Comments

Thanks Mr. Andrew Anton Mako for your marvelous update. As a PNG Citizen and as an upcoming leader of Papua New Guinea, I declare that what you have posted is all the TRUTH and no one will against this.

Hear hear! Very few partnerships in development are partnerships of equals.A kid being unfairly treated by their teacher (hardly a relationship of equals) has more opportunity for redress than does anyone 'partnering' with a donor.

Technology is a tool, that is true, however what some of the DIFID, USAID and World Bank programs are beginning to recognise is that technology strategies also represent a different approach to solving problems. The web and communications technology have enabled mass participation like never before. The culture within technology communities i.e. Open Source communities is one of collaboration. As such you see a number of these 'technology strategies' focus on 'participatory development' over an above the tool its self. Participatory development recognises that we have a shared problem and that we need to collaborate to solve that problem. For the most part this is the attitude of many technologists and the deep important strategic imperative they bring to the table.

Not only increasingly crowded, but increasingly dysfunctional, it would seem to me.

Amazing work on your part. Thank you for increasing awareness of the issue.

While less impressive, the International Organisation for Migration has a <a href="http://www.iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home/about-migration/world-migration.html" rel="nofollow">visualisation</a> that tracks people movements. Perhaps it's obvious, but it's interesting to see how the remittance flows compare to the movement of people.

I have just discovered that the Guardian put together a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/interactive/2013/jan/31/remittances-money-migrants-home-interactive" rel="nofollow">similar visualisation</a> earlier this year. While it doesn't provide time-series information like the visualisation discussed above, I think it does a better job mapping where exactly money flows between countries. The way it visualises migration patterns is also very interesting!

The relationship between Gulf Politicians and Administrators over the years was a mixed one. Service delivery machanism was affected and in the end the people suffered the most. The current MPs now have the crucial task to sort this out and make the system work...Maybe I'm barking the wrong tree here. But thank God for missionaries.

It seems true. And it is a shame. AusAID could play a much more interesting role than the one it plays at present. Its <a href="http://wp.me/pYCOD-1aO" rel="nofollow">Knowledge Sector Initiative in Indonesia</a> is quite an innovation. Something DFID has not dared to do -not at that scale at least. More interestingly, AusAID's <a href="http://ausaid.govspace.gov.au/2012/08/02/ausaid’s-approach-to-revitalising-the-knowledge-sector-in-indonesia/" rel="nofollow">willingness to engage with the public</a> during the procurement process constitutes yet another innovation in the industry. In this sector (of knowledge and the role of research in policy), at least, we need new voices and ideas. Too few actors are quickly capturing the attention of the same funders. AusAID has the opportunity to be the innovative partner in the partnership it has with DFID. It has access to great researchers (quite literally around the corner from its HQ), to a 'new' class of foreign policy/development workers without the hang-up of British history, it is undoubtedly seen as more equal (more 'southerner') across the developing world, etc.

It seems everyone has lost their integrity to self preservations and greed. Sam you are truly a man of integrity with enormous courage and we salute you with great honour for showing us the true meaning of upholding an integrity. You have the peoples heart and our heavenly father is always with you for that for! God Bless.

Cool, thanks Jonathan, Robin. And whatever the actual figures, given that unofficial flows would boost the total remittance total to around three quarters of a trillion dollars, the main point they are making still stands, that: People are paying a lot more than countries. Impressive level of detail too - I was even able to get a result for Samoa!

If they were using data on Official Development Finance (ODF), as their reference indicates, that would have delivered a too-low total ($US151 billion in 2011) and also would have included some non-concessional flows, since ODF is broader than ODA. However, even if they're being a bit sloppy with the term ODA, they're in the right ball park. If you look at the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/statisticsonresourceflowstodevelopingcountries.htm" rel="nofollow">reporting tables</a> for 2011, while net ODA was only $US134 billion, you can see that gross ODA disbursements were $US149 billion (table 13), grants by NGOs were $US31 billion (table 2), and ODA from non-DAC donors was at least $US13 billion (tables 33 and 33a) and probably much more. So gross concessional flows to developing countries from all sources were probably at about the level they estimated -- i.e. a bit above $200 billion.