Comments

Are you sure the net overseas migration over the last decade is 229,000? The ABS say net overseas migration in 2024 was 445,600. At https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-state-and-territory-population/jun-2024 the graph shows annual averages of around 200,000 or more apart from the Covid period. Do you mean annual average?

This is one of the best, frank analysis I have read so far in regards to the level of accountability of the Prime Minister and State Ministers in Papua New Guinea in regard what they say in public and in media compared to the feasible outcome of those grandstanding. As far as integrity is concerned, a person(s) who make public statements contrary to their action have no integrity left in them, unless ordinary Papua New Guineans are suffering from long term memory loss. Apparently, our political system of Government can't flush out MPs who keep on making false promises. The Vote of No Confidence was our hope as safety valve , unfortunately that section of the Constitution is being tampered with by Government. Money politics has taken over good Governance . The same people (voters) who complain about poor decisions are the same people who get to vote these MPs once they are promised personal benefits. We observed most of these in the 2022 National General Elections. Of course, the Government hate reading those election reports as it exposed how most of the MPs got into office, some take on Ministries and effect influence on appointments of Department Heads ect. So, what we put in is what we are reaping. If only we have voted in Men and Women with Integrity, we would get good Governance as a consequence. We get talkers in, we all talk all the way till Papua New Guinea experience a promised winter. Thanks Anthon for this thought provoking research and write up.

Robin’s blog outlines the lengthy battles that USAID has been subjected to over many years merely to survive and try to fulfil its role in global statecraft. While it has had many flaws (and past and present USAID officers could recount them at length), it has been the largest source of development aid and the demise of those funding flows will have enormous implications for the millions of people who received support from programs funded through USAID, and the soft-power of the USA throughout many areas of the world. Undoubtedly, many programs were of questionable merit, and many were structured or targeted poorly – the same could be said of DFAT or DFID/FCDO programs and others. That was a huge frustration to the USAID officers. Many of its processes were tedious and, like all bureaucracies, it needed a regular overhaul. That was also a major frustration to those working in it or on projects for it. However, having worked on USAID funded programs across multiple countries in the Asia/Pacific, Africa and the former Soviet Union, I was always impressed by the level of commitment by USAID officers to try to ensure the programs worked for the recipient populations, and worked in ways that were sustainable beyond simply meeting the USA’s geopolitical objectives. Inevitably the levels of experience and insights that individual officers brought to the task varied, but there were always enough skills amongst the country office teams to work creatively to seek the best outcome for the target population and the relevant project as well as meeting US strategic objectives. Senior field staff were very conscious not to repeat past history where USAID had been misused in ways not of benefit to recipient populations. If what is going on now was simply a review of projects to ensure they are effective, or an organizational change such as what occurred with the absorption of AusAID into DFAT, that would be simple enough. But nothing suggests that to be the case. What appears to be occurring is a rejection of the basic tenant of development assistance that those of us who have worked in the field have believed in – that building human and social capital, as well as financial capital, on a widespread basis (recognizing what political economy teaches us of the essential need for equity) was of value, not just to the communities in the target countries, but also to those in other countries. (That was the basis on which JFK set up USAID – that a healthier, more educated and prosperous world was a more secure world.) Moreover, what appears to be occurring is a rejection of the idea that improving the ‘wealth’ (encapsulating human, social and financial capital) of ‘others’ has any value at all – instead, only one’s own wealth has value. Threads of that philosophy against supporting development are, unfortunately, evident in other countries, not just the USA. While there can be argument about the best way to support development, if we believe in the value of improving the ‘wealth’ of others, not just of ourselves, we have a big task ahead.

My name is Murtaza. I belong to Pakistan. I was working as a Red Cross doctor in Pakistan.

In the family planning field the role of USAID was pivotal and lasting. At least until Trump 1.0. Bankrolling the demographic and health surveys meant that policy making had good information for planning and assessing. Now that is gone. The supply of contraceptives around the world relied heavily on the US and from time to time support for research on abortion could be sourced from local USAID offices, though US Legislators had eagle eyes and ready claws to eliminate these. Always bureaucratic, the programs set up by USAID were often made possible by Peace Corps alumni who had learned how to circumvent road blocks. One can only hope. Elon must have a use by date even shorter than Trump’s. 2025 perhaps.

A thoughtful response! My memories of USAID (Laos 1970-1975) were of a well-meaning, hamstrung bureaucracy subject to the whims of the US ambassador and to the CIA. Its huge warehouse at KM9 poured out almost everything that a conflict might need - bulldozers to army rations. It tended to employ almost any Australian or other ‘third country National’ who wandered nearby. Its reach was enormous: AirAmerica or Continental were available at any moment. The Director was genial and competent. He regarded the organisation as an arm of US diplomacy and, as a consequence, was subject to the whims of the US ambassador - G McMurtrie Godley. It also employed some highly competent, dedicated people who undertook real development work, often in extremely dangerous environments. Some were killed in the course of their work.

A much needed to be said perspective amidst the current lamenting.

Very interesting and a little disturbing to see Australia's low rates of refugee intakes, particularly when we are such an affluent country.

You have committed multiple fallacies in this very short article. The first is the fact that a daughter would take half of what her brother takes in inheritence is a violation to Human Rights! - This is a clear cut fallacy. For instance the sister who would marry later, isn't responsible of any monitory contribution through out her marriage life, while the brother is responsible in his family including his mother and even his sister if she didn't have supporters or couldn't support itself.

How can I apply??

Flexibility is a leading contributor to the decline. The overstrict compliance requirements are hopeless. This is to say, if you were to promote the ST palm worker to the next level, well this will result in a change to the approved recruitment, you will have to report it and get it approved.

Thanks Brett. Those are all good comments. To respond to your questions: 1. It isn't true that most aid money going to recipient countries is spent on internationals. Expat advisers are certainly used though. But they are used alongside a lot of other aid modalities (including giving money to local NGOs and even directly to other countries' governments). The share of aid going through international people and entities varies between donors and between recipients. Whether using internationals are optimal (or even just good) depends a lot on the task at hand. In the case of US aid, this blog post, doesn't quite answer your question but it does give a good sense of how money is spent: https://www.cgdev.org/blog/no-90-percent-aid-not-skimmed-reaching-target-communities 2. This is correct I think. I think the biggest damage from the aid cuts will stem from cuts in health programmes like PEPFAR and in cuts to aid helping respond to humanitarian emergencies. The cuts to longer term development aid will also have negative impacts (on average). However, it will be the emergency responses where the impacts will be most clearly felt in the short-term. 3. I'm unsure about the moral hazard question. My guess is that the future of US aid will be shaped more by the domestic politics and political economy of the country going forward rather than by the extent to which other donors rush in to fill the gap. (In part because the US is so big, no one will be able to fill the gap. Not even China.) Thanks Brett.