Prelims

Half Title

Government and Public Policy in the Pacific Islands

Series Page

Public Policy and Governance

Edited by Professor Evan Berman, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

This series brings together the best in international research on policy and governance issues. Authored and edited by experts in the field, these books present new and insightful research on a range of policy and governance issues across the globe. Topics covered include but are not limited to: policy analysis frameworks, healthcare policy, environmental/resource policy, local government policy, development policy, regional studies/policy, urban policy/planning, and social policy.

Titles include:

Leadership and Public Sector Reform in Asia

Evan Berman and Eko Prasoji

Corruption, Accountability and Discretion

Nancy S. Lind and Cara Rabe-Hemp

The Experience of Democracy and Bureaucracy in South Korea

Tobin Im

Governmental Financial Resilience: International Perspectives on How Local Governments Face Austerity

Ileana Steccolini, Martin Jones, and Iris Saliterer

The Global Educational Policy Environment in the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Gated, Regulated and Governed

Travis D. Jules

Governing for the Future: Designing Democratic Institutions for a Better Tomorrow

Jonathan Boston

Asian Leadership in Policy and Governance

Evan Berman and M. Shamsul Haque

Different Paths to Curbing Corruption: Lessons from Denmark, Finland, Hong Kong, New Zealand and Singapore

Jon S. T. Quah

Institutional Reforms in the Public Sector: What Did We Learn?

Mahabat Baimyrzaeva

New Steering Concepts in Public Management

Sandra Groeneveld and Steven Van de Walle

Curbing Corruption in Asian Countries: An Impossible Dream?

Jon S. T. Quah

Public Policy and Governance Frontiers in New Zealand

Evan Berman and Girol Karacaoglu

Title Page

Public Policy and Governance

Government and Public Policy in the Pacific Islands

By

Graham Hassall

Victoria University of Wellington

United Kingdom – North America – Japan – India – Malaysia – China

Copyright Page

Emerald Publishing Limited

Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK

First edition 2021

Copyright © 2021 by Emerald Publishing Limited

Reprints and permissions service

Contact: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-78973-616-8 (Print)

ISBN: 978-1-78973-615-1 (Online)

ISBN: 978-1-78973-617-5 (Epub)

ISSN: 2053-7697 (Series)

Dedication

For my precious family: my parents David and Judy Hassall, and my sister Jane, Katayoun and our sons Hyde and Thomas

Contents

Abbreviations

Author Biography

Graham Hassall studied history at the University of Sydney and Art Education at the University of New South Wales before obtaining a PhD in Pacific History at the Australian National University. He has held research and teaching positions at the University of Melbourne, the University of Papua New Guinea, Landegg Academy in Switzerland, the University of the South Pacific in Fiji, and the Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

Acknowledgements

It is important to acknowledge the deep collaboration on which studies such as this are built. It has emerged from conversations with many friends and colleagues whilst teaching at the University of Papua New Guinea (1988 and 1991) and the University of the South Pacific (2004–2009) and at universities on the periphery, at the University of Melbourne (1990–2000) and the Victoria University of Wellington (from 2010). Growing up in Sydney, I was ever conscious of the fact that my closest overseas neighbours – Pacific Islanders – were never mentioned in school history texts, which introduced me instead to Australian explorers, the ancient Greeks and Romans, and the whole European tradition. On entering university, I committed to remedying what I regarded as a significant oversight, beginning with studies of Southeast Asian history at the University of Sydney (where Pacific studies was not then an option), and continuing with a PhD in Pacific History at the Australian National University in Canberra under the supervision of Niel Gunson. Nine months’ fieldwork in 1986–1987 provided me with a first glimpse of life in Fiji, Nauru, Samoa, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Kiribati, and Papua New Guinea. Over the subsequent decades, I revisited most of these countries to either teach, participate in conferences and workshops, conduct field research, or undertake an occasional consultancy.

Six years teaching in Fiji brought me into contact with a wide range of academics, activists, journalists, diplomats, students, public servants, development practitioners, and civic, political, and religious leaders. I must particularly acknowledge Jeannette Bolenga, Hamidan Bibi, Raijiele Bulatele, Ron Duncan, Jon Fraenkel, Elise Huffer, Steven Ratuva, Haruo Nakagawa, and Sadhana Sen, for all that I learnt from them at the Pacific Institute of Advanced Studies in Development and Governance (as it then was), as well as the members of PIANZEA (Pacific Islands, Australia and New Zealand Election Administrators) network, and the Commonwealth Local Governance Forum (CLGF) Pacific Project team and advisory board. Additionally, I owe a great debt of gratitude to staff at the Pacific Offices of the Asian Development Bank and the United Nations offices in Suva, Apia, and Port Moresby, as well as at the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat in Suva, for the opportunities to engage in policy research and dialogue.

Notable amongst these friends and colleagues from the Pacific and elsewhere ever-willing to engage in the meaningful conversations that have helped to shape my thinking are Hannington Alatoa, Transform Aqorau, Audrey Aumua, Wame Baravilavu, Paul Barker, Dianne Barr, Fr Kevin Barr, Georgina Bonin, Mark Borg, Tarusila Bradburgh, Derek Brien, Alifereti Bulivou, Aisake Casimira, Ioana Chan Mow, Robin Chandler, Jone Dakuvula, Krishna Datt, Jude Devesi, William Dihm, Bredina Drollet, Emele Duituturaga, Peter Eafeare, Lily Favae, William Ferea, Kisione Finau, Andie Fong Toy, Peter Forau, Alphonse Gelu, Nandi Glassie, Sitiveni Halepua, Rex Horoi, Lagipoiva Cherelle Jackson, Toholo Kami, Judge Ambeng Kandakasi, Julius Kane, Max Kep, Joy Kere, Joe Ketan, Luke Koroisave, Eric Kwa, Ted Lulu, Iosefa Maiava, Fiame Naomi Mataafa, Faamausili Matagialofi Lua’iufi, Paul Mae, Melino Maka, Elesallah Matatier, Sarah Mecartney, John Momis, Jon-Marvin Ngirutang, Joel Nilon, Gregoire Nimbtik, Bikeni Paeniu, John Pitabelama, Nancy Pollock, Michael Powles, Biman Prasad, Christelle Pratt, Ian Rakafia, Daphne Ringi, Charmaine Rodrigues, Gregory Rofeta, Mosese Saitala, Teasi Sanga, Lawrence Sause, Lopeti Senituli, Ethel Sigimanu, Suliana Siwatibau, Siaosi Sovaleni, Jean-Luc Stalon, Isaia Taape, Rikiaua Takeke, Simiti Qalowasa, Cheryl Saunders, Lawrence Sause, Sumasy Singin, Alifereti Sokai, Isaia Taape, Laitia Tamata, Len Tarivonda, Aisea H. Taumoepeau, Lulu Ted, Fe’iloakitau Kaho Tevi, Feue Tipu, Karibaiti Taoba, Angela Thomas, Mere Tora, Roy Trivedy, Morgan Tuimaleali’ifano, Lord Albert Vaea, Upolu Vaai, John Waiko, Amanda Watson, Garry Wiseman, Ted Wolfers, and Charles Yala.

I am grateful to the representatives of Pacific Island countries based in Brussels and Geneva for the time given to me during visits in 2016: I also thank Pao Luteru, Mere Famelaka, Joshua Kalinoe, Deo Saran, Radihka Kumar, Moses Mose, and Faye Mose. Updates on Pacific parliaments have been provided by Helen Maunga, Basil Kambuiagen, David Kusilifu, and Liwiana Ramon.

The shock of hearing that a friend has passed away has come too often and too early, and I appreciate and still treasure conversations had with the late Bill Aalbersberg, Falani Aukuso, Ray Anare, Alifereti Bogiva, Ron Crocombe, Peter Donigi, Margaret Elias, Fred Fono, Lionel Gibson, Ena Gimumu, Anthony Haas, Lawrence Kalinoe, Biamaura Kanasa, Joe Kanekane, Sir Peter Kenilorea, August Kituai, Ratu Joni Madraweiwei, Ephraim Makis, Ropati Ngalo, Guy Powles, Hon. Joses Sanga, Bernard Narokobi, Tepa Suaesi, Martin Tete, Sir Andrew Trawen, and Greg Urwin.

The experts from whom I have learnt include many graduate students who upon completion of their studies have taken on significant policy and implementation roles, including Poto Aiafi, Robyn Ata, Susan Grey, David Futai, Francis Hualupmomi, David Kusilifu, Agofili Shem Leo, Derrick Manuari, Romulo Nayacalevu, Paulson Panapa, Margaret Qoloni, Celsus Talifilu, and the late Sione Fehoko. Research assistance in Pacific government, policy, and leadership has been provided at various times by Potoae Aiafi, Kurt Barber, Illana Burness, Elliot Dunn, Shamim Kazemi, Avinesh Kumar, Mosmi Bhim, Julius Kane, Robyn Metcalfe, Amrita Nand, Nadege Yakouto, and Sophie Young.

Friendship and practical support to my fieldwork in the Pacific have been provided over many years by Sir Bruce Saunders and Lady Keithie Saunders in Honiara, Shantini and Omid Saberi and Bale and Taka Tamani and their families in Suva; Sam Era, Kamrooz and Nelia Khademazad, and Derek and Talua Smith in Port Moresby; and Charles and Barbara Pierce, and Easuary and Tony Deamer in Port Vila.

Significant insights were provided by participants at numerous project consultations across the past two decades. These have included a ‘Pacific Public Policy’ online discussion series in 2012 on Civics and Constituency Relations, Urbanisation and Intergovernmental Relations, and Policy Leadership, Fieldwork 2013–2015 on eGovernment, 2016 consultations on the Commonwealth Secretariat’s ‘Pacific 2030’ study, and 2018 fieldwork on the state of the public sector.

A great many other informants have shared their knowledge with me: Paul Bengo, Falairiva Tafaaki, Irene Tafaaki, Webster Alilee, Agnes Harm, Scott Hook, Alphonse Kona, David Kavanamur, Lorraine Kershaw, Pierre Lauofo, Faumuina Tiatia Luiga, Magele Mauiliu Magele, Charlie Mangawai, Joel Nilon, Henry Okole, Marc Overmars, Coral Pasisi, Max Quanchi, Paul Roughan, Iwona Spytkowski, Helen Tavola, Bart Ulufalu, Craig Volker, Ashley Wickam, Nileema Noble, Naea Beth Onesemo-tuilaepa, Malietau Malietoa, Debra Angus, Mosmi Bhim, Derek Brien, Alifereti Bulivou, Shobhna Decloitre, Patricia Donnely, Billy Fitoo, Tupua Fuifui, Titi Gabi, Kirstin Harvey, Paul Jones, Charlene Malele, Derrek Manuari, Pala Molisa, Vergil Narokobi, Andrew Nori, Aaron Pitaqae, Mike Reid, Daniel Rove, Mose Saitala, Fulisia Sale, Francis Sullivan, Isaia Taape, Sione Tekiteki, Tarakabu Tofinga, Afamasanga Toleafoa, Udu Vai, Kesaia Vilisoni, Alistair Wilkinson, and Wallis Yakam.

I have taken the time to list these informants for several reasons. Not least, it is only fair to express thanks for the time they have spared to share with me their knowledge and experience. Knowledge has been traditionally shared across the Pacific more readily through conversation than through text, and thoughts are often shared more candidly in person than when written. A further reason for mapping these acknowledgements is to assure the reader that generalisations in the book have in all cases emerged from conversations I believe to be grounded in general experience in a country or across countries.

In New Zealand, a number of colleagues have taken an interest in Pacific issues, including Rowena Cullen, Brad Jackson, Pak Yoong, and Luamanuvao Winnie Laban at the Victoria University of Wellington; Wendy Hart at Parliament; Leonard Chan and Kirk Yates at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; John Hopkins at the University of Canterbury, and Kennedy Graham and Neil Boister through the New Zealand Centre for Global Studies. Special thanks to my colleague in the School of Government Evan Berman, for his comparative interest in government in the Pacific Islands, and Girol Karacaoglu for his constant support as Head of School. The book proposal was written whilst on study leave at the School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, in 2016 and I thank Jan Sholte for hosting me there. Fieldwork that informs this book since commencing at Victoria University’s School of Government was been made possible by a Victoria University Establishment grant (2010), a School of Government Trust Grant (2011), a Victoria University Research Grant to examine eGovernment (2013) (in collaboration with Rowena Cullen) and Faculty of Commerce Research and Study Leave Grants in 2016 and 2019.

Introduction

This book offers a comparative study of the structure and operation of government in the small island states known collectively as ‘the Pacific Islands’. The term ‘Pacific Islands’ distinguishes the countries in question from those covered by such terms as ‘Pacific Rim’, ‘Pacific Community’, ‘Asia Pacific’, or ‘trans-Pacific’ – all of which are too broad. Much writing on government and public policy in Pacific Island nations focusses on a particular country (an approach Riggs called ‘idiographic’) (Riggs, 2010, p. 752). However, whereas the unique identity of each Pacific society is acknowledged and given much respect, this book addresses their common elements as much as their points of distinction, for I believe that taking interest in multiple systems of government rather than any single one has the advantage of identifying broader ideas about what works better and, hopefully, why. I acknowledge that a comparative approach such as this is risky, for not all countries can be given equal treatment despite their worth as stand-alone studies. However, the ‘wide-angle’ approach is complemented by ‘mid-range’ and ‘close-up’ views that provide more specific instances and scenarios. The book draws on theoretic insights about public-sector management and about the idea of public policy to the extent that these help interpret how governments operate in the region. ¹ Theory is ‘scaffolding’ required to provide mental models when we have difficulty comprehending what we think we see. But there is always the risk that we will only observe the view that the scaffolding allows, and not that which it obscures.

There are at least five ‘big questions’ that underlie public-sector studies: Why Government? What should governments do? What values or interests should a government promote? What should public administrators do? And how can public organisations and policies perform more efficiently? In attempting answers to these questions, the book draws on the literatures of law, history, and anthropology, in addition to those of public policy and public management, and aspires to viewing its subject matter in global rather than merely national perspective, on the basis that humanity shares a common destiny irrespective of country of origin. Another useful insight offered by theorists from Habermas to Freire suggests that successful alignment of development plans with local needs contributes to the emancipation from oppression (Freire, 1993; Habermas, 1984). This insight becomes useful when comparing the impact of government systems across time and across jurisdictions: are contemporary Pacific societies more free, or more oppressed, than in previous eras, and in what ways?

With the modernity brought to the Pacific by colonising missionaries and metropolitan powers, virtually all Pacific societies had their lifeworlds constrained by introduced systems of government and law, and this has resulted in the persistence of a thread of public sentiment that labels contemporary government and its laws as foreign in origin. There is a countervailing view, on the other hand, which acknowledges the imposition of ‘western’ systems of government but then proceeds to focus on how the Pacific nations engage with regional, international, and global agendas. Pressures attributed to globalisation include economic competitiveness, out-migration, urbanisation, vulnerability to the effects of climate change and natural disasters, and the illicit trade in drugs, weapons, money, and people, attributed to organised crime. Regional organisations that have influenced the quality of governance within Pacific States include the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, the Pacific Community, and the Melanesian Spearhead Group. International agencies seeking to improve the quality of governance in the Pacific Island countries (PIC) include the United Nations and its many agencies, for example, UNDP, WHO, FAO, etc., the World Bank, and the IMF. There are also the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Electoral Authorities and Monitors, Transparency International, human rights monitors, media monitors, and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Recent global agendas which have taken much of Pacific Governments’ attention include the Millennium Development Goals agreed to by heads of state at the UN General Assembly in 2000, and the Sustainable Development Goals which are shaping much government policy for the period 2015–2030.

Before proceeding further, some explanation of terms is necessary in order to avoid misunderstanding as to how they are used in this book, or what they imply. The term ‘traditional’ refers to systems of thought and practices that are understood to have existed prior to colonisation. In some instances, ‘traditional’ practices have continued to the present time. Although some authors might insist that pre-colonial practices which have been modified during the colonial and post-colonial periods are more properly termed ‘neo-traditional’, contemporary Pacific usage is ‘traditional’ even where the institution or practice is a colonial-era invention, and it is used to distinguish locally derived practices from others which are ‘western’. The term ‘modern’, conversely refers to systems of thought and practice derived from the ‘west’. Some authors use the terms ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ pejoratively, but I do not. To call a practice ‘modern’ does not imply that it is superior to a traditional practice it has replaced. Indeed, it is often the case that the modern condition is to be rued rather than commended. The term ‘country’ is often used in this book rather than ‘nation’ or ‘state’, in an endeavour to refer to a collective of land/sea and people, irrespective of whether they have sovereign or non-sovereign status. Although the independent states self-identify as ‘nation-states’ internationally, they also invariably self-identify with sub-national/regional identities and interests domestically. Accordingly, the book uses the term ‘Pacific Island Country’ throughout.

Gulrajani and Moloney’s suggested (after surveying literature on developing country administration), that ‘… administrative studies of the global South have fractured into a small-scale, disparate, noncumulative, descriptive, and non-comparative field dominated by researchers with Northern institutional affiliations …’. ‘A global public administration that moves beyond a North–South administrative dichotomy’ they suggest, ‘… can build knowledge cumulatively through collaborative arrangements that collapse geographic, methodological, and disciplinary boundaries’ (Gulrajani & Moloney, 2011, p. 78). Although that study did not include PICs, its findings felt familiar, and I hope that the quest for improved understanding of how government functions can include datum from the Pacific. Pacific states and their governments are smaller than states elsewhere, but their size does not diminish their importance. In a small state, the effectiveness of government is as important to its people as is government in larger states. Although government in large states may be complex, the functions of government in states both large and small cover the same areas – security, revenue collection, cultivating and maintaining rule of law, and providing public goods.

One particularly useful framework is Habermas’ ‘lifeworld’ and ‘system’, which suggests that a vigorous interactive relationship between society and its formal systems of rules and regulations is essential to ensure that that these rules provide not only order, but fairness. By ‘lifeworld’, Habermas means the ‘intuitively present’, the ‘unquestionable’ or ‘unproblematic character’ of everyday life, which has this quality when all actors within the lifeworld are sufficiently embedded in it as to share understandings that render explanations superfluous (Crossley & Roberts, 2004; Habermas, 1984). The model is particularly pertinent to the Pacific region, where peoples living for generations in the same village or town on an island, who share language, culture, and political economy, have had little need to interrogate each other over values and practices ingrained in their traditions and habits of daily life. Their rules were called ‘custom’, which Melanesian Jurist Bernard Narokobi (1989) called ‘the way’:

Leaders do not make or give law. They give wise counsel of what ought to be, or be avoided. Through the institution of the meeting house … masters transmit their knowledge …. Law does not exist as a phenomenon which controls society, but as a part of cognitive knowledge of a community. (p. 30)

Melanesian communities did have, however, known patterns of rule-making (authority), rule-enforcement (power), and dispute resolution, which were not – as Chalmers and Paliwala (1984) have noted – ascribed to the ‘state’:

Custom has a system of rules, but the rules are not written and are very flexible. There is no central authority such as a National Parliament to make the laws and no fixed system of courts to enforce the law. However, people obey custom and there are well established methods of settling disputes between them. They follow custom for many reasons. They may do so for fear either of shame or of being thrown out of the community or of their ancestors or of revenge. The most important reason for following custom is that it is intertwined with the way of life of the community …. (p. 7)

Modern state sovereignty diminished this sovereignty exercised by Pacific communities throughout the Pacific Islands prior to their colonisation by Europeans; and post-independence bureaucracies have further diminished their active roles in governance.

By ‘system’ Habermas means the rationalisation or ‘structural differentiation’ that brings order to events but consequently limits freedoms to some extent or other. A society may value healthcare, for instance, but its decision to allow into formal schooling only or those children who have been immunised brings order and control to a realm of action formerly unrestrained; each such new imposition of a rule by the ‘system’ reduces the scope of the autonomous ‘taken for granted’ operation of the lifeworld. In Habermas’ model, such impositions are inevitable and potentially necessary: the issue is how effectively actors in system and lifeworld communicate with each other. Giddens expresses these processes in another way. ‘The dynamics of modernity’, he suggests:

[…] derives from the separation of time and space and their recombination in forms which permit the precise time-space ‘zoning’ of social life; the dis-embedding of social systems (a phenomenon which connects closely with the factors involved in time-space separation), and the reflexive ordering and reordering of social relations in the light of continual inputs of knowledge effecting the actions of individuals and groups. (Giddens, 1990, pp. 16–17)

Contemporary democratic systems and values weave an unsteady path in Pacific societies between individual and collective worldviews and interests, with the rights, interests, and indeed responsibilities, of individuals, frequently deferring to the continuing rights, interests, and responsibilities of the ethnic/linguistic/lineage group of which that individual continues to be a member. The modern state introduced rule of law to remove arbitrary use of power – a value diametrically opposed to the highly contextualised application of law that has applied in the Pacific. In extending its sphere of authority to all individuals, the rule of law breaks the special ties that otherwise existed between individuals. It removed an elasticity that the rule of law classified as ‘arbitrariness’. The rule of law handles heterogeneity in a way that custom cannot. Rule of law is viewed as separate from society, and it separates. It is ‘law that rules’, rather than the ruler using law. Whereas the authority of law is absolute and universal, the authority of custom is relative, contextual, and contained in bounded communities.

The intensity of these ‘system and lifeworld’ societal interactions over competing conceptions of public-sector institutions and authority, rule-making, and policy processes can range from lethargic, to intense, or even conflict laden. Habermas and others have thus developed a theory of discourse ethics based on a distinction between strategic and communicative action in quest of understanding of communication processes. In strategic action:

[…] actors are interested solely in the success, ie, the consequences of the outcomes of their actions, [and] they will try to reach their objectives by influencing their opponent’s definition of the situation, and thus his decision or motives, through means by using weapons or goods, threats or enticements. (Habermas, 1990, p. 116)

Communicative action, on the other hand, is oriented towards reaching common understanding as well as achieving personal goals (Habermas, 1984). ² Ideally, public discourse towards this end draws on shared language and reasoning, as groups and individuals pursue their strategic (i.e. personal) interest in the broader context of society’s collective interests.

Drawing on the model proposed by Habermas, which envisages systems emerging from lifeworlds, this book suggests that Pacific Island societies experienced an inverted relationship in which their ‘systems’ of government were imposed by external powers during the colonial era rather than borne of their collective societal experience. This being the case, contemporary discursive practices that shape government and public policy in PICs can be viewed as Pacific lifeworlds engaging their ‘systems’ (i.e. their formal institutions of law and government) in efforts to restore – reclaim even – patterns of order more aligned to their traditions of authority, leadership, decision-making, and dispute resolution. Therefore, contemporary development plans across the Pacific region continue to reference culture before setting out government plans. What reads as ‘history’ to the Western reader is the ‘living present’ to the Pacific Islander. As Vanuatu’s National Development Plan for the period 2016–2030 explains:

For Vanuatu, development is much more than just acquiring material wealth. The country was founded on Melanesian values of respect, harmony, unity and forgiveness. These values shape our cultural heritage, which is the country’s strength. They are expressed through our oral traditions, languages, performing arts, social practices, rituals, festive events, traditional knowledge, and our deep connections with our ancestors, land and place, as well as the skills to be productive with our natural resources. Our development must be firmly anchored to these values that hold our society together. (Government of Vanuatu, 2016, p. 3)

In the case of Solomon Islands, a vision statement of 2005:

The Solomon Islands will be a nation that is proud of its religious and diverse cultural heritage, progressive in its endeavors, robust in its economy and political leadership and enjoying social justice, peace and harmony. (Solomon Islands, 2005)

Similar sentiments are expressed in the planning documents and vision statements across the Pacific.

Implicit in study of government is the study of governance. The distinction between these two terms is subtle, but important. The term government has multiple meanings, referring in narrow context to the majority group of members of the legislature who hold executive power, and referring in broader context to the departments of health, education, justice, immigration, public works, etc., that make up the public sector (the term used in this book to refer to bureaucracy). People hold the elected ‘government’ (i.e. the executive branch) responsible for the way in which public sector departments operate and for the results they achieve. This is the notion of responsible democratic government: elected leaders are expected to lead and manage public service employees on behalf of ‘the people’ and in pursuit of the ‘public interest’. ‘Government’ thus refers to those institutions and processes constitutionally recognised as possessing the legal right, and the political and administrative powers, to make decisions about a nation’s political and economic life, and to implement them.

The World Bank has defined governance as ‘the exercise of political power to manage a nation’s affairs’ and refers to the efficient use of resources – so it is a very economically oriented approach to governance. The Bank definition implies that a country’s essential features of a system of governance are the type of political regime; the processes by which authority is exercised in the management of the country’s economic and social resources; and the capacity of government to design, formulate, and implement policies and discharge functions.

The United Nations offers a more expansive definition of governance as comprising:

[…] the rule of law, effective state institutions, transparency and accountability in the management of public affairs, respect for human rights, and the meaningful participation of all citizens in the political processes of their countries and in decisions affective their lives. (U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan)

This is a useful definition. Implicit in it is the distinction between government and governance. Government refers to the authority of the state, and governance refers to partnerships that include the state, society, and economy. The term governance is more expansive as it encapsulates the interest of civil society, including religious communities, as well as businesses, cultural organisations, etc. – all of which are vitally concerned about the well-being of society and about government’s policy choices.

Kooiman (2003) describes governance as:

[…] the totality of interactions, in which public as well as private actors participate, aimed at solving societal problems or creating societal opportunities; attending to the institutions as contexts for these governing interactions; and establishing a normative foundation for all those activities.

In this definition, governance creates opportunities or solves problems. You govern in order to create opportunities. We can work towards establishing ideal conditions of governance concerning, for instance, how we would like members of parliament to speak with each other, how we would like public servants to speak with citizens. Interactions consist of dialogue, whether rudimentary or sophisticated, and the normative intent of this model implies that societies continually seek improvement. The quality of governance depends on the quality of interactions between the state, the civil society, and the market, rather than on the decisions of the state alone. The public sphere, to the extent that it exists in the Pacific context, was in each village or kin-group. In the modern period – because current problems transcend the scope of those institutions – this public sphere in which public opinion is formed through engagement and interaction requires greater responsive from civil societies and their constituents, as well as greater receptivity to non-state input by small island governments. These changes in turn require the opening up new communicative channels and new decision processes. Some examples of innovative spaces that allow for civil society participation are national economic summits, parliamentary and departmental committee hearings and other forms of intervention, and public participation in budget dialogue and preparation. But all too often such interactions are limited – as is also happening elsewhere – to bureaucrats, politicians, advisors, and consultants (Crossley & Roberts, 2004, pp. 305–306). Effective systems of government and policy-making depend on the adequacy of arrangements constituted from the lifeworld’s interactions with the holders of power and authority. Habermas (1996) describes the ideal ‘communicative action’ required of interaction between citizens in the lifeworld and the formal systems of law and administration established to regulate affairs amongst them. Thinking of governance as a set of relations between state, economy, and people provides a systematic view of how power is distributed and exercised. Political office holders certainly possess considerable power and responsibility, but private-sector leaders also have power, as do ‘the people’. Sciulli (1988) refers to this influence of non-state voices on state ordering as ‘societal constitutionalism’.

The term governance refers to processes undertaken to deliver government but also implies a ‘de-centering of the state’ such that non-state actors play increasingly influential roles in policy-making, in responsibility for implementation, and even in participation in monitoring and assessment. Ironically, Pacific societies operated governance arrangements prior to the imposition of colonial rule. For many, the state was already ‘de-centred’, and sovereignty was exercised at community level. At an abstract level, governance refers more to the ‘way affairs are conducted’ than to specific institutions such as the parliament, or the courts. It refers to the quality of leadership and management in society generally. It is vitally concerned with institutions, but more specifically, it is interested in ensuring that institutions provide adequate incentive structures to reward socially beneficial activity and to discourage the opposite.

The practice of governance has changed in recent decades in at least four important ways. Firstly, from ‘command, administration, management and control of societal institutions and spheres’ to a ‘steering’ through the use of more inclusive processes of decision-making and implementation (Van Kersbergen & Van Waarden, 2004, p. 2.); secondly towards more efficient and effective performance inspired by results obtained in the private sector; thirdly, towards a ‘good governance’ agenda that emphasises transparency and accountability; and fourthly, towards ‘multi-level governance’, with some responsibilities transferring towards supra-national and trans-national institutions and networks and some transferring to local level.

This paradigmatic shift in relations between these two axes of power – the one that links state actors from the highest authority down to local-level government – and the one that has witnessed the transformation of comparatively docile subjects into interactive citizens (and the frequent inability of these two foci of influence to understand each other) has resulted in tension and conflict in the PICs as much as in other parts of the world. The inability of states to treat their citizens with the regard that they have desired, or to generate the levels of economic growth and development they have anticipated, has fuelled an increased resentment at the unsupervised or overbearing use of public power, and has generated greater levels of public will to call various state agencies to account for the degree of fairness, appropriateness, and effectiveness of their actions.

Governance implies a complex set of relations between institutions and peoples as they meet their needs, mediate their differences, resolve their conflicts, and create opportunities. A single intervention may have multiple ramifications. Programmes of ‘Comprehensive Reform’, for instance, which have been implemented at the urging of such international agencies as the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank have had far greater impacts on Pacific states than have efforts to simply bring the cost of government into closer alignment with budget capacities. UNDP’s (1997) definition of governance as ‘… the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels’ and as comprising ‘… the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences’ (p. 1) highlights the quality of interaction between the public and the private spheres, and the need for both problem solving and opportunity creation. It alludes also to the notion of ‘responsive’ governance. Emphasis on these qualities follows the presumption that good governance improves the pace of human development. An associated presumption is that states exist to promote the welfare and progress of their citizens rather than that of their leaders.

The performance of Pacific Island states is under scrutiny following significant episodes of instability in the region at the turn of the century. Some have feared that ‘failed states’ might emerge similar to those on the African continent (Lambach, 2004) and refer to an ‘arc of instability’ (Reilly, 2000, 2004). The Asian Development Bank refers to Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea as ‘fragile’ (Martinez-Vazquez, 2011). Development agencies routinely issue ‘bleak’ prognoses, such as AusAID (2006):

The Pacific island countries, over the last two decades have performed poorly. The region suffers from high unemployment and joblessness, and governments are failing to meet the expectations of their citizens. Several countries suffer from social or political instability, or serious crime. Some face daunting health or environmental challenges. Without an upturn in economic growth, the future for these countries is as best uncertain and at worst bleak.

In this view, the Pacific Islands is a region of poor, oppressed, marginalised societies, run by incompetent and corrupt leaders who are keeping the masses ignorant whilst accumulating public rents. Much of the blame for Pacific states’ apparent economic, political, and social stagnation is attributed to a ‘leadership deficit’ and there is increasing demand for improved leadership in both the public and private sectors (Lawson, 1999; Madraiwiwi, 2007; Masi, 2005; Narsey, 2007; Sanga & Walker, 2005; Tuimaleali’ifano, 1998).

But the Pacific need not be seen this way. The Pacific Islands is a region full of promise, youth, and emerging professionalism, successfully connected to the global economy and absorbed by global politics. Both frames exist; it’s just a matter of what you want to focus on, and why. The task in the context of the PICs is to transform fragile states into smart, intelligent states – where intelligent implies the ability to handle knowledge, to learn from experience, and alter ineffective practices (Schuyt et al., 2007). Until mid-twentieth century, the Pacific countries were considered as remote and slow-moving, accessible only by long journeys by boat or plane, and by telegram more than by telephone or facsimile – let alone internet. Now, they are more accurately described as small island developing states connected globally, working at responding intelligently within their rapidly evolving environments, despite such ‘vulnerabilities’ as small land size, natural resources, and domestic markets, and their isolation from the world’s major capital and goods markets. Such tiny states as the Republic of Palau, the Kingdom of Tonga, and the Republic of Vanuatu have demonstrated their capacity as independent states – bearing in mind that this ‘independence’ includes extensive cooperation with international development agencies. Even the largest of the Pacific countries, Papua New Guinea, with a population of approximately 8 million, remains smaller than many of the world’s capital cities, and continues to integrate significant levels of development assistance into government operations. ³

The Pacific governance agenda focusses on improving human development outcomes and also includes improving the performance of parliament in both its legislative and its executive oversight functions, enhancing the accountability of the executive branch of government, enhancing the transparency with which government decisions and appointments are made, strengthening the rule of law by ensuring support for improvement of judicial services, attending to adequate protections of human rights, promoting human rights education; improving the democratic quality of electoral systems whilst minimising the disruptive effect of political activities on state services, and promoting and protecting the role of the media as an active agent of civil society. Other challenges include clarifying the public will (due to the nature of political discourse, and particularly the model in Western democracies of ‘opposing parties’); maintaining judicial independence; and improving relations between states in federations and between the central and provincial administrations in unitary states. There are also challenges for constitutional dialogue, such as re-examining the place of custom and traditional authority in government systems, and there is the increasingly important challenge of how best to interact with international organisations and global public policy networks. The so-called ‘wicked’ and ‘trans-boundary’ problems that affecting health, food, land ownership, water, energy, and so many other aspects of human security, have national dimensions, but in the global era system boundaries are those of the planet rather than of individual nations.

There are thus so many important questions to be addressed: are the public institutions in PICs well suited to the challenges of small states in the global era? Have they developed public values that adequately express traditional norms as well as contemporary ones? Do they have adequate mechanisms for intergovernmental relations at sub- and supra-national levels? Will their economies sustain current and future generations? Are their policy settings driven by domestic needs and aspirations, or are they mere replicas of generic policy settings from other lands? Is justice attainable by small states in the global order as currently constituted?

There certainly are immense challenges to social, economic, and political stability: it is the quality of response that matters. The Pacific states will remain viable to the extent that they meet the needs and aspirations of their rising generations: better provision of services, solutions for such urgent matters as urban growth and flight of human capital, stability in government, transparency, and openness of government decision-making and action, and greater freedom of expression. If we take as axiomatic that humanity’s purpose is to transform the conditions of its existence rather than simply submit to them; and that ignorance results in oppression whereas education leads to emancipation, government can be viewed as a technology for societal transformation. This collective effort requires public modes of discourse that result in agreed agendas for action. Failure to achieve this leads to the ineffectiveness and ultimately to the failure of public values and public institutions.

Given the considerations set out above, this examination of the structure and operation of the public sector across the Pacific explores how to set out evidence as to how public policy is constructed, implemented, evaluated, and improved. In attempting this, it examines the roles of political actors and parliament, the public sector, development agencies, and other stakeholders. It examines dialogue processes, drawing on government annual reports, vision statements, and strategic plans; donor and development agency reports; academic studies; media coverage; and practitioner reflections.

To the greatest extent possible, I have endeavoured to assist the reader by drawing on official literature which is less accessible and thus most beneficial to the reader. Each type of report has its value: government reports often focus on task accountability; donor reports seek efficiency and effectiveness; practitioners can learn from each other’s experience; press reports are often sensationalist but do assist with highlighting problems; whilst academic literature looks for over-arching theory. Some of the observations made in this book also draw from my own notes ‘from the field’ – seminars and conferences, briefings, consultancies, and interviews (as not all views candidly expressed are committed to paper). The important topic of digital government, or eGovernment, is not given full extensive coverage in this book as it has recently been written about in Achieving Sustainable E-Government in Pacific Island States (Cullen & Hassall, 2017).

With the foregoing commentary in mind, the book proceeds in three chapters. ‘Pacific Islands Lifeworlds’ introduces the geographic, social, economic, and political contexts of the Pacific and its three sub-regions: Melanesia, Polynesia, and Micronesia. The second chapter lays out the government systems as they have evolved through periods of colonisation and independence. This includes consideration of constitutional frameworks, the structure and operation of executive, legislative and judicial powers, and identification of such persistent problems of government in the region as formation and stability of the executive, legislative functioning, the allocation of vertical and horizontal bureaucratic scope, and ethics and accountability.

The third and final chapter of the book examines policy-making in regional, national, and global context. It analyses policy processes, including issues of multi-level governance (Pacific regionalism and sub-regionalism, and local government), the role of development partners and agencies, policy transfer and policy coherence, capacity development and public-sector leadership, civil society engagement, communication and transparency, and the perennial challenges of implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and policy review. The chapter then reviews the main policy problems in the region – both urban and rural: basic service provision and human security, including health, education, transport, communications, energy, housing, poverty reduction, disaster reduction, climate change mitigation, and economic development. An underlying theme to this section is the slow emergence of the regulatory state and the states’ continued direct involvement in markets. A further section examines the position of small states in the global era. It reviews the impact of globalisation on small states, and their engagement with international/global organisations – principally the United Nations and World Bank/IMF but also global trade regimes. The book concludes by mapping three potential futures for the Pacific: a ‘status quo’ option, in which current government structures and processes continue ‘as is’; a ‘deterioration’ option, in which the quality of government in a number of Pacific states declines drastically through state capture by elite interests, and a ‘transformation’ option, in which best practices are adopted and government focusses on the generation of public goods. Whereas the third option is most desired, it is also the hardest of the three to pursue, and so the book concludes on a partially optimistic but otherwise cautionary note.