Showing posts with label Government-Church partnership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government-Church partnership. Show all posts

Subsidiarity: The Other Flavour in Decentralisaon by Emmanuel Narokobi

Without a doubt, Decentralisation has a conflicting taste in our mouths today. Institutionally and legally we already have decentralisation, with examples like the District Development Authorities (DDA's). Yet we are anything but decentralised in decision making, and principally in how budgets and government finances are operated.

Within the flavours of Decentralisation I wanted to expand a little on the concept of 𝗦𝘂𝗯𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 which is touched on at 01:06:00 of the video.


Any large organisation needs control to make it run efficiently. In today's world, there is absolutely no reason why organisations cannot be decentralised because of the technologies we have today. The overwhelming majority of Papua New Guineans have a mobile phone now so there is no excuse. On a global scale the rise of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin exemplifies the spirit and practical application of decentralised systems where control of the whole is placed at the tips of the network. In other words, many individuals operate in their own interests but with a common belief in the value of the network that serves everyone.

But Decentralisation is still a human system and the discipline to practice it to extract value out of an organisation is still evident with or without modern ICT. How else did the British East India Company rule and operate in India for 300 years? How else did the Catholic Church become the world's first multi-national?

In fact, Subsidiarity is a management concept that was developed by the Catholic Church by Pope Pius XI in 1931. The concept, however, has broader philosophical roots in the idea that matters should be handled by the smallest, least centralised competent authority, like a Parish Priest. Meaning that higher levels of authority like the Arch Diocese should only intervene when issues cannot be effectively managed at a more local level.

Subsidiarity therefore promotes decentralisation by advocating that decisions be made as close to the affected individuals or communities as possible to empower lower levels of society—such as individuals, families, and local communities—by allowing them to address their own needs and problems, thereby fostering greater engagement, responsiveness, and efficiency in governance and organizational management.

As a concept in Government, Subsidiarity aims to strike a balance between autonomy and support, ensuring that local governing authorities can operate independently while receiving necessary assistance from higher authorities when required. This approach not only respects local capabilities and knowledge but also prevents unnecessary centralisation, encouraging a more participatory and effective governance structure. One particular aspect that I like personally about it is that it promotes local communities to do as much as they can themselves until they absolutely need assistance from higher authorities.

Now to be clear, Decentralisation involves the redistribution of authority and resources, including government budgets, from central to local levels to improve efficiency and governance through structural reforms. Subsidiarity, on the other hand, is a principle stating that decisions, including budgetary ones, should be made at the lowest competent level, with higher authorities intervening only when necessary. So while decentralisation focuses on the broader transfer of power and financial resources, subsidiarity emphasises the appropriateness of the decision-making level to enhance local autonomy and participation.

You may then ask, well what does it actually look like in practice? Well, let's take for example our beloved Con-Act PNG program spending billions for roadworks. How do we spend public funds in a way that builds local capacity at all levels of government, that maximises the use of our money and minimises corruption?

I'll explain in this way assuming that Allan Bird's "Block Grants" have been fairly and efficiently delivered to each Province already.

Local Level

A village community identifies that their local roads are deteriorating, affecting daily life and access to essential services. The local government, understanding the immediate and specific needs of the village, allocates part of its budget to repair and maintain these local roads. They employ local workers and use local resources, ensuring that the project is managed efficiently and in a way that suits the community's specific requirements.

District Level

For more substantial road projects, such as connecting multiple villages or improving major local routes, the district government steps in. Recognizing that such projects require more resources and technical expertise, the district government allocates funds and oversees the project. They coordinate with local governments to ensure the needs of each community are met and manage the logistics and technical aspects of the project.

National Level

When it comes to large-scale infrastructure projects, such as building highways that connect different regions of the country, the national government takes responsibility. These projects require significant funding, advanced technology, and comprehensive planning that goes beyond the capacity of local and district authorities. The national government ensures these projects align with broader economic and development goals, providing the necessary resources and expertise.

Example in Action

In the Highlands region, a local village council uses its budget to repair local roads damaged by seasonal rains, employing local labour and materials. For a larger project to pave and expand a road connecting several villages, the district government intervenes, providing additional funding and technical support. For the construction of a new highway connecting the Highlands to the coastal cities, the national government takes charge, coordinating efforts, securing funding, and employing advanced construction firms.

What we see here is that if the funding by Government isn't hoarded and controlled in Waigani and fair budget distributions as the proposed "Block Grants" are given to each Province, then the concept of Subsidiarity will ensure that roadworks are handled at the most appropriate level, promoting efficiency, local engagement, and effective use of resources.
PNG has all the money, laws and institutions to finally provide equal participation and benefits to everyone. It's obvious that our current centralised decision-making is glaringly flawed, yet we still love the taste of failure whilst a few in power continue to benefit from the sweetness of corruption.


________
Disclaimer: The article and accompanying video presented herein have been republished by PNG Insight for the benefit of our readership. The original article, authored by Immanuel Narokobi, and the video, produced by Ganjiki D Wayne for his Tokaut Tokstret Podcast, offer insights of such significance that we believe it is imperative for the current and future generations of this nation to be aware of them. Please note that all credit for the original content goes to the respective author and producer.

Advantage of Tuition Fee Free Policy: Education Ministry and Department Partner with Churches - Key

PNG Human Development Index (HDI) trend showed that 1995 was the year when PNG lost development momentum it gained after 1975 Independence. The government recognising churches and the National Department of Education as the main actors in education development could be an advantage for achieving long term plans.

Advantages of TFF policy in PNG

PNG development fluctuates -struggle to improve

Corruption in high public offices after the 1992 election is the direct effect of 30 years (to 2022) when PNG is recently classed as a Low Human Development Country. 

Many Papua New Guineas are asking has PNG made improvements in the recent HDI global rank? Sadly, the answer is no. PNG's HDI ranks yo-yos between 153 and 154 out of 188 countries - up or down by 1 point. 

That means the measured global index showed PNG progress is less to nill in the last 10 years to 2020.

What went wrong? 

Government past and present development policies have been 'reactionary' rather than 'strategic for the long term'.

The changes (Curriculum, School Structure, Free Education Policy, Examination and Standard Measurements) have direct effects on development.

Free Education Policy can only be sustainable if the Churches and the Education Department are the main ACTORS. Unfortunately, NDoE and Churches are spectators in this TFF policy - 60% of the TFF grant is handled by entities other than NDoE or Church establishments.

What matters in PNG Education

In fact, NDoE and Churches have the capacity/network to deliver the Govt's TFF policy. No doubt.

The provincial and district network has been established since 1975. The 60% (~K400 million) allocated by the govt can be, rightfully, pumped into churches and NDoE - direct. 

A detailed write-up on this topic can be found here and here

Churches in PNG and Govt Partnership Vital for Development (MDGs & SDGs)


Should the Churches in PNG be blamed for the poor attainment of MDG (and SDG) indicators? This post aims to address the question paused in this article by asking whether the churches in PNG have become passive in providing education and health services lately.

church and govt partnership

Recommended reading: Lutheran Church in PNG Urged to Build University with Govt Support

Churches in PNG and Development 

For anyone to blame the churches (and its development agencies) on PNG’s dismal performance in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) undermines the fantastic work churches have been doing in the country. 
Number of churches’ educational and health set-ups (revealed in the table, ADRA Australia, 2015, p. 3) indicated that churches are equal development partners. 
Their network needs not only to be strengthened but also effectively funded.

This article, firstly, eliminates the opinion that churches must be blamed for PNG’s poor performances, in the last 15 years, to achieve MDGs indicators. In fact, the Church leaders identified the government’s funding as a major constraint (Aupong 2016). 

The report also showed that the government’s budgetary allocation was reduced by more than half this year, 2016. Churches cannot shoulder any responsibility when they work in challenging conditions. 

They must not be blamed when government budgetary allocation is either cut or not released to them. 

The government’s recognition of churches (RNZ October 7 2013) is one thing said; but a cordial partnership according to Bishop of the Diocese of Bougainville, Bernard Unabali, must be built on Christian moral (JOSEPH April 28, 2016).

Secondly, the presentation emphasises the need for Govt of PNG to do a critical self-search as a partner. The PNGCPP case study identified government lack of consistent engagement with churches as one of the main constraints (ADRA Australia, 2015). 

All in all, churches must not shoulder the blame for PNG not achieving millennium development goals and country indicators. 

CHURCHES IN PNG AND THEIR AGENCIES KEY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS

The seven mainstream churches and their development agencies in partnership with the government were mentioned by Volker Hauck, Angela Mandie-Filer and Joe Bolger (2005). And further discussed (by ADRA, 2015) in a case study titled Sustained Investment in Church Development Capacity

Both research work, though 10 years apart, had reiterated the significance of reaching the rural population through a Church-State partnership.

The PNG Churches Partnership Program (PNG CPP) established in 2004 by Australia and PNG governments seek to involve churches to deliver education, health and others social services to people in rural areas (ADRA, 2015). 
Over ninety percent (Volker Hauck et al., 2005 p.11) of PNG’s population are Christians, eighty seven percent (ADRA, 2015, p.3) belong to the churches in PNG CPP. Many live in the rural areas. 
In fact, these churches are an important development partner as far as reaching the mass of the population is concerned. 

For development to trickle down to the people, churches’ network must be utilised as ‘vehicle’ for goods and services delivery. Volker Hauck et al., (2005) acknowledged that churches are the main stakeholders.
 ‘PNG society is largely religious and as such Christian churches are important social actors that play a significant role in the country’ (reiterated in ADRA, Australia, 2015, p. 3). 

Indicatively, churches prominence within the community is a vital link between the people and the government.

Consistency and mutual engagement has to prevail amongst the partners like the 
  • PNG Department of National Planning and Monitoring (DoNPM), 
  • Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and 
  • Churches in PNG. 
Both past (Peter Mar 12, 2010); (Taru Oct 12, 2012) and present (Aupong 2016) governments acknowledged the significance of churches’ participation in nation-building. 

‘The Minister for National Planning and Monitoring Charles Abel says churches are a major provider of basic social services in PNG and the government recognises their role in improving the lives of Papua New Guineans’ (RNZ October 7 2013).

A recent policy framework called the Partnership Policy Framework between Government of PNG (GoPNG) and Christian Churches in PNG was written to include churches in formulation and execution of future development agendas. 

Its purpose is two-fold: to work together to achieve integral human development and to create an ongoing partnership to advance development in the country (Department of National Planning and Monitoring, [DoNPM], 2016, p. 2). 

Past reports have indicated that the GoPNG has either cut funding or delayed budgetary allocation in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and is inconsistent in engaging with churches in PNG and the donor partners. 

CONCLUSION 

Ministerial statements and policy guides would only be rewarding if they are complemented with action. 

It is vital for all parties (the PNG govt, churches and donor partners) to sustain the work of churches. Involve the churches. Bring them into the picture when social developments are concerned.

REFERENCES

Adventist Development and Relief Agency [ADRA], Australia. Papua New Guinea: A Case Study of Sustained Investment in Church Development Capacity. Case Study, Wahroonga NSW: ADRA, 2015, 6.
Aupong, Serah. Funding Challenges for PNG Church-State Partnership Program. TV News, Port Moresby: National EMTV News, 2016.
CatNews New Zealand. February 9, 2016. http://cathnews.co.nz/2016/02/09/church-health-services-in-png-struggle-on-alone/ (accessed July 18, 2016).
DoNPM. Partnership Policy Framework between Government of Papua New Guinea and the Christian churches in Papua New Guinea. Policy Framework, Port Moresby: Department of National Planning and Monitoring, 2016, 12.
JOSEPH, MORKANA. Government-church partnership program to cease. News, Port Moresby: Post Courier, April 28, 2016.
Peter, Sea. Incentive fund helps PNG. News, Port Moresby: Post Courier, Mar 12, 2010.
RNZ. PNG announces church-state partnership programme. News, Wellington: Radio New Zealand - Pacific, October 7 2013.
Taru, Benstead. PNG can't do without churches: MP. News, Port Moresby: Post Courier, Oct 12, 2012.
Volker Hauck, Angela Mandie-Filer and Joe Bolger. Ringing the church bell: The role of churches in governance and public performance in Papua New Guinea. Discussion Paper, Maastricht: The European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM), 2005, 39.
Yakham, Henzy. Good news for PNG churches. News, Port Moresby: Post Courier, Jan 25, 2012.


Lutheran Church in PNG Urged to Build University with Govt Support


POST A COMMENT.

SEARCH THE ENTIRE SITE HERE

Latest on Vote of No Confidence in Papua New Guinea 2024

Latest on Vote of No Confidence in Papua New Guinea 2024
CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO FIND OUT