The desire of Filipinas to find husbands abroad, particularly of European extraction, is difficult to ignore for the anthropologist who continually finds him/herself positioned as a potential transnational dating agent, chat-room tutor or even highly eligible marriage prospect. Extending analyses that view this phenomenon as multifaceted and irreducible to economics, we situate the search for transnational marriages in the context of imaginings of self and other. Drawing on ethnographic research in two areas of the Philippines, we consider some of the ways in which Western men are constructed as desirable marriage partners, relating this to broader imaginings of national difference. We then argue that finding a foreign husband may be about more than changing personal and familial circumstances, more even than a desire for the romanticised other. The desire for transnational marriage can be seen as part of a process of selfactualisation: a quest for knowledge and experience of the world through which a paradox of self and other can be reconciled and the self remade.

The New Poverty Agenda is said to represent a break with the past and to offer a rationale for aid that is built on partnerships towards a common and realizable goal - the elimination of poverty. However, recent critiques have highlighted problems with the practice of poverty policy, and particularly limitations identified from its association with global actors which stand accused of contributing to poverty. For some, there is no new agenda; a poverty focus merely represents a different path to the same ends (i.e., political reform and economic adjustment). This paper investigates the implications for smaller donors, such as Australia and New Zealand, of adopting poverty policy as defined by the World Bank and others. It argues that certain contexts, such as the Pacific, demonstrate the weaknesses of an all-encompassing policy that remains muddled and contradictory. In terms of effective partnerships, much more could be gained by first seeking to learn more about the nature of poverty in the immediate region and its underlying causes.

Recent years have seen a burgeoning interest in developing indicator frameworks for 'Indigenous wellbeing'. Implicit in each of the frameworks are particular conceptions of what constitutes the 'good life' for Indigenous peoples and what 'Indigenous development' should entail. In developing these frameworks, then, certain judgements must be made about whether statistical equality should be prioritised as a 'development' goal. This issue has generated long-standing debate and in this context must be broached anew. In this paper we briefly examine the growing interest in Indigenous wellbeing and outline three prominent indicator frameworks: the Productivity Commission's indicators for 'Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage'; the 'capability indicators' developed by the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership; and the indicators of wellbeing developed by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The first prioritises statistical equality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians; the second adds a concern with 'capabilities'; and the last emphasises the importance of distinct cultural preferences. We offer an assessment of these approaches, drawing in part on Amartya Sen's work. We argue that in seeking to improve the wellbeing of Indigenous Australians, policy-makers should not only make their own normative assumptions clear, but also be aware of the implications of their decisions for constituents with different worldviews.Statistical equality and cultural difference in Indigenous wellbeing frameworks: A new expression of an enduring debate

Post‐development theorists have reminded us that ‘development’ is a cultural construct—a set of organising assumptions through which we order the world and understand our place in it. As such, notions of development are not singular but vary between different groups of people. This paper seeks to bring further nuance to these understandings. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork on Siquijor Island in the Philippines, it explores contending ideals of the good life—one based on material accumulation, the other on austerity—at once valued by most residents. It shows that notions of development vary not only between groups but that individuals can simultaneously hold multiple ideals of development. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The term 'colonial mentality' is popularly used among many Filipinos to refer to a tendency to compare themselves negatively to Amerikanos. This paper explores the everyday form such deprecating self/other constructions take on the island of Siquijor in the Central Visayas region of the archipelago. It sheds light on how these constructions are socially situated, deployed and reproduced, their limits and their effects. It shows that comparisons between categories of Filipino and Amerikano must be understood in relation to local hierarchies. On Siquijor, local imaginings of Amerikano lifestyles and bodies not only serve as reference points for ideals of affluence and beauty, but act as markers of prestige in competitions for status between neighbours and kin, sustaining a sense of Amerikano superordinancy. While, on Siquijor, superordinancy presumes neither innate nor moral superiority (and, indeed, there exists ambivalence towards the relative moral status of Amerikanos and Filipinos), there is a strong presumption specifically that the 'failure' of the Philippines to achieve similar levels of affluence to the US is due to moral deficiencies of the Filipino self. Thus, outward-looking desire is contained by inward-looking discontent, the latter keeping the former from spilling over into demands for change to a global status quo.