How can aid be decolonized and localized in the Pacific? Yielding and wielding power

Abstract

MotivationThe colonial legacies of aid and development in the Pacific continues to be at the centre of policy debate. The ideal is to decolonise and localise the practice of aid and development. However, decolonisation and localisation have become highly contested in their definition and proposed practical approaches. We call decolonisation and localisation ‘decolocalisation.’PurposeThis paper aims to explore perspectives and proposals for decolocalisation in the Pacific Islands.Methods and approachWe talked to five key informants, all local to their islands, all with much development experience; we held a focus group; and we combined these insights and learnings with our own experience as Pacific Islanders engaged with development. Our analysis is reflexive.FindingsDevelopment practice in the Pacific Islands typically overvalues expert knowledge and undervalues local knowledge. Most aid and development discourse stressed financial figures, charts and statistical assertions overwhelmingly from a donor perspective; Pacific non‐statistical, human and embodied contextual realities are overlooked or discounted. Hierarchies are created that privilege outsiders and discriminate against islanders.A practical operationalisation of decolocalisation can begin with the recognition and practice of outsiders yielding and insiders wielding power.Policy implicationsWe recommend decolocalisation as a frame to examine and critique colonial vestiges in Pacific aid and development. Decolocalisation can be practiced by outsiders yielding and insiders wielding power in aid and development.Decolocalisation is not an ultimate solution to a highly complex issue but offers a conceptual position; one that allows Pacific Islander scholars, thought leaders, aid and development practitioners to further unpack the nuances and issues around aid and development from a Pacific Islander perspective.

Pacific perspectives on aid and development

“…Donors too often get to call the shots. At its worst, this can lead to geopolitics and commercial interests distorting the aid process (Meki & Tarai, 2023;Taylor & Middleby, 2023). It can be more subtly disempowering too, such as in the way that simple changes of donor focus, or personnel, can lead to wasted time and effort within communities (Taylor & Middleby, 2023).…”

“…Teaurere et al (2023) emphasize the resilience of Pacific communities. Meki and Tarai (2023) provide an example of a local civil society organization in Papua New Guinea succeeding on its own terms, and Fidali et al (2023) show how grassroots organizations have adapted to the challenges of accessing aid funding.…”