The inverse sovereignty effect: Aid, scale and neostructuralism in Oceania

Abstract

Theories and practices of international aid have stressed the need for the full participation of recipients. This approach has been strengthened by international agreements such as the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in 2005, which called for 'ownership' of development strategies by recipient agencies. This seemed to promise recipient governments an increased stake in the way aid was used for development and poverty alleviation. However, in practice, the new aid agenda has actually increased demands on recipients with new conditions over the management of aid funds, the setting of development strategies and the meeting of other global obligations. This issue is of particular concern in small Pacific Island states where the small size of government is coupled with increasing demands from donors for consultation, accountability and engagement to create what we argue is an 'inverse sovereignty' effect: despite the rhetoric of ownership and independence, recipient states are actually losing control over their development strategies, policies and programmes.

‘Governed freedom’ in Oceania: AusAID, subjectivation and the practice of critique in studies of governmentality

“…Similar analyses are evident in the context of development intervention in Oceania (Ilcan and Lacey, 2011;McGregor et al, 2013;Murray and Overton, 2011; see also Fry and Kabutaulaka, 2008;Hau'ofa, 1995). Ilcan and Lacey (2011), for example, offer a critical account of the 'governing of the poor' as part of governmental rationalities and technologies in what they refer to as the 'new global-aid regime' (p. 5).…”

Foreign Aid to the Pacific: Trends and Developments in the Twenty‐First Century

“…The 1990s and 2000s also saw the emphasis on policies widen to incorporate governance (broadly defined), institutions and political economy. The role of the state was more explicitly recognised in this period (Murray & Overton ).…”

‘Blue boats’ and ‘reef robbers’: A new maritime security threat for the Asia Pacific?

“…Concerns about sovereignty have also influenced the relationship of PICs with Australia and New Zealand – the two larger, more advanced ‘metropolitan’ states in the region (e.g. see Murray and Overton, ). Australia and New Zealand, in part driven by their own national interests to secure a ‘peaceful’ Pacific (i.e.…”