Source: The National Editorial

WEST New Britain Governor Sasindran Muthuvel recently raised concerns over the Government’s delays and shortfalls in the disbursement of essential funds needed for development.

The outspoken leader of the province, which is one of the main economic contributors to the country through its large oil palm industry, has constantly called  for the timely disbursement of money from the national level to the sub-national level.

The funding in question is that of the provincial service improvement programme (PSIP) and district service improvement programme (DSIP).

Appealing for the timely release for the appropriate funds, Muthuvel said this was vital for maintaining and improving education, transport, agriculture, and law and order sectors within the province, of which the SIP funds are meant to be used for.

This issue, among many others that continue to plague Papua New Guinea, is not new as we have repeatedly seen the lack of development at the local level due to delays in funding.

The SIP funds began as the Village Services Scheme in 1982 with an annual allocation of K10,000 for each MP to spend at their discretion on any community development project.

That then increased to K20,000, to K40,000, to K240,000, then up to K1 million and to K10 million today per district annually for DSIP, and K5 million per district under PSIP.

Based on evidence from researchers, it is also important to note that the politicisation of development grants, such as that of the SIP funds, has also been utilised as a tool to concentrate and consolidate political support and power.

This strategy, although not new, has seen the release of grants to coalition members, while the tactics of delay have been experienced by those in the opposition who encounter greater difficulty in accessing the much-needed development grants.

SIP funds, to a certain extent, are often withheld from districts whose members are in the Opposition who end up with delayed or no funding in the financial year.

This results in MPs needing to protect their political careers by vying to be coalition partners of the reigning government in order to have access to these funds.

This tactic serves as an effective strategy to suppress those that may have different opinions to   the policies and projects of the government of the day.

Ultimately, good governance and service delivery has been undermined by the systematic weakening of provincial and local level governments responsible for their respective people.

At the same time, so-called money politics has resulted in the overpoliticisation and manipulation of funding.

These elements, and many others, have contributed to the similarities to that of African countries associated with neopatrimonialism, a form of rule commonly associated with ineffective governance.

Even with the introduction of the District Development Authority (DDA) Act 2014, the delivery of services by local level governments has been further isolated.

The introduction of the act was part of the third comprehensive reform on decentralisation.

Unlike other reforms, the DDA arrangement was meant to directly fund development at the district level and bypass much of the bureaucratic red tape.

In the process, its operation often also bypasses the Public Finance Management Act and Auditor General Act.

However, since its introduction, there has not been much improvement in the level of service delivery in most parts of the country.

Many districts are not fully funded and funding has been delayed when needed the most and even postponed to the end of the financial year at most times as mentioned earlier due to politics.

Researchers have suggested that  hundreds of millions of Kina earmarked for projects in electorates have been misappropriated.

It is clear that the reforms, made under the cover of decentralisation, have promoted a situation in which the careers and interests of certain individuals often have taken priority over the actual needs of the people at the local level.

The management of these funds is also worrisome as there are cases of misuse at the sub-national level due to a lack of capacity and compliance.

There have been talks that such funding for MPs would be better suited as constitutional grants which would allow for its fair and statutory distribution across all electorates in the country.

However, only time will tell when this will actually happen.

For now, almost anything done these days in the country, money is needed for payment before work can start on projects.

Therefore, all necessary funding for its intended purpose and people needs to be given when due if the country is to ever develop for the better.