EAP - The Pacific Infrastructure Challenge - World Bank (2006).pdf

6.2.2 Demographic Issues in the Region
Population Size and Density
Small and dispersed populations make it more costly to provide infrastructure
services.
Countries with very dispersed populations, such as Papua New Guinea, Solomon
Islands or Vanuatu, may find it more difficult to coordinate policies and investment
programs than more densely populated countries like Marshall Islands or some of the
Caribbean countries. There are particular challenges in understanding and balancing
the priorities of dispersed communities. The practical costs of communicating with
the remote communities, and achieving the appropriate levels of information and
representation can also be very high.
Dispersion also makes institutional accountability difficult. These countries have
many small isolated villages, which are far removed from central government control
or oversight. It is difficult for government officials to frequently visit these remote
communities, if at all. They are therefore less likely to be accountable to government,
and the authority of the village chief is likely to take precedence.
Very small populations also limit countries’ institutional options. This creates a
further challenge for accountability. For example, it is more difficult to introduce
competition or private sector involvement in countries with small populations as
there are fewer people available to undertake the necessary oversight functions. In
infrastructure, institutional complexity does not diminish with smaller levels of
output. This creates higher transaction costs for small populations.
Because infrastructure is complex and capital intensive, it is important to plan
properly, to clearly assess the risks and balance the costs and benefits. Pacific
countries with very small populations, such as the Micronesian countries, have
limited resources with which to clearly analyze the risks of big (relative to the size of
the country) infrastructure projects. Risk assessment and planning can be outsourced
to foreign experts, but this raises the costs significantly, and if done with donor aid,
can weaken institutional coordination and accountability further, as discussed in
section 6.2.1 above.
Ethnic Diversity
Pacific countries have very strong traditional social and political systems. Good
institutional performance is difficult to achieve in countries with dispersed and
disparate tribal and ethnic groups or multiple isolated groups each with own immediate
self-interest and communication difficulties between them. In Melanesian countries,
for example, where there is an extensive clan system, ethnic tensions have resulted in
frequent changes of governments over the past few years, and have provided
challenges to good governance. By comparison, Samoa’s relative homogeneity is
perceived to have contributed to its success. It has not had to contend with the multiracial,
multi-cultural and multi-lingual difficulties experienced in other Pacific countries.
The hierarchical chiefly system with its village councils works seamlessly with church
organizations and helps to provide a context of stability in which conflict or financial
hardships can be resolved 9 .
All Pacific countries have formal governance structures and institutions, but they are
often overlaid by a ‘shadow’ or informal governance system, which is based on
ethnic clans or groups. Government decisions can often be overridden by chiefs,
weakening coordination and accountability. Because this is unpredictable, it also
presents a challenge for risk management.
Institutional accountability is more difficult to achieve in countries where indigenous
groups are strong. This is aggravated by the small population sizes. Together, these
9 “Samoa on Track” Fiji Islands Business, August 2004
26