Informal social protection in Pacific Island
countries—strengths and weaknesses
AusAID Pacific social protection series:
poverty, vulnerability and social protection
in the Pacific
March 2012
© Commonwealth of Australia 2012
Published by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), Canberra, March 2012.
This document is online at www.ausaid.gov.au/publications
The principal author of this research report is Frank Ellis. This research paper benefited from detailed comments provided by Richard Brown,
John Connell, John Gibson and
Peter Whiteford.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of AusAID.
For further information, contact:
AusAID
GPO Box 887
Canberra ACT 2601
Phone (02) 6206 4000
Facsimile (02) 6206 4880
Internet www.ausaid.gov.au
Contents
1.
Introduction to the research ........................................................................................................................ 3
2.
About this research paper ........................................................................................................................... 4
3.
Received wisdom about informal social protection ................................................................................... 5
4.
Factors eroding informal social protection ................................................................................................. 7
5.
Gaps in informal social protection.............................................................................................................. 8
6.
New flows of informal support—remittances ............................................................................................ 9
7.
Can formal social protection strengthen informal social protection? ....................................................... 11
8.
Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................................................................... 13
9.
References ................................................................................................................................................ 14
1. Introduction to the research
Pacific Island countries (PICs) have varying social protection systems, informal and traditional. These systems are
important in supporting the most vulnerable members of society and those affected by personal and natural disasters.
In the Pacific Islands social protection has typically been an area of low government involvement. Knowledge about
formal social protection in the region is limited, and there have been no studies on the impact of such schemes on
poverty, human development and economic growth.
There is no one agreed definition of social protection, but this body of research—commissioned by AusAID—uses the
term to refer to the set of public actions aimed at tackling poverty, vulnerability and social exclusion, as well as
providing people with the means to cope with major risks they may face throughout their life.
Social protection’s core instruments include regular and predictable cash or in-kind transfers to individuals and
households. More broadly, social protection includes instruments that improve people’s access to education,
healthcare, water, sanitation and other vital services.
Traditional social protection in the Pacific Islands is stretched by new challenges, most recently the 2008–09 global
food, fuel and financial crisis. This has led to greater attention to innovative social protection mechanisms that tackle
chronic poverty, mitigate the impact of shocks, improve food security and overcome financial constraints to accessing
social services. This attention has been driven by the success of mechanisms in other parts of the world.
In an environment with limited or conflicting information about patterns of poverty and vulnerability, knowing
whether social protection represents a sound, or even appropriate, policy choice is difficult. This research looks at
poverty, vulnerability and social protection across the dimensions of health and education, gender, social cohesion,
economic growth and traditional protection networks in the Pacific Islands. It aims to improve the evidence base on
formal and informal social protection programs and activities in the Pacific region and make recommendations on
support for strengthening and expanding social protection coverage so it can contribute to achieving development
outcomes.
The research was conducted by social protection experts and is based on case studies in Kiribati, Samoa, Solomon
Islands and Vanuatu—representing the three sub-regions of Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia—and a review of
secondary literature. It also commissioned a set of research papers:

an overview of poverty and vulnerability in the Pacific, and the potential role of social protection

a briefing on the role of social protection in achieving health and education outcomes

a life-cycle approach to social protection and gender

an assessment of the role of social protection in promoting social cohesion and nation-building in the Pacific

an assessment of the relationship between social protection and economic growth

a review of the strengths and weaknesses of informal social protection in the Pacific

a micro-simulation analysis of social protection interventions in Kiribati, Samoa, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.
2. About this research paper
This research paper, ‘Informal social protection in the Pacific—strengths and weaknesses’, starts with a brief summary
of findings. It then sets out a brief summary of received wisdom about informal social protection in PICs and
examines the way traditional social protection tends to break down, not just in the Pacific but in traditional societies
more widely. The next section identifies the gaps in traditional informal social protection, both in its historical forms,
and as a result of being weakened over the decades. The research paper moves on to consider new flows of informal
support to poor and vulnerable families in the Pacific, especially remittance income from relatives living in urban
areas or working abroad for different time periods. The ways formal social protection can interact positively are
considered in a mutually reinforcing way with informal social protection, drawing on international experience.
A summary of the research paper’s findings are:
Informal social protection in the main refers to traditional safety nets—the ability of traditional Pacific societies to
ensure all members have an adequate subsistence living, and to prevent them from suffering hunger and deprivation in
the event of personal misfortune.
The received wisdom is that this continues to work well, but some scepticism exists. Beliefs about efficacy need to be
balanced by evidence about outcomes. Traditional safety nets do not entirely avert poverty, vulnerability and social
exclusion in modern Pacific states; there are holes in the safety net.
Informal social protection is eroded by diminishing flexibility in land allocation, increasing reliance on markets, rising
overall poverty (too poor to practice reciprocity), weakening commitment to social obligations, increasing inequality
and growing urban settlements with diluted clan identities.
The gaps typically identified in informal social protection tend to relate more to service delivery (broader social
policy) than to social transfers. Core gaps cover health, education, gender, sanitation, potable water and youth
employment. However, other gaps can be addressed by social transfers, for example, stunting in young children,
disability and destitution in old age.
Remittances make significant contributions to social protection in the Pacific, although their aggregate flow varies
widely between PICs as does the proportion of the flow addressing the circumstances of the deprived back home.
Remittances are mostly used for social protection by responding to need (personal shocks and natural disasters) and
enabling customary obligations to be met or increased. They also have a broader positive effect on investment and
growth in Pacific societies. Strengthening the remote job market for Pacific Islanders (for example, by extending
seasonal migration schemes) therefore remains a commendable policy objective.
Formal social policy can strengthen traditional safety nets by providing services and support to complement them.
Arguably poverty targeted cash transfers should be avoided in traditional cultural settings because they can be
potentially socially divisive; however, this in no way detracts from how universal cash transfers, such as pensions,
child grants or disability payments, could improve social protection outcomes in PICs.
Land tenure reform is often advocated for PICs due to the blockages that customary tenure represents for moving
agriculture from subsistence to market orientation, and for releasing land for other commercial purposes. Secure
leasehold rather than freehold is usually envisaged, although customary land allocation is integral to the way power,
authority and obligation operate in clan societies. Consequently, altering land laws might accelerate the disintegration
of traditional safety nets.
3. Received wisdom about informal social
protection
It is useful to place boundaries around what is meant by informal social protection. Literature on the Pacific tends to
use this as a catch-all phrase to cover most aspects of clan society and flows of money (like remittances) into countries.
In this a misunderstanding occurs between social protection as a desirable outcome (a life free of hunger, destitution,
conflict or violence with adequate access to work, water, health and education) and social transfers as one of a number
of ways to secure those attributes (Kidd 2010). As an instrument, ‘informal social protection’ really means ‘traditional
safety nets’—the ability of traditional Pacific societies to ensure all members have an adequate subsistence living and
do not experience hunger and deprivation in the event of personal misfortune.1
This distinction is important to this research paper. An outcomes view of social protection is not precise about what
can be achieved by social protection policies that differ from growth, labour market, education or health policies. The
crucial feature is that social protection is about minimum acceptable living standards and social inclusion about
members of society who are not able to provide sufficiently for themselves. With the social protection effect of
remittances, for example, care is needed to distinguish remittance income, which helps overcome deprivation of the
poorest and most vulnerable in society, from remittance income that adds to the income or wealth of those not
deprived or in serious need.
Traditional safety nets are deeply embedded in extended kinship or clan-based Pacific societies, known as kastom and
wantok (‘one talk’) in Melanesia, fa’fa Samoa and the aiga potopoto social system in Samoa, and veiwekani and
kerekere in Fiji (Ratuva 2005). These societies work in different ways across hundreds of Pacific islands; however,
they share features of lineage systems of inheritance, communal rather than individual land ownership, the power of
chiefs or elders to allocate or reallocate land, a powerful sense of social belonging and obligation (in extended kinship
groups), ceremonial gift-giving as an integral part of this obligation, and redistribution of gifts so no community
member experiences lack of food or basic needs (Gibson 2006; Fukuyama 2008).
The main thinking about traditional safety nets in the Pacific is that they work well and should not be disturbed. They
protect against risks and shocks, and reduce disparities in living standards through redistribution (Ratuva 2005;
Gibson 2006). However, after more than a century of exposure to external cultural influences, the perfection and
outreach of traditional coverage has been compromised. Poverty and deprivation are real attributes of PIC societies. In
the four countries covered in this research, the aggregate poverty rate is estimated at 27 per cent in Samoa, 23 per cent
in Solomon Islands, 22 per cent in Kiribati and 16 per cent in Vanuatu.2 Poverty is higher in urban areas than in rural3,
with a high poverty incidence also found in remote and risk-prone outer islands. Importantly, customary safety nets
fail where traditional and modern societies intersect, as represented by urbanisation. However, rural communities are
not immune, as evidence of nutritional deprivation in under-5 year olds in Vanuatu and in Solomon Islands
demonstrates (Freeland & Robertson 2010; Slater 2010).
Traditional reciprocal obligations have long been a strength and weakness of Pacific Island cultures. Wantok scores
1
The Samoa focal country report that forms part of this body of research argues that ‘informal’ is inaccurate because for Samoans these are
formal social obligations (Amosa & Samson 2012).
2
AusAID, ‘Millennium Development Goals Tracking Report’ (draft), 2010; Parks & Abbott 2009, p. 9; Amosa & Samson 2010.
3
A reviewer of an earlier version of this research paper considers that the apparently higher urban than rural poverty in many PICS results
from faulty methods in valuing consumption in different locations (Gibson & Rozelle 2003); while in reality rural deprivation is consistently
higher than urban deprivation in the Pacific.
high on social cohesion and inclusion, but low on strategic responses to large-scale challenges (Fukuyama 2008).
Obligation and reciprocity can become patronage, cronyism and corruption when translated from village society to a
modern economy society. Chiefly systems become suborned by the attractions offered by personal accrual of wealth,
so service to the community can transform into personal accumulation at the expense of others. Traditional social
differences in the status and roles of men and women can evolve into domestic violence and abuse of women, a
phenomenon of all countries studied for this research and in many other research reports.
The research underlying this research paper supports the redistributive character of gift giving, in that the average
value of gifts highly correlates to per capita income.4 However, little is known about how gift income is used by those
who allocate it between would-be claimants (clan leaders, the church). It is possible that the generosity of better-off
people who give is not matched by the needs-based principles of those who disburse. There is a dearth of systematic
investigation on this in PICs.
4
In Kiribati gifts correspond to 20 per cent of non-food household expenditure in the rural Gilbert Islands according to Household Income and
Expenditure Survey data, and non-poor households account for roughly 90 per cent of total gift outlays by value (Kidd & Mackenzie 2010).
4. Factors eroding informal social protection
Traditional social protection in PICs has never been static, and certainly went through major adaptation in the
nineteenth century when missionaries arrived representing various European church denominations. The church
generally succeeded in interweaving its belief systems with those of traditional societies, so that core social
institutions remained intact. However, the church may also have altered the balance of giving and receiving in
particular ways in particular places, for example by adding obligations on community members that did not exist
before.
Informal social protection is eroded by the incursion of other social philosophies (for example, the pursuit of
individual gain), land alienation, population growth, increased pressure on land and natural resources, exposure to new
ideas through education and travel, as well as collective livelihood stress (too poor to practice reciprocity) and youth
unemployment (World Bank 2006, chapter 2).
Some critical features of this erosion are detailed here:

Land allocation is at the heart of traditional social organisation. All community members need land, for their own
subsistence and for social obligations (ceremonial needs and transfers). When land cannot be allocated or
reallocated, traditional reciprocity becomes more difficult for some community members, which may lead to
social division and conflict.

Traditional safety nets are based on society having ‘spare capacity’. The majority of clan members must
contribute to the collective whole (usually with gifts at customary ceremonial events), so redistribution of goods
can occur and the needs of less fortunate clan members met. This spare capacity may shrink over time for various
reasons (such as land and natural resource stress and increased needs for cash income), making it difficult to
redistribute.5

Stresses and tensions tend to cumulate. An initial reaction to shrinking capacity may be to increase obligations,
especially on more successful community members, although these members may opt out if they find obligations
intolerable. Another tension is when traditional chiefs keep ceremonial gifts instead of sharing them equally in the
clan. The nature of power and its deployment may shift so previous equalising norms (of power and wealth)
become dis-equalising.

Migration, urban settlement and remittances affect traditional safety nets, although in various ways that may be
difficult to predict. Migration may enhance the ability of migrants to fulfil social obligations (through remittances),
however, social ties tend to weaken in informal urban settlements resulting in fewer people in need getting help.
The erosion of traditional norms of social reciprocity is relative and variable. It is not going on at the same pace
everywhere. In many PICs (and the societies in them) traditional safety net transfers fulfil their role to a degree,
although sometimes unevenly and haphazardly. Personal circumstances may invite social exclusion (divorce,
separation and absence due to seeking work), and migration reflects the pull of prospective higher standards of living
and the push of inadequate social support and lack of economic opportunity in the village. Hunger and destitution rises
in shanty towns and squatter settlements, reflecting the decline in traditional reciprocity that occurs when people are
separated from their clan and exposed to social behaviour norms.
5
World Bank (2006), chapter 2, emphasises population growth and youth unemployment as particularly important trends imposing increasing
pressure on traditional social reciprocity.
5. Gaps in informal social protection
The literature tends to settle on a core list of social and economic deprivations not addressed by traditional Pacific
cultures and described as ‘gaps in informal social protection’. However, most of these are more about lack of public
services than about cultural norms protecting weak citizens from hunger and deprivation. The chief gaps identified
widely in the literature (Abbott & Pollard 2004, for example) are:

access to adequate and effective health services

access to adequate and effective education services

specific gender needs and imbalances with respect to these services (for example, women’s access to maternal
services and girls’ access to schooling)

lack of sanitation in many traditional villages and urban informal settlements

lack of potable water, especially in urban informal settlements

lack of economic opportunity, especially for youth

insufficient land in relation to rising population (in some islands)

diminished land productivity due to overuse and soil depletion (in some islands).
Other gaps, some that are closer to social protection, arise from traditional culture erosion (preceding section). There
have been holes in the traditional safety net for some time (Morauta 1984). Individuals who leave the clan to seek
fortune elsewhere may return to little sympathy if they fail, especially if they have not met their traditional obligations
while away. Women who divorce or separate can be especially disadvantaged since these social options are not
recognised in traditional cultures. The rise in domestic violence reported in numerous studies and the country reports
that form part of this research on social protection in the Pacific suggests that when women no longer comply with
traditional subordinated roles, the reaction of men is to control and punish. Gaps in the traditional safety net are
especially prevalent in informal urban settlements.
6. New flows of informal support—remittances
Remittances are wage incomes earned in urban areas or on ships or abroad, sent to family members left behind. In the
Pacific part of the money received is used for redistributive social obligations, while some is used by direct recipients
to buy food or other items, to buy services or for savings. Some argue that remittances correspond to ‘earning a living’
rather than social protection, and that efforts to broaden opportunities for Islanders to work away from home are
labour market policies more than social protection policies. Still, studies reveal that migrants (away) face significant
social pressure to increase the money they send back and that their families (at home) face pressure to increase the
amount they contribute to their community for ceremonial occasions (such as weddings and funerals) and in times of
need (World Bank 2006).6 Moreover, empirical evidence from Fiji and Tonga shows that remittances have a greater
impact on poor households than on rich households. In Fiji the richest households transfer more to other households
than the amounts they receive in remittances from abroad (World Bank 2006; Brown & Jimenez 2008; Jimenez 2008).
Remittances are important as a source of income throughout PICs, although some island states rely on them (or have
access to them) considerably more than others. The historical reasons for this across PICs have to do with the nature of
previous relations with developed countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the United States. In this research’s
case study countries, the estimated significance of remittances from abroad varies (Table 1).
Table 1: Estimated emigrants and remittances, case study countries
Citizens living
abroad 2005
Share home
population (%)
Remittance value
2008
(US$ million)
Kiribati
4800
4.9
9
Samoa
101 000
54.6
135
Solomon
Islands
4300
0.9
20
Vanuatu
3100
1.5
7
Country
Source: Migration and Remittances Factbook (2008).
6
In addition, migrants do not remit exclusively to their own households but also to other households that have no migrants.
With social protection, key policy issues for remittances are:

reliability and coverage in supporting people adversely affected by personal shocks or natural disasters (traditional
safety net role)

broader contribution to traditional obligations and reciprocity

impact on income distribution and growth in recipient societies.
Research reveals variable impacts on these counts, making it difficult to generalise. Yet overall, remittances appear to
make home countries better off, by generating cash and capital that reduce poverty and promote stronger and more
resilient economies (Brown 2008). Evidence of this relating to flows of cash income arising from residence and work
abroad is found in several studies:

An earlier study on disaster remittances following a cyclone in Samoa found that amounts remitted rose steeply in
response to the cyclone, achieving about 25 per cent of the total value of the losses incurred by recipient families
(Macpherson 1994). More recently, in December 2009, a remarkable upsurge in remittances to Samoa occurred
after the September tsunami (Gibson 2010).

A number of studies on the impact of remittances on income distribution have been conducted in a number of
PICs and individual islands, with no predictable pattern emerging. In a Papua New Guinea study remittances left
income distribution unchanged, or more unequal, in populations sampled (Gibson 2006).

A recent research paper by Brown and Jimenez (2011) shows in Tonga that a fairly strong positive relationship
exists between recipients’ perceived need and the amount of remittances received; suggesting a real safety net
function achieved. This may occur more widely in PICs, subject to the greatly varying significance of remittance
income overall across these countries.

A number of studies, including Brown (2008), show that the impact of remittances on growth is generally positive.
The domestic or home economy is not necessarily the relevant unit of analysis (Clemens & Pritchett 2008). For
high emigration countries like Samoa, the rising living standards of Samoans wherever they live may be more
pertinent as a measure of economic success than just the gross domestic product growth rate in the country itself.

A number of studies have verified the significance of migration increasing social pressure on migrants (away) or
their families (at home) to meet redistributive obligations. Nevertheless, there is a lack of comparable empirical
evidence across countries demonstrating the relative success of remittances in reducing destitution and social
exclusion in recipient societies. Verifying the size of the remittance flow and its apparent intention is not on its
own sufficient.

A number of studies have argued, in the absence of formal pension coverage where remittances are often the only
source of income for the elderly, that remittances, rather than the equivalent of earnings from wage income, are
more akin to returns to retirees on past investment in their informal ‘pension fund’ where this takes the form of
investment in the human capital of their children (Poirine 1997; Brown & Poirine 2005).
The picture for urban remittances can differ substantially depending on the success of migrants in securing formal
sector employment. For poor urban migrants grappling with establishing a viable livelihood in the informal sector,
remittance flows may be bilateral (urban goods or cash exchanged for rural food supplies within the extended family),
or even switch to being predominantly driven by rural assistance to impoverished urban relatives.
7. Can formal social protection strengthen
informal social protection?
The answer to whether formal social protection can strengthen informal social protection depends on how broadly
social protection is defined. If social protection is the desired outcome, and social transfers (such as pensions or child
support grants) are just one of many social policy instruments that can be used to achieve this outcome, then there is
much that social policy can do to overcome limitations and gaps in traditional social protection.
Some of the country reports developed for this body of research, as well as other Pacific research, suggests that
poverty targeted cash transfers may not be appropriate for traditional societies in the Pacific. This is because poverty
targeted transfers:

are not the priority—traditional safety nets ensure community members in the main do not go hungry or become
destitute

would be socially divisive7—they inevitably mean selecting some families within wantoks (or the equivalent in
other societies), or some wantoks, or even different ethnic groups (as in Solomon Islands) for special support not
offered to other citizens (Slater 2010)

might accelerate—in urban informal settlements, where traditional safety nets tend to be most frayed—migration
from poor rural areas or outer islands to such settlements.
However, doubts about poverty targeted transfers as a workable method for tackling gaps in traditional coverage does
not mean rejecting other types of formal social transfer. This research paper notes that pensions are provided in Samoa
(for those 65 years of age and older) and Kiribati (for those 70 years of age and older). Child poverty in PICs might be
more successfully tackled by child support grants than by initiatives finding outreach difficulty; and disability
payments should be on the agenda. Universal transfers, such as pensions, are not socially divisive in the same way as
poverty targeted transfers. This is because almost all families (and certainly all extended kinship groups) have
members who are above the age threshold of a pension, and all citizens understand that if they live to that age they
will be eligible for the benefit.
On the broader social policy front, much can be done to address gaps that are partly to do with uneven public service
provision (listed at the beginning of this research paper) and partly to do with failures in the traditional safety net.
Gaps include:

social service delivery is weak and patchy throughout the Pacific, including with school, health and sanitation
(especially in urban areas) services and drinking water availability

urban areas, especially squatter settlements outside capital cities, are particularly deprived and need more than
traditional reciprocity given it is more haphazard in urban settings where individuals and families become semidetached from their cultural anchors

violence towards women, a growing problem in Pacific societies, needs to be urgently halted or reversed, with
initiatives like the adoption in Vanuatu of the Family Protection Act in 2008 a step in the right direction

programs in Australia and New Zealand that expand opportunities for Islanders to migrate formally within legal
7
A reviewer of an earlier version of this research paper expressed surprise that poverty targeted social transfers could be socially divisive.
However, if it is considered how divisive they remain in rich countries (‘scroungers’ etc.) and add in the serious problem of making intricate
decisions between recipients and non-recipients whose life circumstances barely differ from each other, then this is not such a peculiar
proposition (for Africa, Ellis 2011).
structures should be consolidated and expanded, given that they are an important potential source of financial and
human capital in PICs (World Bank 2006).
Finally, land tenure arises frequently in discussions about informal social protection. Customary tenure is often seen as
a barrier to development and poverty reduction in PICs. This is because it is notably difficult for more entrepreneurial
citizens or private companies to access land with sufficient security of tenure to make capital investment worthwhile.
While law and practice varies across PICs, gaining access to customary land on secure long leaseholds is generally
difficult. While more flexible and secure ways of enabling customary land to be allocated to uses other than
subsistence agriculture have many arguments in their favour, the inextricable status of land within cultural systems
makes this a delicate issue, in which unintended social side effects could ensue. Traditional society in the Pacific is a
tightly interwoven package of social attributes, and modifying or removing any one attribute shifts the balance of
others. In such societies, power, authority and social cohesion are bound up in land and so altering land tenure may
hasten the disintegration of other social fabric elements.
8. Conclusions and recommendations
Informal social protection in the Pacific remains relatively strong, although it is best to be wary of a region’s
mythologies. Historical reasons for this strength are the remote and dispersed character of Indigenous communities,
their isolation, low population density and, in some cases, a relatively benign colonialism that protected traditional
cultures (though no doubt imperfectly) from annihilation by commerce and private property. Nevertheless informal
social protection is being eroded at varying speeds within, and between, island groups. It remains at its strongest in the
more remote outer islands, especially those that ensure all community members can be allocated enough land to
satisfy subsistence needs. It is under greatest stress in more densely settled islands and in unplanned urban settlements.
Stresses can negatively affect informal social protection. More individuals are socially excluded and those in dire need
cannot always count on support. Domestic violence, abuse of women, alcohol abuse, and misuse of power are
manifestations of deviations from, or erosion of, traditional cultural values.
Much can be done to complement the safety net functions of traditional society, provided they have not disintegrated
too far (history suggests that defunct norms of social reciprocity are rarely successfully reinstated). One branch of this
is improving the outreach of public services that traditional society would not in any case have been likely to provide.
Another is to consider social transfers to vulnerable categories of the population (children, people with disability and
the elderly) that may not receive sufficient support through the traditional route, and where there are good prospects
that such transfers will add to rather than substitute for existing provision.8 Poverty targeted cash transfers, advocated
in some of the literature, are advised against due to the social divisiveness they are likely to provoke.
8
As one reviewer of this research paper noted, the key point is the rate of substitution between the formal and the informal. If this is high, then
expanding formal transfers may crowd out the informal, meaning the ultimate beneficiary is not the targeted recipient but the people who
previously transferred money, food or other resources to that recipient. There is an urgent need for comparative research across PICs to
investigate the existence and strength of this potential crowding out effect. For a Latin America example see Heemskerk et al. (2004).
9. References
Abbott, D & Pollard, S 2004, Hardship and Poverty in the Pacific, Manila: Pacific Department, Asian Development
Bank.
Amosa, D & Samson, M 2012, ‘Samoa country case study’, AusAID, Canberra, Australia.
Brown, RPC 2008, Remittances and Development in the Pacific: Effects on Human Development in Fiji and Tonga,
United Nations Expert Group Meeting on International Migration and Development in Asia and the Pacific, United
Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand, 20-21 September.
Brown, RPC & Jimenez, EV 2008, ‘Estimating the Net Effects of Migration and Remittances on Poverty and
Inequality Comparison of Fiji and Tonga’, Journal of International Development, vol. 20, pp. 547–571.
Brown, RPC & Jimenez, EV 2008, ‘Subjectively-assessed Welfare and International
Remittances: Evidence from Tonga’, Journal of Development Studies, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 829–845.
Brown, RPC & Poirine, B 2005, ‘A Model of Migrants’ Remittances with Human Capital Investment and
Intrafamilial Transfers’, International Migration Review, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 407–438.
Clemens, MA & Pritchett, L 2008, ‘Income per Natural: Measuring Development for People Rather Than Places’,
Population and Development Review, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 395–434.
Ellis, F 2012, ‘We Are All Poor Here: Economic Difference, Social Divisiveness, and Targeting Cash Transfers in
Sub-Saharan Africa’, Journal of Development Studies, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 201-214, February. accepted and
forthcoming.
Freeland, N & Robertson, K 2012, ‘Vanuatu country case study’, AusAID, Canberra, Australia.
Fukuyama, F 2008, State-Building in the Solomon Islands, report prepared for World Bank, July, mimeograph.
Gibson, J 2006, Are There Holes in the Safety Net? Remittances and Inter-household Transfers in Pacific Island
Economies, working paper no. 1, Pasifika Interactions Project, Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies,
University of Canterbury, September.
Gibson, J 2010, ‘Recent shocks and long-term change in the Samoan economy’, Pacific Economic Bulletin, vol. 25,
no. 3, pp. 6–23.
Gibson, J & Rozelle, S 2003, ‘Poverty and Access to Roads in Papua New Guinea’, Economic Development and
Cultural Change, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 159–185.
Heemskerk, M, Norton, A & de Dehn, L 2004, ‘Does Public Welfare Crowd Out Informal Safety Nets? Ethnographic
Evidence from Rural Latin America’, World Development, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 941–955.
Jimenez, EV 2008, The Social Protection Role of Remittances—The Cases Of Fiji And Tonga, PhD thesis, School of
Economics, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
Kidd, S 2010, ‘Understanding Social Protection’, Unpublished Report.
Kidd, S & Mackenzie, U 2010, ‘Kiribati country case study’, AusAID, Canberra, Australia.
Macpherson, C 1994, ‘Changing patterns of commitment to island homelands: a case study of Western Samoa’,
Pacific Studies, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 83–116.
Morauta, L 1984, Left Behind in the Village, Institute of Applied Social and Economic Research, monograph no. 25,
Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.
Parks, W & Abbott, D 2009, Protecting Pacific Island Children and Women during Economic and Food Crises:
Working Edition One for advocacy, debate and guidance, Suva: United Nations Children’s Fund Pacific and United
Nations Development Programme Pacific Centre.
Poirine, B 1997, ‘A Theory of Remittances as an Implicit Family Loan Arrangement’, World Development, vol. 24, no.
4, pp. 589–611.
Ratuva, S 2005, Traditional Social Protection Systems in the Pacific—Culture, Customs and Safety Nets, Suva, Fiji:
International Labour Organization, August.
Samson, M 2008, Cash Transfers for Children in Papua New Guinea, Economic Policy Research Institute, Working
Paper, prepared for United Nations Children’s Fund, Cape Town: Economic Policy Research Institute, April.
Slater, R 2012, ‘Solomon Islands country case study’, AusAID, Canberra, Australia.
World Bank 2006, At Home and Away: Expanding Job Opportunities for Pacific Islanders Through Labour Mobility,
World Bank, Washington DC.
World Bank 2008, Migration and Remittances Factbook found at: <http://www.scribd.com/doc/14462029/Migrationand-Remittances-Factbook-2008> and World Bank (table 1, p, 8) found at:
<www.worldbank.org/prospects/migrationandremittances>.