Aid‐supported governance reforms in Solomon Islands: Piecemeal progress or persistent stalemate?

Abstract

Motivation:Despite seeming donor–recipient consensus on the importance of effective governance, aid‐linked reforms often fall short of the expected outcomes. Solomon Islands provides a highly relevant case to explore the dynamics of institutional reform processes, and understand why, even in a relatively favourable operating environment, structural reforms are difficult to implement. Purpose:This article aims to provide empirically grounded analysis of key factors that hinder institutional change in fragile aid‐receiving countries by addressing the reciprocal (rather than unilateral) constraints and trade‐offs faced by both recipients and donors, and examining their implications for the emerging institutional trajectories in host states. Approach and Methods:This study is based on the use of a single case study that involves in‐depth review of related academic and policy literature, and media reports through the lens of “mutual dependencies.” Findings: Solomon Islands’ recent experience with the regulation of Constituency Development Funds and tertiary scholarships makes it clear that by continuously postponing the implementation of relevant policies, domestic authorities try to avoid the potential costs institutional reforms are likely to create. Similarly, donors concerned about their own strategic interests and power relationships with other actors remain unable to enforce full implementation of such reforms. The process in Solomon Islands further confirms that political trade‐offs facing all actors in different forms have a constraining effect on the achievement of desired policy objectives. Policy Implications: Policy reforms require domestic authorities to develop specific mechanisms that have the potential to secure popular support in favour of proposed structural changes. Donors need new and more evidence‐based approaches that may help balance between their strategic concerns and the achievement of institutional outcomes.