Wantokism and state building in Solomon Islands: A response to Fukuyama

Abstract

consider a particular challenge raised by Fukuyama-the administration of the Rural Constituency Development Fund (RCDF)-to show that drawing on wantokism and traditional governance at the local level could be a way of ensuring accountable administration of such funds and boosting the development of community-driven mechanisms to hold members of parliament and others to account.This article is critical of Fukuyama's understanding of wantokism and his policy suggestions.At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that his frank and open identification and discussion of important issues have no doubt reached a wide audience.For that we should be appreciative.This article aims to expand on Fukuyama, but it cannot make claim to be fully comprehensive-either in terms of a critical response to Fukuyama's article or in analysing the issues facing Solomon Islands.It is also the case that combining strong criticism and innovative proposals in one article risks shortfalls.These risks are perhaps magnified when writing about others' social and political systems.Fukuyama and I, despite the strong differences I identify here, are wantoks of a type-we share the language of the academy and there are inevitable limitations to what we can say about Solomon Islands.For now, I can live with the fact that I am writing about rather than with Solomon Islanders.I hope that others, however, and particularly Solomon Islanders, will join the discussion to expand on the analysis and debate introduced in Fukuyama's article and this response.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 37 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.