What do the experts think about Australia’s development program in Myanmar? To find out, the Lab spoke to 25+ top development and foreign policy experts. Here’s what we found.
A short guide to the Pulse Check x Myanmar for policymakers
There are a number of big disruptions underway, and these will drastically affect development in every country.
You have 100 points. Allocate your points according to which of the below disruptions are most critical to address for the people of Myanmar.
Things like: the impact on livelihoods, infrastructure and people's quality of life as the climate changes, the global push to reach net zero and beyond, biodiversity health and resource usage, disaster resilience.
Things like: competing powers and their impact on things like trade and economic growth.
Things like: the rapidly growing digital and data economy, and the rise of artificial intelligence and advanced autonomous systems.
Things like: shifting demographics across age, education and healthcare, and rising inequality, gender equality, disability inclusion.
Things like: rapidly changing markets, trade conditions, stability and resilience to shocks, changing job opportunities and emerging industries.
Things like: shifting international norms and structures, and disruptions to the international rules based order and economic decisions.
Things like: global stability and instability, internal conflict, humanitarian crises, external interference, maritime disputes.
Our participants were unequivocal in their view that conflict and instability in Myanmar is dwarfing every other disruption – conflict stemming from a number of factors, but most pressingly the 2021 military coup:
“Myanmar has been plagued by conflict and instability due to a combination of factors, including an enduring military presence in politics, ethnic tensions, the Rohingya crisis, a recent coup in 2021, and socioeconomic challenges. The complex interplay of these elements has led to ongoing violence, protests, and a precarious political climate in the country…”
“My grandparents, parents, my friends, and our people are not at peace due to the conflict and instability for so many decades.”
The devastating impacts of the ongoing conflict on the people of Myanmar was front and centre to this cohort, but the continued complexity of international engagement surrounding it was not lost on them. Participants highlighted the need for greater international humanitarian support, not just within Myanmar’s borders, but within neighbouring countries where refugees have been fleeing.
Some participants were concerned about insufficient funding for the ongoing humanitarian crises, and the immense difficulty that international non-government organisations (NGOs) face in reaching some of the most affected communities and internally displaced persons. Others acknowledged the competing priorities that international partners are contending with, particularly in light of ongoing conflicts such as in Ukraine, South Sudan, and the Middle-East. This came with concerns that these events could “overshadow the ongoing serious human rights violations in Myanmar” in the eyes of the international community.
When considering which trend is most critical to address, participants also observed that being “aware of the significance” of the conflict and instability in Myanmar is crucial to understanding the spillover into other development challenges. This is important – some argued – because even if the current conflict subsides, Myanmar will have backslid on many development frontiers, especially human security, livelihoods, health, and education.
“A generation of youth have become caught up in the conflict and are not engaging in education - this will have long term impacts on Myanmar's development.”
Though substantially less prioritised, participants noted the disruptive effect of climate change and the increased incidence of extreme weather events that contributes to “compounding” humanitarian crises. Participants noted its impacts on community displacement, agriculture, livelihoods, and food security.
Many were quick to reason that the current conflict is the foremost cause of inattention to this issue.
Participants saw shifting economic dimensions as the third most disruptive trend in Myanmar. Those who allocated points here highlighted the detrimental effects of the military coup on the economy, saying that the “economic mismanagement on account of military rule in Myanmar will have a deleterious impact”, and be made worse by global instability and supply chain difficulties. The effects of this? A “significant impact on people’s everyday lives” and an “overwhelmingly negative impact on the working poor.”
Participants also reflected on the impact of economic sanctions, by some states, which led to a rapid exodus of foreign investment, especially by Western companies. As a result, some drew attention to the unemployment rate “increasing exponentially”. Overall, most believed that “economic reform is possible only when the situation is stabilised, which can only be achieved by ending military rule.”
A number of participants discussed the interplay of global tensions and interests, believing that these exacerbate instability in Myanmar:
“the most significant overarching issue is the internal conflict and instability and how regional powers are using that to their own ends."
Participants also saw Myanmar’s conflict as connected to other global conflicts including “recent incidents [in] Israel and Palestine, Ukraine and Russia and Afghanistan.” Some expressed concern that these are shifting limited global attention away from the crisis that continues to unfold in Myanmar.
You have 100 points. Allocate your points according to where you would focus efforts to enhance social and economic development for the people of Myanmar, using the State Effectiveness Framework.
For example, commercial policy, private sector development, intervention by the state when the market experiences failure or crisis.
For example, a balanced security environment, when police, military and other security institutions are bound by the law and guidelines.
For example, public utilities - including water, electricity and roads.
For example, strong adherence to both formal and informal rules, high levels of predictability and stability of the enforcement of rules, and governance arrangements.
For example, investment in the citizens of a state through education and public health.
For example, strong and transparent forms of public financial management, effective public borrowing, and fiscal management.
For example, addressing barriers to equal opportunities through citizens rights which cut across gender, race, ethnicity, religion, class and location.
For example, state assets (including natural resources [water, land, the environment, extractives] and other intangible benefits [licenses and permits]).
For example, preparedness for disasters, state resiliency against crises such as drought, famine, and catastrophic weather.
For example, public sector management, uniform rules and guidelines, strong reforms to prevent corruption.
Australia's International Development Policy identified supporting effective states as one of its four core focuses. So we asked participants to allocate points according to the Institute for State Effectiveness’ State Effectiveness Framework. Participants responded to this question on the understanding that these functions are critical for the future of Myanmar, but, as the following findings show, in no way do they endorse the current regime.
Under such a highly contested regime, participants were, of course, cautious in distributing points under this framework, and made clear their caveats. While most participants agreed the ten functions of effective states are critical, many emphasised they would neither pursue nor endorse these under the current regime.
“I have equally allocated my points between 5 different sectors as they are all important. However, I don't think the Australian Government should be spending any money which facilitates military authoritarian rule.”
Echoing sentiments in Question One, participants assigned points here mainly to reflect their desire for a focus on overcoming internal instability and insecurity as a result of the ongoing conflict, but not to in any way endorse the strengthening of security measures by the current regime.
A few spoke more broadly, casting forwards, on the generational challenge the people of Myanmar will face in rebuilding trust in institutions, and for ongoing, stable rule of law. One participant expressed this as critical to strive for now: “most of these issues cannot be progressed until there is security. But part of resolving the conflict includes building respect for rule of law…”
Another participant was sober about the scale of this challenge: “No amount of rule of law reform or public sector education is going to improve wellbeing for all of Myanmar's population overnight. That process will take decades of sustained investment and political commitment.”
Participants stressed that human capital, governance and citizen engagement were crucial functions of state effectiveness to focus on for the wellbeing of Myanmar’s people. As one participant noted, “children in conflict areas can't receive education and public health services due to military's disruption.” Some suggested that this, specifically, is where Australia should assist.
Others saw investing in human capital as a more straightforward path to access the more immediate skills and resources needed by non-government entities on the ground:
“[Australia] should improve engagement with civil society organisations, rights-based organisations, local media, and labour groups, and provide them with the financial and technical assistance they need to carry out their work in the community.”
No participants singled out infrastructure as the most crucial function for state effectiveness to focus efforts on at this time. One participant highlighted just how tenuous basic infrastructure such as water, regular electricity, and roads are at present. Another pointed out that, while not the most urgent need at this time, maintaining public goods is absolutely crucial for a “more equitable future and sustainable livelihoods”.
Australia's new development policy wants to foster connection between the people of Myanmar and Australia. How is this best done within development?
You have 100 points. Allocate your points according to where you think efforts are best placed to bring the people of our countries together through development cooperation.
Support from Australia to back Myanmar's aspirations on things like gender equality, health assistance, rural development and education.
Support from Australia to back Myanmar's aspirations on things like remittances, labour mobility, job creation, social and economic policy reform.
Support from Australia to back Myanmar's aspirations on things like trade, market growth, regulatory reform, SME development and development finance.
Support from Australia to back Myanmar's aspirations on things like scholarships, policy dialogue, cultural exchange, institutional partnerships.
Support from Australia to back Myanmar's aspirations on things like peace and security, effective governance, food security, digital and cyber security, law and justice.
Support from Australia to back Myanmar's aspirations on things like climate adaptation and mitigation, global health crises, transnational crime, joint cooperation in regional and multilateral fora, unregulated migration flows, major demographic challenges.
Participants saw Australia working on peace and stability as an essential first step. Suggestions for how best to do this included working with “Myanmar pro-democracy groups, including legitimate political actors and civil society” and through “more engagement with the Myanmar diaspora community in Australia.”
Other participants suggested Australia could “speak out more on the issues of human rights violations” and “leverage its diplomatic influence and networks through ASEAN and alternatives beyond to advocate for the cessation of hostilities…”
A handful of participants also laid out the arguments as to why this was in Australia’s interest, namely that “regional stability in Southeast Asia is essential for Australia’s own security and economic well-being,” and “a stable and peaceful Myanmar is more conducive to economic development and trade”.
Some also felt that Australia’s promotion of “democratic values” means the Australian Government have a “moral obligation to support Myanmar’s people as they strive for democracy and justice in the face of ongoing conflicts and political challenges.”
Participants saw education as a fundamental sector for Australia to continue working in, despite the current regime.
“While connection for stability remains the main things there are opportunities for [knowledge] sharing and social capital even amidst the revolution.”
“Basic security and political stability are also of paramount importance, but it is difficult for any external country to enhance either. Instead, Australia can contribute in the domain of knowledge sharing, cultural exchange, and institutional partnerships to assist with capacity building for the next generation of community leaders.”
Others noted that long-term investments in education are a valuable area for Australia to work on as “emphasising knowledge sharing, Australia not only aids in Myanmar’s development but also creates lasting personal and institutional relationships that can strengthen ties for generations.”
Scholarships were noted by some as an area in which Australia can do more.
“The country needs educated people more than ever in order to rebuild the country when the military junta era is over...[Australia] should not ignore the fact that the future of Myanmar depends on young people.”
Australia works with the people of Myanmar through development cooperation in a variety of ways. What would you like to see here?
Australia's bilateral ODA allocation to Myanmar for FY 2023-2024 is $121 million. You have 100 points. How would you re-allocate Australia's bilateral funding to Myanmar across these categories using your 100 points?
Including policy and research to support economic growth, emerging industries and job markets, banking and financial services.
Including transport and storage, larger water, communications.
Including agriculture, fisheries and forestry, industry and mining and mineral resources.
Including policy and enabling markets.
Including governance programming, policy reforms, civil society strengthening, social protection measure and infrastructure.
Including support for feminist organisations and movements, support for disability organisations and services.
Including basic, secondary and higher education and scholarships.
Including basic health, infrastructure and basic water and sanitation.
Including climate mitigation and adaptation, energy infrastructure, environmental protection and management.
Including emergency response, disaster prevention and preparedness.
Naturally, peace, governance, and humanitarian support ranked highest. Some participants emphasised the importance of working on accountability and governance reforms as they are “vital to address the ongoing human rights abuses and conflicts in Myanmar.” Others, however, argued that military rule was the key factor that needed to change before anything else.
“Without a transition from military rule, the country cannot achieve peace. Therefore I do not prioritise peace sector although it is the most desired outcome for the people of Myanmar.”
Similarly, others noted the need to achieve peace first, in order to both improve conditions in Myanmar and avoid supporting the military.
“Peace is critical for sustainable development, but here's no point supporting the peace process when all parties are committed to the destruction of the other and have no appetite for a negotiated outcome.”
“Until the country has peace secured, the Australian government should not be putting development funding into the Myanmar military's governance structures.”
Some participants encouraged Australia to continue working on more traditional governance programming including engaging with “pro-democracy actors from diverse communities, supporting their local ownership, promoting civic participation, strengthening civil society and seeking social protection measures.”
“Myanmar’s humanitarian needs at present are so enormous that they pretty much dwarf all long-term governance/education/health reform type program needs.”
Participants asked Australia to maintain or increase its current, “crucial” humanitarian assistance. Some also suggested Australia should increase its advocacy for humanitarian corridors across bordering regions. Another encouraged Australia to be “creative and flexible” in delivering humanitarian support, namely by working “through local organisations that have direct access to the people on the ground.”
"By monitoring the evolving political and other crises, Australia can actively leverage its humanitarian assistance, in line with its localisation agenda, to alleviate the suffering of the Myanmar people and contribute to further stability and prosperity with long-lasting outcomes."
While many participants emphasised immediate humanitarian needs, some participants reminded Australia it is still important to work on longer-term health and education investments.
“As before, the security situation is the critical issue to address, including ending military rule. However, in the meantime, investment in education, health and humanitarian aid is necessary to mitigate the suffering of the people.”
However one participant cautioned Australia not to work within structures controlled by the military:
“Australia needs to be creative and flexible in how it delivers humanitarian, education and health support. It must not use any military linked channels and must be prepared to work through local organisations that have direct access to the people on the ground. Australia should only engage with the military with the purpose of having it hand back power to the people.”
Participants emphasised the importance of education given both the current challenges in receiving education, and the long term flow on effect to human capital development.
“Education is the area where I have made my next highest allocation because of the disastrous impact the coup has had on education in Myanmar, and because of how vital education will be to Myanmar's future.”
“Myanmar has wide range of gaps on assistance. At the moment economic, infrastructure and trade are not priority due to the conflict situation."
The call for Australia to focus primarily on humanitarian efforts was emphasised once again. As one participant put it, “once the international community has ensured basic survival needs for internally displaced persons, Australia can work to allocate more resources to governance, education, and trade.”
Alongside what is included in Australia's development cooperation with the people of Myanmar, we're interested in your views on how Australia delivers assistance.
You have 100 points. Allocate your points on the below types of partnerships, according to where you think Australia should focus to become a great development partner.
Working at the forefront of development challenges and working with partners to get ahead of big, further challenges to development. Developing specific capabilities in response to development disruptions decades ahead.
Connected to your communities. Australia as a whole-of-nation partner that connects across different levels. Squarely focused on delivering development outcomes for people and communities.
Working to back Australia's development partner's aspirations through things like ASEAN, multilateral arenas.
Working in selective sectors where Australia can best assist your country, and doing it well. Much more impact-oriented.
Working with partners to leverage Australian expertise, and knowledge, and working with your country's knowledge ecosystem to solve the most difficult development challenges.
Participants mostly wanted to see Australia operate as The People Partner, squarely focused on connecting to people and communities to deliver development outcomes. Some believe this would be indicative of “Australia’s commitment to a bottom-up approach” to development.
“Australia can build a genuine rapport with the people and ensure that development initiatives are more readily accepted and have the intended impact.”
Some saw this as particularly appealing given the current conflict necessitates working through non-regime actors. Participants suggested Australia look to partner with a broad range of ethnic resistance groups, civil society organisations, and border-based humanitarian actors.
With what some regarded as “small relative funding”, participants were keen to see Australia differentiate itself and its value further. Some suggested sector areas, reflecting similar preferences to Question Four.
Participants suggested that alongside its humanitarian support, education was a key sector for Australia to continue working on and acknowledged that this has been work Australia is well-known for.
“In the current environment, Australia needs to connect with communities and non-state actors in Myanmar. [Australia] were the leading bilateral development partner in the education sector and we should not abandon our not insignificant popular reputation in this sector.”
In addition to education, another participant added “climate change, forestry or environmental conservation” as areas in which Australia can offer specialised support. Another emphasised that Australia should at least “in the short term” focus on “humanitarian and civil society work.”
Some participants believed Australia has a greater role to play in helping to co-ordinate and directly press for a peace process through ASEAN. Others saw Australia’s role as working through ASEAN to press for cooperation on broader development issues like support to civil society, education, and health.
However, some echoed the growing doubt about ASEAN’s willingness and capacity to act on the conflict, saying that the organisation has been “of little use” at “providing adequate responses to the political and humanitarian crisis”. Nonetheless, many participants believed Australia had a larger role to play in advocating for a peace process.
