Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
In 1969, Speaker of the House Assembly of Papua and New Guinea John Guise, spoke of a “quiet decision” to limit the activities of “Native” Local Government Councils in the Territory, so that “they seem to be much more like those of Australian Shire Councils”. The present essay suggests that this “quiet decision”, contrary to conventional wisdom, was not simply part of a colonial policy designed to serve “assimilationist purposes”. Rather, the restricted role finally accorded to local councils was a corollary of the enhanced, post‐war capacity of the metropolitan state. Early local government policy never envisaged councils as a first step toward self‐government. Rather, councils were to be vehicles for securing the “systematic development of native agricultural potential”. The decision to limit the scope of local government policy reflected not a rejection of this initial intent, but rather agrarian reform after 1956 was re‐constituted as an object of direct government control. The legacy of local government in Papua New Guinea is not so much one of ‘white’ colonialism, but of ‘development’ entrapped in trusteeship.
Australian Journal of Politics and History – Wiley
Published: Jun 1, 2002
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.