Understanding Wantok: The Cultural Code Shaping PNG Development – Part I

In today’s article, I am writing about the traditional informal system of reciprocity (ISR) in Papua New Guinea, which project designers and implementers need to understand if they intend to implement any local development project or programme in an efficient, transparent, and successful manner. In the first part, I will summarize what the Wantok system is and its direct significance for project design.The “Wantok” system is a traditional social structure in Papua New Guinea based on language, kinship, mutual obligation, and communal identity. The term wantok comes from Tok Pisin (Papuan version of Pidgin English) and literally means “one talk” or “someone who speaks the same language”, but in practice it refers to members of one’s extended family, clan, tribe, or close community. The Wantok system is the Papuan version of an informal system of reciprocity (ISR), unwritten social arrangements in which people exchange goods, services, labour, or support based on mutual expectations rather than formal contracts or market rules. ISRs are extremely common in traditional, rural, and close-knit societies in Melanesia, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America.All of them have similar basic characteristics. In the first place, ISRs are unwritten, but binding: nobody signs any kind of contract, but everyone understands the obligations and penalties in case of breach of those obligations. Penalties are strong (one can say stronger than legal ones) and mainly social, including shame, exclusion, or loss of reputation. Secondly, they aim to achieve long-term social balance: not intending to be immediately 100% reciprocal, the return of support can come later, in months or even years. And lastly, they are multifunctional: serving as an informal insurance, risk-sharing mechanism, or social safety net, ISRs also tend to serve as a tool for conflict management, or a governance system on the local (community) level. Besides Wantok from PNG discussed in this article, some other examples are “Harambee” in Kenya (which is demonstrated more in the form of self-help events), or “Bayanihan” (also called simply ayuda - help) in the Philippines.The Wantok system, as such, considering the weakness of the state in PNG, is an integral part of society and bears some specific functions besides the obvious mutual support through finance, food, or help provision. The Wantok system also represents a source of collective identity and loyalty, space for redistribution of resources when needed, and, importantly, a vehicle of influence across social, economic, and political life.From the point of a development practitioner, the Wantok system represents a double-edged sword, as it can positively reinforce cooperation but may also lead to favoritism or clientelism. It remains one of the most influential cultural frameworks and provides essential social security, but its strong obligations can also complicate modern governance, development interventions, or economic growth. Although it has crucial positive functions for development and can be excellent for community mobilization or protection of communal assets acquired via project or intervention, it also creates challenges and raises some criticisms.Among more “economic” criticisms, in the first place is often mentioned the pressure to share income. It not only limits the motivation of the individual to be employed, but also complicates the accumulation of capital that might be needed for business launch, as well as family needs or functions. My personal experience in this regard confirms that numerous talented individuals stop pursuing their promising careers as they are sharing a large portion of their income (in some cases up to 80%), and end up on the “social safety net” as beneficiaries, because they can easily receive from their “Wantoks” the amount equivalent to the remains of salary they would have earned.The second general criticism focuses on the fact that the Wantok system creates a favorable climate for nepotism or favoritism, which can be observed in access to employment, resources, or political influence and power. That can complicate equal access to development project benefits for different clans or groups, and also complicate the situation in moments where institutions are to be employed.Despite any emerging criticisms, the Wantok system remains the primary social system in Papua New Guinea. Any project or policy operating in PNG must understand and integrate this system to ensure effective and culturally appropriate outcomes.The Wantok system in Papua New Guinea plays a central, structural role in the society, although it is often hidden, especially to those who are not part of the local society, for example, development and humanitarian workers. It does not mean it can be ignored: understanding (or at least acknowledging) it is a prerequisite for any culturally grounded and operationally feasible intervention in the country.There are many excellent publications from the last few decades for those interested in studying this phenomenon in greater detail. I will list them below, ranging from those focused solely on ISRs and customary land tenure to ones mapping its negative impacts projected through corruption and nepotism. However, it is needed to note that the impacts of the Wantok system on the programming and design are not solely negative and not an aspect to dread. It has numerous effects that can significantly amplify its positive outcomes and mainly support its fair distribution or delivery where needed.While talking Wantok system, one needs to understand that there will be roughly seven main directions, from which it will influence any development intervention, and therefore, we can learn how to use it for intervention benefit. Let’s list them (and potential benefits) down.Endorsement from leaders increases legitimacy. The design that acknowledges the traditional leaders and seeks their endorsement is considered more legitimate by the community. Involvement of chiefs, clan leaders, or religious authorities can accelerate the building of trust, and, conversely, limit the build-up of suspicions and rumors. In agriculture, for example, this translates into lower resistance to new agricultural practices or faster adoption.Social cohesion of Wantok groups helps mobilization. It is a fact that people involved in the ISR have very close social relationships and therefore operate in a high communication bandwidth. A clan, or community network, can quickly (and reliably) transmit information about the project, or about its activities. It makes communication not only faster and more reliable, but also gives the community the initiative and lets the community stakeholders participate in leading the implementation.Collective Responsibility Protects Project Assets. In Wantok communities, resources are often guarded collectively. If the project assets, like equipment or cocoa nurseries, as in the case of our programme, are perceived as belonging to the clan or community, people are more likely to maintain and protect them from theft collectively. As well, the community will oversee the proper use of provided assets, without the need for a programme to manage such measures from its own resources.Reduction of Social Barriers to Behaviour Change. A large portion of the individual decisions people take in the PNG are strongly influenced by Wantok norms. It means that lots of new practices are being followed by regular community members upon their adoption by respected clan or community members. Specifically, the speed of the adoption process is (while disseminated via key personnel) much faster, the technologies employed create less resistance, and any kind of change is uptaken by the community, rather than being imposed externally.Strong informal accountability. The shared norms enforce behavior, so if the group decides that your project or intervention is beneficial, they will create pressure on members to collaborate on various levels. Starting from timely attendance to project activities, accountability to assets (as noted above), or generally, they will avoid the behaviors that might somehow jeopardize the implemented project. For you, as the implementing organization representative, no external intervention would be required.Social Safety Net Stabilizes Participation. Because the Wantok system supports people in times of crisis, there will be somebody to help or step in when individuals have obligations (funerals, sickness, or paying the school fees), the network can compensate with labour or support, allowing them to continue participating in project activities. For your project, it means that workers (or participants) will be available, and that required contributions will be made. As well, this inherently increases the resilience in case of any shock.Cultural Alignment Minimizes Resistance. As in any culture, respect gets you further. And there is no difference in the case of the Wantok system. Recognition of Wantok values – as the solidarity, reciprocity, or respect – will help to see your project as culturally aligned rather than as a foreign intrusion. Helping people in their path of growth is different from “enforcing” the development.But what happens if you decide to ignore the above-listed areas during the project design, or if there is simply not enough consideration given?If Wantok dynamics are not properly understood and integrated into project design and implementation, and if not considered during stakeholder engagement, development interventions in Papua New Guinea often face immediate resistance or quiet non-cooperation from communities. Projects may unintentionally bypass key clan leaders or favour one lineage over another, leading to perceptions of unfairness, exclusion, or disrespect. This quickly undermines trust, reduces participation, and can trigger inter-clan tensions, contestation, and result in active blocking of project activities.Ignoring Wantok obligations also results in misallocation of benefits, elite capture, and pressure on individuals to redirect project resources to their own kin, weakening transparency and damaging the credibility of implementing agencies. Ultimately, failure to account for Wantok networks compromises the adoption of innovations, decreases the protection and maintenance of project assets, and significantly reduces the sustainability of outcomes.Next time, we will dive into practical tips how to include Wantok dynamics into the project planning and implementation. Stay tuned!P. Additional reading/sources: Walton, G., & Jackson, D. (2020, January). Reciprocity networks, service delivery, and corruption: The Wantok system in Papua New Guinea. u4.no. https://www.u4.no/api/publications/reciprocity-networks-service-delivery-and-corruption-the-wantok-system-in-papua-new-guinea/pdfNational, T. (2024, October 7). Wantok System hindering development. The National. Port Moresby. https://www.thenational.com.pg/wantok-system-hindering-development/Iyabora, E. J. (2016). Managing ‘Wantok System’ Influence: improving the business climate in Solomon Islands, The 2016 Pacific Update Conference. In Devpolicy.org. Suva. https://devpolicy.org/Events/2016/Pacific%20Update/2b%20Private%20Sector%20Development/2b_Emmanuel%20Iyabora_2016%20Pacific%20Update%20Conf.pdfMonsell-Dawis, M. (1993). Safety net or disincentive? Wantoks and Relatives in Urban Pacific. NRI Discussion Paper, (72). https://www.pngnri.org/images/Publications_Archive/NRI_DP__72.pdfPaolo, de R. (2000). Bigmen and Wantoks: Social Capital and Group Behaviour in Papua New Guinea. QEH Working Paper Series - QEHWPS27, (27). https://www.qeh.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pdf_docs/qehwps27.pdfUnage, M. (Ed.). (2009). Community Transformation - Unlocking the Development Potential of the People. Proceedings of the Community Transformation Conference Held at the National Research Institute, 16-18 July 2009 , (56). ISBN 9980 75 169 X https://pngnri.org/images/Publications/056_Unage__2010.pdf