There are three interrelated reasons why it has been so difficult to make cultural identity an integral part of regional governance (beyond the rhetorical level) and the Pacific Plan: lack of political will and leadership, and pressure; lack of available conceptual tools to integrate culture into practical economic and political measures; and lack of understanding of what kinds of benefits could result from integrating cultural identity into a formal high-level regional plan of action.

Although Pacific Island leaders have spoken consistently about the need to better incorporate cultural values and norms in development and governance in the region, they have not made it a priority when it comes to implementation. One reason for this might be domination of the forum by countries or leaders who do not see Pacific culture, with its emphasis on solidarity and networks rather than competition and individual pursuit, as viable or beneficial for the region’s development. Another is the lack of political leadership in regional affairs in the past 10 to 15 years, a period during which, as reported by the EPG, decisions have been formulated increasingly by officials rather than leaders, with the expectation that leaders will simply approve.

In addition to the lack of political direction, there is no doubt a lack of conceptual tools for integrating culture into existing political and economic frameworks (as well as a lack of will to develop them). There has been little research or strategic thinking about how to devise ways for the formal economy and political institutions to work hand in hand with communal structures and resource ownership, and to take advantage of community ‘networking’.

There has been little effort in the region to understand how communities can utilise their human and cultural resources to enhance livelihoods while participating in the market economy. Advocates of the market economy assume that it will provide answers and that people will adapt to it — they do not envision another more appropriate solution, which is that the market should adapt itself to the social and cultural context. This is a more difficult task and involves some rethinking away from market and globalisation dogma, which asserts that globalisation is inescapable and that it is up to society to adapt to economic integration while conceding cultural, political and social disintegration. In its response to globalization, the region has thus far been reluctant (or has found it difficult) to go beyond declarations about the importance of people and culture into developing strategies for implementation.