THERE IS, IN SOME DEGREE, a common paradigm that can be used to interpret the relationship between education and aspects of socioeconomic change in many of the states, and Papua New Guinea could profit from an examination of the record of some other nations that embarked on the course of post-colonial development a decade or more ago. No social scientist would maintain that we have done more than take a preliminary glance at the complex relations between education and various types of social change, but I believe historical precedent and the findings of a growing body of empirical research even now enable us to predict the contingent outcomes of certain types of policy decision. With some exceptions, most of the independent nations at the lowest levels of socioeconomic development are neo-colonial states. The term neo-colonialism is often used to describe the continued economic dependency of the new upon the developed nations (whether capitalist or socialist), but for myself, the term neocolonial society has far more widespread implications. First, it refers to a set of dispositions that exists in the minds of men-and especially in the minds of those indigenous leaders in many countries who are the heirs of colonial authority. By virtue of Western schooling or life-style they perceive themselves as the natural leaders of the new polity and the heirs to all wisdom. A corollary of the colonial situation, in fact, is an implicit etatism that assumes that the masses are uninformed, incapable of recognizing their own true interests, and that if development is to take place it can only do so through the efforts of central authority. I shall argue, in fact, that this is a mistaken view and that no type of educational planning will succeed unless it is based upon the aspiration and expectations of the majority of the population or provides incentive structures that will allow these aspirations to be modified to accord with national goals. This suggests that national planning will often involve the devolution of decision-making authority away from the center rather than its concentration in the hands of state planning agencies. This is particularly vital insofar as in all those countries that have achieved independence in the last decade or so the demands placed upon the central polity for equity, welfare and development far exceed the system's capacity to respond. The answer to this problem is less, not more concentration of authority. It may be rejoined that this approach runs counter to the expressed need to build the nation and indeed generates seces-