 Seema Narayan |  Akeneta Vonoyauyau |  |
*At present, there is still no public evidence that Professor Seema Narayan personally received payment connected to the inflation paper she co-authored with Joel Abraham and Akeneta Vonoyauyau. The paper itself contains no funding disclosure identifying individual remuneration. However, once her husband Paresh Narayan himself confirmed that the FCCC-APAEA arrangement involved “fees and compensation”, the public-interest questions inevitably widens beyond a single paper or a single co-author.
*Biman Prasad is listed as Adjunct Professor at Monash University
 |  Paresh Narayan |
The FCCC Research Paper Controversy Deepens: Joel Abraham, Akeneta Vonoyauyau, Seema Narayan, and the Unanswered Questions Over the $200,000 Research Arrangement
The controversy surrounding the Fijian Competition and Consumer Commission’s research partnerships has deepened further following the publication of another FCCC-linked academic paper involving FCCC officials Joel Abraham and Akeneta Vonoyauyau together with Professor Seema Wati Narayan of Monash University, the wife of economist Professor Paresh Narayan.
The paper, titled “Do Price Controlled Basic Food Items Affect Inflation in Fiji?”, was published in 2023 in the Bulletin of Monetary Economics and Banking. It examined whether FCCC-controlled prices on staple imported food items such as potatoes, onions, and garlic affected inflation in Fiji between 2019 and 2022.
The authors concluded that price controls on those food items did not significantly contribute to inflation and argued that such controls helped soften inflationary pressures in Fiji.
At one level, there is nothing inherently improper about academic collaboration between regulators and external researchers. Governments, regulators, and universities frequently work together on policy-oriented research internationally.
But the Fiji controversy is no longer simply about ordinary academic publication.
It is now about governance, procurement, transparency, institutional independence, and the increasingly visible overlap between FCCC officials, Monash University -l inked academics, and politically connected public figures.
The debate intensified after Paresh Narayan responded publicly to questions raised by Fijileaks concerning the FCCC’s research arrangements and the approximately FJ$200,000 reportedly paid by the FCCC under a research Memorandum of Understanding involving the Asia-Pacific Applied Economics Association (APAEA).
Narayan defended the arrangement vigorously. He argued that the FCCC possessed substantial quantities of raw economic data but lacked sufficient in-house technical capability to fully analyse it; the APAEA was therefore engaged to provide econometric expertise, statistical analysis, and policy research support; the work resulted in ten research papers and public policy presentations; and the collaboration was part of a broader “knowledge economy” initiative rather than secretive or politically motivated activity.
Narayan also bluntly defended the payments themselves, stating that “research is not free” and that the MoU specifically contemplated “fees and compensation arrangements” for the work undertaken. That statement is critical because it confirms that the FCCC-funded research programme involved paid arrangements.
What remains unclear, however, is who exactly received payment. Narayan’s explanation did not specify whether payments were made directly to APAEA institutionally; whether individual academics were paid separately; whether consultancy fees or honoraria were issued; whether Monash University staff participated in a paid capacity; or whether any serving public officials benefited financially from the arrangement.
That uncertainty becomes more politically sensitive because the controversy already involved another FCCC-linked paper co-authored by former Finance Minister Biman Prasad, Paresh Narayan, and Joel Abraham concerning the effectiveness of FCCC price-control measures.
That earlier paper became controversial because Biman Prasad was the sitting Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister at the time; Joel Abraham was chief executive of the FCCC; and the paper effectively defended the effectiveness of FCCC regulatory intervention in the economy.
Critics argued that the issue was not necessarily illegality but institutional proximity. Independent regulators are expected not only to act independently but also to maintain visible distance from political actors whose policies they regulate or support.
The appearance of this second FCCC-linked paper involving Joel Abraham, Akeneta Vonoyauyau, and Seema Narayan therefore broadens the controversy considerably. The public now sees what appears to be a recurring network involving FCCC officials; Monash-linked academics; APAEA collaborations; and politically connected co-authors.
That naturally raises further questions: Was the FCCC repeatedly using the same interconnected academic network for taxpayer-funded research? Were procurement processes followed? Were competing researchers or institutions considered? Did the FCCC Board approve the arrangements? Was Parliament informed? And were all financial relationships fully disclosed?
The issue is not helped by the fact that FCCC data itself formed the basis of the research. The paper expressly states that the food-price information used in the inflation analysis came from FCCC field data collections.
Opposition criticism in Parliament focused precisely on this issue: why taxpayer-funded data and regulatory research were being published primarily under the names of individual academics and officials rather than institutionally under the FCCC itself.
According to reports from the Parliamentary Standing Committee hearing, FCCC chief executive Senikavika Jiuta acknowledged that approximately $200,000 had been spent on consultancy and professional fees associated with the production of ten research papers.
Jiuta reportedly accepted concerns that future publications should more clearly identify the FCCC as the institutional source of the research and data.
That concession is important because it implicitly recognises the central governance issue: who was actually producing the work, who owned the underlying data, and who financially benefited from the arrangement?
At present, there is still no public evidence that Professor Seema Narayan personally received payment connected to the inflation paper she co-authored with Joel Abraham and Akeneta Vonoyauyau. The paper itself contains no funding disclosure identifying individual remuneration.
However, once Narayan himself confirmed that the FCCC-APAEA arrangement involved “fees and compensation”, the public-interest questions inevitably widened beyond a single paper or a single co-author.
The controversy now centres on transparency itself.
Who was paid?
How much?
For what exact services?
Under what approvals?
And where should the line be drawn between independent academic research and state-funded policy advocacy involving regulators, ministers, and politically connected academics?
Those questions remain unanswered.
The controversy surrounding the Fijian Competition and Consumer Commission’s research partnerships has deepened further following the publication of another FCCC-linked academic paper involving FCCC officials Joel Abraham and Akeneta Vonoyauyau together with Professor Seema Wati Narayan of Monash University, the wife of economist Professor Paresh Narayan.
The paper, titled “Do Price Controlled Basic Food Items Affect Inflation in Fiji?”, was published in 2023 in the Bulletin of Monetary Economics and Banking. It examined whether FCCC-controlled prices on staple imported food items such as potatoes, onions, and garlic affected inflation in Fiji between 2019 and 2022.
The authors concluded that price controls on those food items did not significantly contribute to inflation and argued that such controls helped soften inflationary pressures in Fiji.
At one level, there is nothing inherently improper about academic collaboration between regulators and external researchers. Governments, regulators, and universities frequently work together on policy-oriented research internationally.
But the Fiji controversy is no longer simply about ordinary academic publication.
It is now about governance, procurement, transparency, institutional independence, and the increasingly visible overlap between FCCC officials, Monash University -l inked academics, and politically connected public figures.
The debate intensified after Paresh Narayan responded publicly to questions raised by Fijileaks concerning the FCCC’s research arrangements and the approximately FJ$200,000 reportedly paid by the FCCC under a research Memorandum of Understanding involving the Asia-Pacific Applied Economics Association (APAEA).
Narayan defended the arrangement vigorously. He argued that the FCCC possessed substantial quantities of raw economic data but lacked sufficient in-house technical capability to fully analyse it; the APAEA was therefore engaged to provide econometric expertise, statistical analysis, and policy research support; the work resulted in ten research papers and public policy presentations; and the collaboration was part of a broader “knowledge economy” initiative rather than secretive or politically motivated activity.
Narayan also bluntly defended the payments themselves, stating that “research is not free” and that the MoU specifically contemplated “fees and compensation arrangements” for the work undertaken. That statement is critical because it confirms that the FCCC-funded research programme involved paid arrangements.
What remains unclear, however, is who exactly received payment. Narayan’s explanation did not specify whether payments were made directly to APAEA institutionally; whether individual academics were paid separately; whether consultancy fees or honoraria were issued; whether Monash University staff participated in a paid capacity; or whether any serving public officials benefited financially from the arrangement.
That uncertainty becomes more politically sensitive because the controversy already involved another FCCC-linked paper co-authored by former Finance Minister Biman Prasad, Paresh Narayan, and Joel Abraham concerning the effectiveness of FCCC price-control measures.
That earlier paper became controversial because Biman Prasad was the sitting Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister at the time; Joel Abraham was chief executive of the FCCC; and the paper effectively defended the effectiveness of FCCC regulatory intervention in the economy.
Critics argued that the issue was not necessarily illegality but institutional proximity. Independent regulators are expected not only to act independently but also to maintain visible distance from political actors whose policies they regulate or support.
The appearance of this second FCCC-linked paper involving Joel Abraham, Akeneta Vonoyauyau, and Seema Narayan therefore broadens the controversy considerably. The public now sees what appears to be a recurring network involving FCCC officials; Monash-linked academics; APAEA collaborations; and politically connected co-authors.
That naturally raises further questions: Was the FCCC repeatedly using the same interconnected academic network for taxpayer-funded research? Were procurement processes followed? Were competing researchers or institutions considered? Did the FCCC Board approve the arrangements? Was Parliament informed? And were all financial relationships fully disclosed?
The issue is not helped by the fact that FCCC data itself formed the basis of the research. The paper expressly states that the food-price information used in the inflation analysis came from FCCC field data collections.
Opposition criticism in Parliament focused precisely on this issue: why taxpayer-funded data and regulatory research were being published primarily under the names of individual academics and officials rather than institutionally under the FCCC itself.
According to reports from the Parliamentary Standing Committee hearing, FCCC chief executive Senikavika Jiuta acknowledged that approximately $200,000 had been spent on consultancy and professional fees associated with the production of ten research papers.
Jiuta reportedly accepted concerns that future publications should more clearly identify the FCCC as the institutional source of the research and data.
That concession is important because it implicitly recognises the central governance issue: who was actually producing the work, who owned the underlying data, and who financially benefited from the arrangement?
At present, there is still no public evidence that Professor Seema Narayan personally received payment connected to the inflation paper she co-authored with Joel Abraham and Akeneta Vonoyauyau. The paper itself contains no funding disclosure identifying individual remuneration.
However, once Narayan himself confirmed that the FCCC-APAEA arrangement involved “fees and compensation”, the public-interest questions inevitably widened beyond a single paper or a single co-author.
The controversy now centres on transparency itself.
Who was paid?
How much?
For what exact services?
Under what approvals?
And where should the line be drawn between independent academic research and state-funded policy advocacy involving regulators, ministers, and politically connected academics?
Those questions remain unanswered.
From Fijileaks Archive, 18 November 2023
Professor Vijay Naidu claims one of the two members of the review committee from Monash University, PARESH NARAYAN, is Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Biman Prasad's former student. Interestingly, it was in November 2023 when the Inflation article became available online.
 |  |
Professor SEEMA NARAYAN is the Deputy Director of Pacific Actions for Climate Transitions (PACT) a joint climate change research centre of Fiji National University and Monash University
Professor Seema Narayan is the Deputy Director of Pacific Actions for Climate Transitions (PACT) a joint climate change research centre of Fiji National University and Monash University. She is working with stakeholders to develop and implement research and capacity building programs for the climate change vulnerable Pacific Island nations. Professor Seema Narayan is an interdisciplinary researcher and economist. She is originally from Fiji, is a University of South Pacific alumni and has worked as an economist at the Reserve Bank of Fiji prior to moving to Australia. She completed her PhD from the Monash University in 2009 and has worked as an educator and researcher at RMIT in Melbourne for more than 13 years or so and prior to this accumulated significant teaching and research experience working at various other universities including Monash University, Griffith University and the Central Queensland University. She has taught undergraduate and MBA courses in Economics and Finance to a diverse student cohorts. She has published more than 150 articles in internationally recognised peer-reviewed journals. A good part of her research work tracks some of key environmental and climate change issues. In the area of climate change her work tracks energy transition, funding of energy transition as well as the implications of fossil fuels on the economic and financial systems, in the Pacific and beyond. She also works in the areas of economic growth and other related areas of health economics, trade and financial markets developments.
