contents · pdf filebram van ojik (iob) 6 talking ... (utrecht un vers ty), bram van oj k ......

Contents

Foreword� iii

Acknowledgements� v

Abbreviations� vii

1� Space�for�learning:�an�introduction�to�this�book� 1�

� � Jan�Waltmans�(DEK/BA)�

2� Bringing�politics�into�poverty:�the�political�dimensions�of�poverty�alleviation� 5

� � Kees�Koonings�(Utrecht�University)�

3� Behind�the�façade:�the�informal�reality�in�developing�countries� 19

� � Karen�Harth�and�Jan�Waltmans�(DEK/BA)�

4� Drivers�of�change:�understanding�the�forces�for�poverty�reduction� 33

� � Anne-Mieke�van�Breukelen�(DEK/BA)�

5� A�lesson�in�modesty:�in�search�of�the�legitimacy�of�Dutch�development�cooperation�� 47

� � Bram�van�Ojik�(IOB)�

6� Talking�your�way�out�of�poverty:�policy�dialogue�as�a�tool�for�effective�poverty��

� reduction� 57

� � Brigitte�Stolk�and�Ruud�van�der�Helm�(DEK/HI)�

7� Another�blueprint�from�the�drawing�board?�a�Dutch�policy�perspective�on�the�poverty��

� reduction�process�� 69

� � Marten�de�Boer�and�Bert�Vermaat�(DEK/BA)�

8� Bridging�the�macro-micro�gap:�micro-meso-macro�linkages�in�the�context�of��

� sector-wide�approaches� 83

� � Ellen�van�Reesch�(DEK/BA)�

9� Taking�responsibility�and�demanding�rights:�accountability�in�service�delivery� 99

� � Floris�Blankenberg�(DEK/BA)�

SourceBook-Binnenwerk.indb 1 15-05-2007 10:53:59

10� Stop�teaching,�start�learning:�the�mystery�of�capacity�development�� 113

� � Antoinette�Gosses�(DEK/BA)�

11� Escape�from�the�poverty�trap:�the�challenges�of�poverty�and�social�impact�analysis� 127

� � Floris�Blankenberg�(DEK/BA)�and�Marc�Rooijackers�(FEZ/BZ)�

12� Doing�the�right�things�for�the�poor:�ex�ante�poverty�impact�assessment�� 141

� � Floris�Blankenberg�(DEK/BA)�and�Task�Team�on�PIA�(POVNET)�

13� The�toolbox:�Some�nuts�and�bolts�for�effective�aid�policies� 155

� � DEK/BA�


A rich menu for the poor

Food for thought on effective aid policies

� A rich menu for the poor

A r�ch menu for the poorFood for thought on effect�ve a�d pol�c�es

Effectiveness and Quality Department (DEK)

The Hague, May 2007


��


�� A rich menu for the poor

Foreword

The prevailing notions of poverty reduction – in the Netherlands, but also in international cooperation more

generally – do not fully appreciate the political dimension of poverty and poverty alleviation.

Somewhere �n th�s book, readers w�ll stumble upon th�s quotat�on. For me, �ts words capture one of the ma�n challenges we face today �n development cooperat�on: to br�ng back pol�t�cs. Over the past decade, large port�ons of the development f�eld have been colon�sed by technocrats who categor�se development as an apol�t�cal, mechan�st�c process. L�ke a 1955 educat�onal model I once saw �n the hall of Rotterdam’s Erasmus Un�vers�ty, demonstrat�ng the work�ngs of an economy. As water flowed throughout th�s mach�ne, we�ghts and panels started mov�ng around, show�ng how consumpt�on tr�ggers product�on and sav�ngs tr�gger �nvestment. Such models prov�de us w�th peace of m�nd: putt�ng them together may be a great deal of work but once we have solved the equat�ons and done the number-crunch�ng, we know wh�ch way the world w�ll go.

All too often, however, �t’s a false sense of secur�ty at the expense of real�sm. Th�s �s espec�ally true �n development, where there �s often a yawn�ng gap between t�dy model and unt�dy real�ty. Development �s not only about the supposedly pred�ctable �nteract�on between concepts such as good governance, macroeconom�c stab�l�ty and part�c�patory strateg�es. It �s also largely about the messy world of pol�t�cs. Who dec�des what the government’s pr�or�t�es are and whether they �nclude poverty reduct�on? Who dec�des where the money goes? Who dec�des how development programmes are put �nto pract�ce? And ult�mately – the perenn�al quest�on �n pol�t�cs – who dec�des who dec�des? Th�s �s all complex stuff, hard to capture �n equat�ons, let alone �n water models w�th we�ghts and panels. But �f we want to make a substant�al d�fference on the ground, we should certa�nly not shy away from such �ssues.

Th�s book has been produced by the Effect�veness and Qual�ty Department of the Dutch M�n�stry of Fore�gn Affa�rs. One of �ts major themes �s the much-needed balance between the technocrat�c strategy and a more pol�t�cally sens�t�ve approach. The publ�cat�on should prov�de our embass�es �n partner countr�es and other players �n development cooperat�on w�th much food for thought and �ncent�ves for act�on. Its authors pa�nstak�ngly explore new ways of mak�ng a�d more effect�ve – the M�n�stry’s core bus�ness – through pol�cy d�alogue and capac�ty development. Th�s too requ�res a more pol�t�cally sens�t�ve way of work�ng w�th development ass�stance, �n wh�ch vo�ce and accountab�l�ty, processes ‘beh�nd the façade’ and �ncreased government effect�veness are treated s�multaneously and coherently. The authors also applaud the sh�ft from a donor focus to a rec�p�ent focus, �n wh�ch the donor does more serv�ng than lead�ng. Poor countr�es and poor people themselves know better than anyone what they need �n order to get ahead.


�v

By heed�ng the�r calls �nstead of r�d�ng our own hobby horses and by br�ng�ng pol�t�cs back onto the scene the developed countr�es can truly help develop�ng countr�es to develop. Th�s �s what we comm�tted ourselves to at the turn of the m�llenn�um, when we and they rall�ed around the M�llenn�um Development Goals. In 2005, world leaders at the UN World Summ�t reaff�rmed the�r support for these goals, wh�ch are to be ach�eved by 2015. It was the largest gather�ng of world leaders �n h�story – and what could be more pol�t�cal than that?

Bert KoendersM�n�ster for Development Cooperat�on


v A rich menu for the poor

Acknowledgements

Wh�le draft�ng th�s book, we could draw on a number of valuable publ�cat�ons of �nternat�onal agenc�es such as the World Bank (on accountab�l�ty and poverty and soc�al �mpact analys�s), DFID (on dr�vers of change and aga�n poverty and soc�al �mpact analys�s), UNDP (on capac�ty development), OECD/DAC (on poverty �mpact assessment and aga�n capac�ty development), and ECDPM (on capac�ty development).

The chapters were also enr�ched through ample exchanges w�th the embassy staff �n several partner countr�es, colleagues at the Department �n The Hague, and through the �nputs rece�ved from part�c�pants at the �nternal conference on A�d Effect�veness �n September 2006.

The preparat�on of the book has benef�ted from the valuable contr�but�ons and construct�ve suggest�ons from Harry Wels (Free Un�vers�ty Amsterdam), Johan van R�xtel (Corda�d), Margr�et Poel (SNV), Rolf Swart (VNG), Joop de W�t (ISS), P�m Verhallen (ICCO), N�co van N�ekerk (IOB), Hans Blankenberg (Dutch Embassy Kabul), Stan Termeer and Esther Westra (both formerly DEK/BA) and Evel�ne van Manen (DEK/BA).

Recogn�t�on goes to those who wrote the var�ous chapters of th�s book: Kees Koon�ngs (Utrecht Un�vers�ty), Bram van Oj�k (Pol�cy and Operat�ons Evaluat�on Department) and to staff and former staff of the Effect�veness and Qual�ty Department: Jan Waltmans, Karen Harth, Anne-M�eke van Breukelen, Br�g�tte Stolk, Ruud van der Helm, Marten de Boer, Bert Vermaat, Ellen van Reesch, Flor�s Blankenberg, Anto�nette Gosses, and Marc Roo�jackers.


vi

Colophon

Production Ministry of Foreign AffairsPolicy division Effectiveness and Quality Department (DEK)Editor Wereld in Woorden, text and research, HaarlemGraphical design Optima Forma, VoorburgPrinter WPT, RijswijkIllustrations Roel Ottow, Apeldoorn

May 2007www.minbuza.nl


v�� A rich menu for the poor

Abbrev�at�ons

ADB As�an Development BankAFD Agence França�se de DéveloppementAfDB Afr�can Development BankAPR Annual Progress ReportAPRODEV Assoc�at�on of World Counc�l of Churches related Development Organ�sat�ons

�n EuropeBMZ Bundesm�n�ster�um für w�rtschaftl�che Zusammenarbe�d und Entw�cklungBRAC Bangladesh Rural Advancement Comm�tteeBWDB Bangladesh Water Development BoardCAP Country Ass�stance PaperCBO Commun�ty Based Organ�sat�onCD Capac�ty DevelopmentCIDA Canad�an Internat�onal Development AgencyCSI C�v�cus C�v�l Soc�ety IndexCSO C�v�l Soc�ety Organ�sat�onDAF Sub-Sahara Afr�ca DepartmentDEK/BA Effect�veness and Qual�ty Department/Pol�cy Analys�s and Adv�ce D�v�s�onDEK/HI Effect�veness and Qual�ty Department/A�d Modal�t�es and Instrument

Development D�v�s�onDFID Department for Internat�onal Development (UK)DGIS D�rectorate-General for Internat�onal Cooperat�onDMV/VG Human R�ghts and Peacebu�ld�ng Department/Peacebu�ld�ng and Good

Governance D�v�s�onDoC Dr�vers of ChangeDSI/AI Soc�al and Inst�tut�onal Development Department/Poverty Pol�cy and

Inst�tut�onal Development D�v�s�onDSI/ER Soc�al and Inst�tut�onal Development Department/Emanc�pat�on, Reproduct�ve

R�ghts and Health D�v�s�onECDPM European Centre for Development Pol�cy ManagementEU European Un�onEURODAD European Network on Debt and DevelopmentFAO Food and Agr�culture Organ�sat�onFEZ/BZ F�nanc�al and Econom�c Affa�rs Department/Budget D�v�s�onFGCA Framework for Governance and Corrupt�on Analys�s


v��

GARWSP General Author�ty for Rural Water SupplyGNP Gross Nat�onal ProductGTZ German Agency for Techn�cal Cooperat�onIADB Inter-Amer�can Development BankICCO Interchurch Organ�sat�on for Development Cooperat�onICD Inst�tut�onal and Capac�ty DevelopmentID Inst�tut�onal DevelopmentIEO Independent Evaluat�on Off�ceIFAD Internat�onal Fund for Agr�cultural DevelopmentIMF Internat�onal Monetary Fund INTRAC Internat�onal NGO Tra�n�ng and Research CentreIOB Pol�cy and Operat�ons Evaluat�on DepartmentI-PRSP Inter�m-Poverty Reduct�on Strategy PaperIS Internat�onal Cooperat�onISOA Inst�tut�onal Sector and Organ�sat�on Analys�sISS Inst�tute of Soc�al Stud�esJLP Jo�nt Learn�ng ProgrammeKfW KfW Entw�cklungsbankMASP Mult�-Annual Strateg�c PlanMDF Management or Development Foundat�onMDG M�llenn�um Development GoalMFS Co-f�nanc�ng SystemMoU Memorandum of Understand�ngMP Member of Parl�amentNGO Non-Governmental Organ�sat�onNGDO Non-Governmental Development Organ�sat�onNRC N�euwe Rotterdamse CourantOECD/DAC Organ�sat�on for Econom�c Cooperat�on and Development/ Development

Ass�stance Comm�tteeOED Operat�ons Evaluat�on DepartmentPAF Performance Assessment FrameworkPEFA Publ�c Expend�ture and F�nanc�al Accountab�l�tyPER Publ�c Expend�ture Rev�ewPETS Publ�c Expend�ture Track�ng SurveyPFM-POP Publ�c F�nance Management-Support Programme for Embass�esPIA Poverty Impact AssessmentPIU Project Implementat�on Un�tPOVNET Poverty NetworkPPG Pro-Poor GrowthPPP Publ�c Pr�vate Partnersh�pPRA Part�c�patory Rural Appra�salPRS Poverty Reduct�on StrategyPRSP Poverty Reduct�on Strategy PaperPSD Pr�vate Sector DevelopmentPSIA Poverty and Soc�al Impact Analys�sROACH Results-Or�ented Approach to Capac�ty ChangeRRA Rap�d Rural Appra�salSAF Stab�l�ty Assessment FrameworkSB Sectoral Support Pol�cy


�x A rich menu for the poor

SBPC S�stema Bol�v�ana de Product�v�dad y Compet�t�v�dadSECO State Secretar�ate for Econom�c Affa�rs, Sw�tzerlandSGACA Strateg�c Governance and Corrupt�on AssessmentSIDA Swed�sh Internat�onal Development AgencySNV Netherlands Development Organ�sat�onSPICAD Support Programme for Inst�tut�onal and Capac�ty DevelopmentSWAP Sector-W�de ApproachSWOT Strengths and Weaknesses, Opportun�t�es and Threats Analys�sTA Techn�cal Ass�stanceTIPS Tools for Inst�tut�onal, Pol�t�cal and Soc�al Analys�sUN Un�ted Nat�onsUNDP Un�ted Nat�ons Development ProgrammeUNESCO/IIEP Un�ted Nat�ons Educat�onal, Sc�ent�f�c and Cultural Organ�sat�on/Internat�onal

Inst�tute for Educat�on Plann�ngUNICEF Un�ted Nat�ons Ch�ldren’s FundUSAID Un�ted States Agency for Internat�onal DevelopmentVNG Assoc�at�on of Netherlands Mun�c�pal�t�esWB World BankWDR World Development ReportWRR Sc�ent�f�c Counc�l for Government Pol�cy WWF World W�ldl�fe Fund


x


Space for learning

An introduction to this book

1

1

Space for learn�ngan introduction to this book

Jan Waltmans (DEK/BA)

Summary

� � In�the�course�of�decades,�a�wealth�of�information�has�been�gathered�in�the�field�of�development�cooperation�on�what�works�and�what�does�not.�Despite�the�many�lessons�that�have�been�learnt,�the�quality�of�development�cooperation�can�still�be�greatly�improved.�What�should�we�as�donors,�within�our�organisations�and�in�cooperation�with�our�partners,�be�paying�more�attention�to?�This�book�is�aimed�at�providing�a�deeper�insight�into�the�complex�issues�related�to�development�and�development�cooperation.

The�many�faces�of�development

Development never stops, �t has many faces, �s more or less unpred�ctable and �s exper�enced �n d�fferent ways. The d�rect�on wh�ch development should take depends among other factors on the pol�t�cal and personal v�s�on of pol�t�cal leaders, pol�cymakers, sc�ent�sts and other c�t�zens. Development �s a term that can hardly be def�ned. It can be approached from d�fferent angles: econom�c, soc�al, susta�nable or just and fa�r development, as well as comb�nat�ons of these.

If development �n a general sense �s already hard to frame, �t can be no surpr�se that development cooperation – w�th countr�es, organ�sat�ons or �nd�v�duals – �s even more compl�cated. The d�fferences between develop�ng countr�es and developed, usually Western, countr�es are often cons�derable. There �s a huge d�vergence �n phys�cal c�rcumstances, but also opportun�t�es and l�m�tat�ons d�ffer, partly due to the �nfluence of vast, often m�sunderstood cultural d�fferences.

A partner – however highly educated he may be – will not easily admit that the promised policy paper

or programme proposal shall not be finished within the agreed upon time. This could be a matter

of unwillingness, but pride also frequently plays a role. He cannot share with you that his boss is

not qualified, is continuously away from the office, is generally hard to reach and yet will not let a

single decision be made by someone else. He does not have an internet connection, within the whole

ministry there is only one photocopier that works, the few other competent colleagues are themselves

overworked, he regularly has to write speeches for his minister and accompany him when guests are

visiting. Furthermore, he cannot avoid attending many, not always useful, meetings outside the city to

raise his income to the minimum level of €750,- per month.


2

Working�on�effectiveness

Dur�ng the past decades, Dutch c�t�zens and Dutch organ�sat�ons, �nclud�ng the M�n�stry of Fore�gn Affa�rs, have contr�buted w�th much opt�m�sm and great �nvolvement to the work of development cooperat�on. W�th t�me we have ga�ned a wealth of exper�ence, both about what works and about what proves to work �nsuff�c�ently or not at all. We have �ncorporated these lessons �nto new pol�cy and new forms of cooperat�on. Increas�ngly th�s takes place �n an �nternat�onal context, such as w�th�n the framework of OECD/DAC talks. The Paris Declaration on Aid

Effectiveness (2005) counts as a prom�nent outcome of these talks and serves as a gu�del�ne for act�on �n the com�ng years. The actual results ach�eved �n terms of poverty reduct�on, �n relat�on to the resources and efforts appl�ed, are even more at the centre of focus than before.

Although much has been learnt and these lessons have been �ncorporated �nto new steps, the effectiveness of development cooperat�on must and can be further �mproved. To th�s end, more harmon�sat�on and cooperat�on �s needed between actors �n develop�ng countr�es, between representat�ves of develop�ng countr�es and donors, as also between the donors themselves.

Donors pay many, often not mutually coordinated, visits to developing countries. Moreover, they

request a great number of reports to be written and submitted, which are again not well geared to one

another. This happens at the expense of the implementing capacity of partner countries. Only a small

number of partner countries have taken control and demand a reduction in the number of missions,

mission-free periods and a decrease in report stipulations.

Obv�ously other factors play an �mportant role �n the effect�veness of development cooperat�on, such as pol�t�cal w�ll, good governance, peace and secur�ty, the role of c�v�l soc�ety and the �mprovement of the stat�st�cal capac�ty and other methods to measure the �mpact of pol�cy. The quality of development cooperat�on also needs �mprovement. What should we as donors, w�th�n our organ�sat�ons and �n cooperat�on w�th our partners, be pay�ng more attent�on to? An example �s coherence of pol�cy, such as �nternat�onal agreements �n the areas of trade, m�grat�on and env�ronmental pol�cy.

The M�n�stry of Fore�gn Affa�rs, �n both the nat�onal and �nternat�onal context, cont�nuously works on the �mprovement of the effect�veness of development cooperat�on. However, �n actual fact the agenda of development cooperat�on �s to a large extent determ�ned by the current developments �n our own country. The effect�veness of a�d �s thereby seldom taken �nto cons�derat�on.

Donors have assigned huge sums of money from budgets for development cooperation to Iraq and

Afghanistan; after 9/11 large budgets were assigned to Pakistan and our media greatly influenced the

size of the funds that were generated after the Tsunami. These are policy decisions made on the basis

of (geo) political considerations or under the pressure of public opinion. The question whether these

decisions optimally contribute to poverty reduction (or development) is hardly or not at all raised.

W�th�n our organ�sat�on, compl�cated �ssues that are related to a�d effect�veness are dealt w�th �n var�ous manners. Take for example the meet�ngs of the Heads of Development Cooperat�on, ambassadors’ conferences, lectures, country team v�s�ts, and d�scuss�ons follow�ng research and publ�cat�ons by sc�ent�sts, the World Bank or DFID. For a number of �ssues, for wh�ch the Sc�ent�f�c Counc�l for Government Pol�cy (WRR) uses the term ‘untameable problems’, �t �s extremely d�ff�cult to make progress �n pract�cal terms.


�

When such �ssues are �nternally d�scussed, the ensu�ng response �s often that ‘we are already do�ng that, aren’t we’, ‘we’ve known that for years’ or w�th shrugged shoulders the cho�ce �s made to focus on the da�ly chores.

This�book�as�a�tool

It �s self-ev�dent that the Effect�veness and Qual�ty Department/Pol�cy Analys�s and Adv�ce D�v�s�on (DEK/BA) �nvolves �tself w�th compl�cated subject matters related to development cooperat�on. Even more than ‘the mandate’ of th�s department, there was another reason wh�ch led to the �n�t�at�ve to launch a book: the conv�ct�on that deepened �ns�ght �nto compl�cated themes and a collect�ve quest for a pract�cal approach to these themes w�ll enhance greater effect�veness of development cooperat�on. The book �nv�tes people to work w�th the �nformat�on and the references prov�ded �n the var�ous chapters. Complex �ssues are touched upon w�thout drown�ng the reader �n profess�onal jargon. The book �s furthermore �ntended to ga�n a dynam�c qual�ty. New chapters, suggest�ons and toolk�ts w�ll be added; papers and presentat�ons w�ll be appended. The dynam�c nature of the book needs to be encouraged by staff d�scuss�ons, for wh�ch a�m exchange w�ll be fac�l�tated, amongst others through a d�scuss�on forum on �ntranet. The book w�shes to contr�bute to an �nteract�ve and l�v�ng learn�ng approach to development cooperat�on.

Part�c�pat�on and concerted efforts are central to the �n�t�at�ve. The var�ous chapters of the book are wr�tten by (former) members of staff of DEK, the Pol�cy and Operat�ons Evaluat�on Department (IOB), the F�nanc�al and Econom�c Affa�rs Department (FEZ) and the Un�vers�ty of Utrecht, as well as by students (among others of the IS-academy) who have been on work placement at DEK. Recommendat�ons have frequently been sought from colleagues at the embass�es and the department �n The Hague, research �nst�tutes and NGOs.

The book �s meant to serve many. F�rst of all members of staff at the M�n�stry of Fore�gn Affa�rs, both of the embass�es and the department; and secondly the broader network wh�ch they ma�nta�n: our partners �n develop�ng countr�es and at donor head off�ces, scholars, NGO staff and students.

Which�subjects�are�discussed�in�this�book?

The chapters mak�ng up the f�rst ed�t�on of th�s book are presented �n the�r mutual coherence.

Cluster I focuses on the role of the actors �n development from the perspect�ve of culture, pol�t�cs and pos�t�ons of power. It conta�ns f�ve chapters on the pol�t�cs of poverty and poverty reduct�on strateg�es, beh�nd the façade, dr�vers of change, donor leg�t�macy and the pol�cy d�alogue. Pol�t�cal processes on poverty reduct�on cannot be separated from the �nformal work�ng culture �n develop�ng countr�es and the role played �n th�s by the el�te. Wh�le certa�n groups seek the�r own advantage and prevent change, other groups can be seen as dr�vers of change who a�m at support�ng the poor. For donors �t �s �mportant to ga�n a better �ns�ght �nto the underly�ng processes and factors of poverty reduct�on, as well as a more accurate p�cture of the actors �nvolved. At the same t�me, the leg�t�macy of the donor efforts – the mot�ves, a�ms, methods and behav�our – need to be cr�t�cally evaluated �n order to gauge the tang�ble effects of the a�d g�ven. The cluster closes w�th a chapter on the pol�t�cal d�alogue, wh�ch �s meant as a tool for donors to broach the ent�rety of the before ment�oned �ssues.


�

Cluster II concentrates on factors and processes that are of s�gn�f�cance for effect�ve poverty reduct�on. Much of the poverty reduct�on pol�c�es �n develop�ng countr�es are based on Poverty Reduct�on Strategy Papers (PRSPs). The chapter on m�cro-meso-macro l�nkages shows that the pol�c�es formulated at central state level, as descr�bed �n the PRSPs, are merely a start�ng po�nt. Effect�ve poverty reduct�on requ�res a fa�r balance between the d�fferent adm�n�strat�ve levels �n terms of part�c�pat�on, means and capac�ty. The �mportance of accountab�l�ty l�nks perfectly up w�th th�s. Serv�ce prov�ders should feel respons�ble for the qual�ty of the serv�ces rendered and c�t�zens should be able to demand the prov�s�on of these serv�ces. Capac�ty development supports these processes. However, the term ‘capac�ty development’ �s frequently used and m�sused. The chapter deal�ng w�th th�s �ssue �ntends to be a pract�cal beacon �n an ocean of def�n�t�ons and processes.

Cluster III d�scusses two approaches that a�m at ev�dence based pol�cy mak�ng, and �n that context expl�c�tly to cons�der the �mpact of pol�c�es on the pos�t�on of the poor. Poverty and Soc�al Impact Analys�s (PSIA) and Poverty Impact Assessment (PIA) are therefore not only concrete �nstruments to make a�d more effect�ve, they also propagate an att�tude among donors and pol�cymakers �n partner countr�es always to ra�se the quest�on: what �s the (potent�al) �mpact of th�s �n�t�at�ve on the poverty s�tuat�on? Because that �s the key quest�on to be answered. In the near future other relevant approaches and �nstruments w�ll be added to the book.

About a dozen add�t�onal subjects has been �dent�f�ed and w�ll be added to the book �n the course of 2007-2008: ownersh�p, rel�g�on and development, decentral�sat�on, harmon�sat�on and al�gnment, mon�tor�ng, a�d modal�t�es, learn�ng,�complementar�ty, gender and empowerment, mutual accountab�l�ty, coherence. Var�ous boards, embass�es and external part�es �nclud�ng un�vers�t�es and c�v�l soc�ety �nst�tut�ons w�ll be approached for contr�but�ons on these themes.

In short, there �s ample room for �n�t�at�ve, exchange, learn�ng and guts!


Bringing politics into poverty

The political dimensions

of poverty alleviation

2

5

Br�ng�ng pol�t�cs �nto povertythe political dimensions of poverty alleviation

Kees Koonings (Utrecht University)

�

Summary

� This�chapter�explores�the�political�dimensions�of�poverty�and�poverty�alleviation.�The�first�section�reviews�the�prevailing�poverty�concepts�to�show�that,�despite�the�by�now�mainstream�acceptance�of�multidimensional�poverty�thinking,�these�are�insufficiently�sensitive�to�political�factors.�The�following�section�examines�more�closely�the�threefold�political�dimensions�of�poverty:�exclusion�from�voice�and�power�(‘political�capabilities’);�power�relations�and�political�processes�that�determine�the�availability�of�and�access�to�other�key�capabilities;�the�politics�that�govern�the�willingness�to�prioritise�poverty�reduction�within�the�international�(donor)�community.�Subsequently,�the�chapter�looks�into�interest�positions�and�power�relations�in�a�given�social�context.�This�analysis�is�followed�by�an�inventory�of�the�political�factors�and�constraints�that�influence�donor�country�strategies�for�poverty�reduction�within�international�co-operation.�Finally,�the�chapter�distils�several�suggestions�and�recommendations�for�practitioners�in�bilateral�co-operation.

Introduction

Susta�nable poverty reduct�on �s the central goal of the �nternat�onal cooperat�on efforts of the Netherlands. Th�s goal �s meant to shape all strateg�es, pol�c�es and act�ons of the M�n�stry of Fore�gn Affa�rs – part�cularly �ts D�rectorate General for Internat�onal Co-operat�on (DGIS) – and the Dutch embass�es �n partner countr�es. Pol�t�cal �nterests and power relat�ons s�gn�f�cantly shape the access of poor people to key resources and hence determ�ne to a cons�derable degree the poverty allev�at�on �mpact of these strateg�es and �ntervent�ons.

Th�s chapter starts from the assumpt�on that the preva�l�ng not�ons of poverty reduct�on – �n the Netherlands, but also �n �nternat�onal cooperat�on more generally – do not fully apprec�ate the political dimension of poverty and poverty allev�at�on. Th�s may be partly due to certa�n conceptual bl�nd spots regard�ng the ‘pol�t�cs of poverty’, but �t �s also caused by pol�t�cal and operat�onal constra�nts �n the complex �nternat�onal, nat�onal and local env�ronments �n wh�ch poverty reduct�on strateg�es are des�gned, negot�ated and �mplemented.


6

The�poverty�consensus

Dur�ng the past 15 years, the world-w�de comm�tment to poverty reduct�on has been based on a so-called ‘mult�d�mens�onal’ understand�ng of poverty. Th�s ‘poverty consensus’ def�nes poverty not only as mater�al depr�vat�on, but �t also �ncludes ‘d�gn�ty, vo�ce and protect�on’: the capac�ty to �nfluence or control l�vel�hood cond�t�ons, to part�c�pate �n power relat�ons and dec�s�on-mak�ng processes, and to ensure protect�on aga�nst ex�stent�al threats such as shocks, hazards and v�olence.

The Un�ted Nat�ons Development Programme (UNDP) has p�oneered th�s mult�d�mens�onal poverty approach s�nce �ts f�rst Human Development Report (1990). Consensus on th�s approach was consol�dated w�th the World Bank’s 2000 World Development Report (Attacking Poverty) and OECD/DAC’s Guidelines on Poverty Reduction (2001). Box 1 summar�ses and l�nks the essence of the (roughly parallel) poverty concepts and approaches of the latter two agenc�es.

Box 1: Multidimensionality of poverty

World Bank

Opportunity

(for economies to grow and for poor

people to benefit from growth to improve

livelihoods)

Empowerment

(of poor people to participate in decisions

and to make state institutions more

democratic, accountable and responsive

to the needs of the poor)

Security

(meaning the effective mitigation of risks

and protection of vulnerable people to

shocks, hazards and conflicts)

OECD/DAC

Economic capabilities (to achieve livelihood outcomes)

Human capabilities (to achieve human development

outcomes)

Political capabilities (to achieve empowerment: rights,

voice, influence)

Socio-cultural capabilities (to achieve inclusion, status

and dignity)

Protective capabilities (to achieve resistance

or resilience against external economic

shocks, disasters and violent conflicts)

Cross-cutting dimensions: gender and environment

Today, the mult�d�mens�onal poverty not�on �s commonly related to the concept of ‘soc�al exclus�on’, wh�ch expresses that depr�vat�on or �nadequate access to key resources and capab�l�t�es �s not s�mply a matter of ‘scarc�ty’ or ‘acc�dental m�ss-allocat�on’. Rather, poverty and depr�vat�on are the result of soc�al processes. After all, relat�onsh�ps between �nd�v�duals and groups w�th�n and across soc�al systems shape the pattern of access to resources, the ways to control these patterns, and the means to leg�t�m�se or denounce the�r outcomes. Th�s �s an �mportant prem�se for approach�ng the pol�t�cal d�mens�ons of poverty.

Research shows that that ‘expert’ (or object�ve) understand�ngs of poverty share cons�derable common ground w�th poor people’s (subject�ve) exper�ences, percept�ons and explanat�ons of poverty. Powerlessness and vulnerab�l�ty are prom�nent parts of th�s common ground. Recent


7

research on poverty and soc�al exclus�on also shows that the var�ous d�mens�ons of poverty - �nsuff�c�ent l�vel�hood, powerlessness and �nsecur�ty - go hand �n hand and are often mutually re�nforc�ng. Th�s means that to s�ngle out just one d�mens�on of poverty �n any g�ven poverty reduct�on strategy, runs the r�sk of turn�ng other d�mens�ons �nto dead we�ght, ult�mately lead�ng to the fa�lure of the poverty allev�at�on effort. It also means that soc�al and pol�t�cal d�mens�ons of poverty and exclus�on should occupy central stage �n poverty analys�s and poverty reduct�on pol�c�es.

�Existing�approaches�to�poverty�reduction:��are�politics�the�‘blind�spot’?

Over the past couple of decades, three ma�n approaches to poverty reduct�on have dom�nated strateg�c th�nk�ng and pol�cy pract�se: · Econom�c growth (e�ther w�th ‘tr�ckle down’ or more pro-act�ve red�str�but�on)· The prov�s�on of bas�c (mater�al and human) needs· Good governance and (human) r�ghts

All three approaches fa�l to take on a suff�c�ently cr�t�cal stance towards the pol�t�cal d�mens�ons of poverty.

The economic growth approachThe not�on of econom�c growth stood at the cradle of ‘development’ as a f�eld of spec�al�sat�on and global pol�cy concern after World War II. For two decades, econom�c growth �n and by �tself was deemed a suff�c�ent solut�on to fa�l�ng development. Poverty was seen as �nadequate (food) consumpt�on and monetary �ncome. Automat�c (market-dr�ven) tr�ckle-down mechan�sms were expected to del�ver the fru�ts of growth to the poor. Dur�ng the 1970s, these v�ews were challenged by new conceptual �ns�ghts and mount�ng ev�dence that showed (consumpt�on) poverty to be pers�stent desp�te often �mpress�ve growth rates. Income and asset �nequal�ty - and hence fa�l�ng mechan�sms for red�str�but�on at nat�onal and global levels - were factored �nto th�nk�ng on the relat�onsh�p between econom�c growth and poverty reduct�on. Dur�ng the 1980s and early 1990s, however, the r�se of orthodox neol�beral th�nk�ng put a temporary stop to cons�der�ng the d�str�but�on effect a concern �n �ts own r�ght. W�th the emergence of the new poverty consensus, d�str�but�on was brought back �n and the not�on of econom�c growth was amended to mean ‘pro-poor growth’. The �mportance of equ�ty was g�ven an add�t�onal boost by grow�ng econometr�c ev�dence on the super�or growth performance �n more equally organ�sed soc�et�es - both �n terms of growth rates and �n terms of stab�l�ty and susta�nab�l�ty.

Th�s �mpl�es that the ‘growth parad�gm’ must take pol�t�cs �nto account. After all, (re)d�str�but�ve and poverty-reduc�ng qual�t�es of growth – such as enhanced absorpt�on and remunerat�on of labour, �ncreas�ng f�scal revenues, and the enhanced del�very of publ�c goods and serv�ces – cannot be expected to be the sole result of ‘correct pol�c�es’ carr�ed out by technocrats. These also depend on pol�t�cal w�ll, �nterests and power relat�ons.

The basic needs approach Dur�ng the 1970s, the pers�stent lack of access to bas�c human needs (such as food, cloth�ng, hous�ng, educat�on, health care, san�tat�on, transportat�on, to wh�ch were soon added ‘nonmater�al’ elements l�ke d�gn�ty and secur�ty) became a key poverty concern �n �ts own r�ght.


8

The prov�s�on of bas�c needs was de-l�nked from the growth parad�gm and the not�on of poverty for the f�rst t�me came to �nclude elements other than pr�vate �ncome and consumpt�on. Governments of develop�ng countr�es together w�th the �nternat�onal donor commun�ty were to cons�der the prov�s�on of bas�c needs as the�r pr�me respons�b�l�ty. Soon, however, the p�tfall of th�s approach became apparent: w�thout attent�on for e�ther econom�cs (the ava�lab�l�ty of resources) or pol�t�cs (susta�ned collect�ve comm�tment), the del�very of bas�c needs ran the r�sk of becom�ng a mere ‘handout’. The negat�ve effects �ncluded crowd�ng out of product�ve subs�stence efforts, lack of f�scal susta�nab�l�ty, m�sallocat�on of resources and a�d dependency. For these reasons, the bas�c needs approach was d�scred�ted �n the course of the 1980s. Only �n the f�eld of emergency human�tar�an ass�stance does the d�rect prov�s�on of essent�al goods and serv�ces for surv�val cont�nue to be common pract�se.

The good governance and the rights-based approachAfter 1990, the orthodox v�ew that structural adjustment pol�c�es and l�beral�sed market forces alone would lead to poverty reduct�on was abandoned. It had become clear that markets must be governed to ensure the effect�veness and the des�red soc�al outcomes of structural adjustment. The ‘good governance’ concept �n�t�ally was co�ned �n connect�on to balanced market reforms. Later, so-called second generat�on reforms – focus�ng on key publ�c �nst�tut�ons and the�r performance – entered the good governance parad�gm. In the course of the 1990s, the pol�t�cal d�mens�ons acqu�red greater attent�on through the �ncorporat�on of ‘leg�t�macy’ – �n terms of accountab�l�ty, transparency and the (democrat�c) support for publ�c pol�cy – �nto the good governance concept. Th�s paved the way for not�ons such as empowerment, part�c�pat�on and r�ghts to become part of poverty th�nk�ng.

From the m�d-1990s onward, the d�scourse of ‘human and c�t�zensh�p r�ghts’ made �ts appearance as part of the newly emerg�ng poverty consensus. Th�s r�ghts-based approach meant to �ncorporate the mult�ple d�mens�ons of poverty (�ncome, assets, common goods, publ�c serv�ces, empowerment, d�gn�ty, secur�ty) �nto the �nternat�onal framework of human r�ghts. The r�ght ‘not to be poor’ was l�nked to the, by then accepted, three-t�er conceptual�sat�on of human r�ghts – c�v�l, pol�t�cal and econom�c/soc�al/cultural r�ghts – that was be�ng cod�f�ed �n a grow�ng number of �nternat�onal declarat�ons and convent�ons. The poor, as pr�nc�pal stakeholders, were to be empowered to enjoy the�r r�ghts. D�fferent ‘duty bearers’ were �dent�f�ed: nat�onal governments, �nternat�onal organ�sat�ons and (trans) nat�onal and local C�v�l Soc�ety Organ�sat�ons (CSOs).

The r�ghts-based approach contr�buted to mak�ng poverty approaches more pol�t�cally sens�t�ve. F�rstly because the very not�on of r�ghts �mpl�es a pol�t�cal perspect�ve: r�ghts are embedded �n pol�t�cally def�ned commun�t�es and depend on pol�t�cal processes for formulat�on and �mplementat�on. Also the r�ghts (and c�t�zensh�p) d�scourse helped to bu�ld bas�c �nternat�onal consensus on the new poverty agenda across econom�c, pol�t�cal and �deolog�cal d�v�des and among prev�ously d�vergent mult�lateral agenc�es, donor governments and CSOs. And f�nally, r�ghts po�nt at the cruc�al �mportance of empowerment of poor and excluded groups, and the d�scourse on r�ghts has g�ven them an �nstrument to contest ex�st�ng s�tuat�ons of depr�vat�on and exclus�on. Nevertheless, for a number of reasons the r�ghts-based approach does not fulf�l �ts potent�al of br�ng�ng pol�t�cs �nto the poverty debate:

· A r�ghts-based approach may get ‘stuck’ �n the �ncreas�ngly soph�st�cated jur�d�cal formulat�on of spec�f�c, and �nterrelat�ng, r�ghts. Th�s techn�cal approach fa�ls to address the soc�al, pol�t�cal and cultural cond�t�ons for acceptance and �mplementat�on of such r�ghts


9

· Relevant duty-bearers (espec�ally but not exclus�vely at the nat�onal and local levels) may d�sagree on the pr�or�ty to be g�ven to certa�n r�ghts and for certa�n groups. They may also even use a r�ghts d�scourse as w�ndow dress�ng to keep attent�on away from other agendas

· The �nternat�onal commun�ty st�ll lacks a clear un�ty of purpose as well as leg�t�mate �nstruments to enforce a r�ghts-based agenda a�med at poverty reduct�on. Poor c�t�zens can thus not (automat�cally) rely on the�r nat�onal governments or on the �nternat�onal commun�ty for the endorsement and �mplementat�on of the�r r�ghts

Poverty�Reduction�Strategy�Papers�and�the�Millennium�Development�Goals

The above cr�t�cal assessment does not mean that no progress has been made on the �nternat�onal poverty agenda. In recent years, �mportant �n�t�at�ves such as the Poverty Reduct�on Strategy Papers (PRSP) and M�llenn�um Development Goals (MDGs) approaches have brought global poverty reduct�on strateg�es on more sol�d ground.1 Yet to what extent do these �n�t�at�ves sens�t�se the poverty agenda to the pol�t�cal real�t�es �n partner countr�es?

The PRSP approach was des�gned �n the late 1990s to secure poverty reduct�on strateg�es – based on the mult�d�mens�onal poverty concept – as part of the debt rel�ef offered to heav�ly �ndebted countr�es.2 The PRSP approach, wh�ch �s pol�t�cal �n �ts very nature, has put spec�f�c poverty allev�at�on strateg�es f�rmly on the pol�t�cal agenda. Under th�s approach, poverty reduct�on �s to be the central concern of nat�onal governments, who have to �nvest pol�t�cal w�ll and resources to ach�eve th�s object�ve. An �mportant role �n terms of mon�tor�ng the qual�ty and effect�veness of the poverty reduct�on strateg�es �s attr�buted to CSOs, w�th the added object�ve of structural empowerment of the poor. The donor commun�ty �s expected to harmon�se �ts support of the nat�onal government’s ownersh�p as well as the part�c�pat�on by other local stakeholders �n the poverty reduct�on strateg�es.

In�t�ally, many PRSP efforts were l�ttle more than technocrat�c exerc�ses, elaborated by nat�onal or �nternat�onal experts �n close cooperat�on w�th the World Bank and IMF. C�v�l soc�ety part�c�pat�on often proved formal�st�c and r�tual�st�c. Meet�ng the debt rel�ef programme’s cond�t�ons and techn�cal requ�rements was a paramount concern, mak�ng the PRSP effort an execut�ve-led, top-down enterpr�se (w�th the advantage that strateg�es could not eas�ly be reversed once a PRSP had been adopted). More recently, the so-called ‘second generat�on’ PRSPs have been more successful �n secur�ng broad pol�t�cal support and more effect�ve c�v�l soc�ety part�c�pat�on. Though �t has not yet used �ts full potent�al to ensure effect�ve pol�t�cal comm�tment, the PRSP approach st�ll offers a major prom�se of contr�but�ng to long-term poverty reduct�on and empowerment of the poor.

The e�ght MDGs were adopted by the UN General Assembly at the 2000 World Summ�t, sett�ng spec�f�c targets for comprehens�ve poverty reduct�on to be ach�eved �n 2015. Together, they offer an �mpress�ve array of elements of poverty to be tackled by a concerted effort of rec�p�ent governments, donors and other stakeholders. However, because the MDGs reflect the m�n�mal common ground for consensus among all Un�ted Nat�ons members, they ostentat�ously s�destep controvers�al pol�t�cal �ssues. Maxwell argues: ‘The MDGs are strong on mater�al aspects of depr�vat�on, but not so strong on non-mater�al aspects’�.

Furthermore, even on the mater�al aspects, the MDGs are predom�nantly technocrat�c, and they fa�l to address the pol�t�cal var�ables wh�ch are l�kely to determ�ne whether or not a g�ven target


10

w�ll be met. For �nstance, the overall MDG object�ve to reduce by half the number of people l�v�ng �n extreme poverty, w�ll depend on pol�t�cally determ�ned factors that have an �mpact not only on net growth rates but also on d�str�but�on and equ�ty. One can th�nk of macro-econom�c pol�cy cho�ces, cond�t�ons for negot�at�ng wage levels, red�str�but�on of product�ve assets, broaden�ng access to educat�on, or el�m�nat�ng gender and ethn�c d�scr�m�nat�on on job markets. Maxwell po�nts at the tell�ng absence of an ‘equ�ty target’ �n the MDGs.�

In sum, even the recent and more soph�st�cated approaches to poverty reduct�on, wh�ch are supposed to bu�ld on mult�d�mens�onal poverty concepts that �nclude pol�t�cal factors, fall short of fully tak�ng these factors �nto account.

The�‘politics�in�poverty’

What are the pol�t�cal d�mens�ons of poverty, beyond the bas�c �nclus�on of ‘empowerment’ and ‘pol�t�cal capab�l�t�es’ �n the def�n�t�on of poverty?

· Exclus�on from vo�ce and power (‘pol�t�cal capab�l�t�es’) �s a �ntegral part of the ma�nstream poverty concept

· Power relat�ons and pol�t�cal processes determ�ne the ava�lab�l�ty of and access to other key capab�l�t�es

· Pol�t�cs govern the w�ll�ngness to pr�or�t�se comprehens�ve poverty reduct�on w�th�n the �nternat�onal (donor) commun�ty

We w�ll now take a closer look at these threefold pol�t�cal d�mens�ons of poverty.

Exclusion�from�voice�and�power�(‘political�capabilities’)�is�an�integral�part�of�the�mainstream�poverty�conceptTh�s propos�t�on �s based on the not�on that be�ng able to part�c�pate �n dec�s�ons affect�ng one’s own l�fe �s an �mportant �ngred�ent of human development �n �ts most bas�c formulat�on. Th�s f�ts w�th the f�nd�ngs of part�c�patory poverty assessments wh�ch show that poor people often do not d�st�ngu�sh between mater�al depr�vat�on, powerlessness, lack of d�gn�ty, and �nsecur�ty �n the�r reflect�ons on poverty.

The bas�c assumpt�on of the r�ghts-based approach �s that everybody should have ‘the r�ght to have r�ghts’. Be�ng poor means not be�ng able to exerc�se mean�ngful c�t�zensh�p. It �s not enough that r�ghts are formally granted. Inst�tut�ons that effect�vely �mplement r�ghts must be �n place and supported. Even more �mportantly, stakeholders must have the capab�l�t�es to cla�m and use these r�ghts. Box 2 g�ves the example of recent empowerment efforts by so-called ‘neo-�nd�genous’ movements �n Lat�n Amer�ca.


11

Box 2: The mobilization of indigenous rights in Latin America

Since the late 1980s, there has been a notable increase of social activism and political militancy by

so-called new indigenous movements in Latin America. The central objective of these movements is to

put citizenship rights explicitly central stage. According to Deborah Yashar (2005), this means a clear

shift from earlier cycles of rural social mobilisation in Latin America which focused on access to land

and economic and social entitlements. This shift from the ‘politics of redistribution’ to the ‘politics

of recognition’ is explained by the convergence of three developments. First, the erosion of existing

‘citizenship regimes’ based on class and corporatist inclusion of the peasantry in the state, up till the

1980s. Second, the emergence of ‘ethnic identity’ as a new discourse for empowerment. Third, the

existing political space offered by democratic consolidation in Latin America and the emergence of new

constituencies in civil and political society.

In countries such as Bolivia and Ecuador, these movements have contributed significantly to the

emergence of ethnic politics and ethnic rights in the national arena. In Colombia and Mexico, local

and regional indigenous movements have successfully claimed entitlements with respect to land, local

autonomy and legal and cultural issues. Even in Guatemala, where 25 years ago a military regime

waged a genocide against the indigenous population, indigenous groups have increased their political

clout at the local level. In February 2007, Rigoberta Menchú, Nobel Peace Laureate and long-term

advocate against the exclusion of the Mayan communities, announced her candidacy for the upcoming

presidential elections.5

The not�on of ‘be�ng d�sempowered equals be�ng poor’ must, however, not be taken too absolutely. What �s meant, �s that d�sempowerment, �n comb�nat�on w�th other doma�ns of depr�vat�on, �s an �ntegral part of the poverty complex. It aggravates other types of depr�vat�on and adds to overall feel�ngs of poverty, vulnerab�l�ty and exclus�on.

Power relat�ons and pol�t�cal processes determ�ne the ava�lab�l�ty of and access to other (espec�ally econom�c, human and protect�ve) capab�l�t�es

In h�s early work on fam�ne �n (colon�al) Ind�a, Amartya Sen showed that fam�nes are not the result of the absolute scarc�ty of food nor of d�str�but�onal bottlenecks, but are caused by ‘ent�tlement fa�lure’.6 Ent�tlements are leg�t�mate cla�ms to resources, wh�ch are embedded �n soc�al and pol�t�cal relat�ons and wh�ch are legally, culturally or morally endorsed. The soc�al relat�ons through wh�ch ent�tlements work �nclude contracts, the formal legal framework, customary law, k�nsh�p, patronage, gender, rec�procal communal t�es and rel�g�on. These mechan�sms determ�ne the extent to wh�ch resources such as land, labour, sk�lls, collect�ve goods and publ�c serv�ces can be leg�t�mately accessed and put to use. Ent�tlements are always the comb�ned result of formal and �nformal r�ghts, the mechan�sms of governance and resource allocat�on, and the ab�l�ty to pressure for certa�n outcomes, �n other words, essent�ally pol�t�cal processes.

Influencing macro-policyThe ‘pro-poor’ outcomes of macro-econom�c pol�c�es are not automat�c. The pol�cy cho�ces made are (to a large degree) based on power relat�ons, that �s, on the �nterface between soc�etal �nterests and pol�t�cal strateg�es. Pro-poor cho�ces �n areas such as sector pol�c�es, f�scal reg�mes and the access to publ�c goods and serv�ces depend on the ab�l�ty of poor people to become an effect�ve pol�t�cal const�tuency whose agendas – put forward by grassroots movements, CSOs and pol�t�cal part�es – are able to �nfluence pol�t�cal power holders and dec�s�on makers.


12

Accessing public goods and servicesThe prov�s�on of publ�c goods and serv�ces (educat�on, health care, just�ce, �ncome transfer, product�ve support schemes, human�tar�an ass�stance) to the poor depends on what are now generally cons�dered ma�nstream �ngred�ents of ‘good governance’: publ�c pol�c�es and resource allocat�on that are (a) eff�c�ent and effect�ve, (b) leg�t�mate, transparent and accountable, (c) respons�ve to the needs and �nterests of the poor. Democrat�c and part�c�patory forms of governance are �ncreas�ngly cons�dered support�ve (or even necessary) for good governance. Part�c�patory governance means that (representat�ves and organ�sat�ons of ) poor people have d�rect access to dec�s�on-mak�ng and publ�c resource allocat�on. As such, part�c�patory governance may strengthen vo�ce and empowerment, wh�ch �n turn may strengthen the leg�t�macy of, and trust placed �n, the state and �ts publ�c pol�c�es. The well-known case of part�c�patory budget�ng �n the c�ty of Porto Alegre prov�des a good example (Box �).

Box 3: Urban politics, participatory budgeting and entitlements in Porto Alegre, Brazil7

Between 1989 and 2004, the southern Brazilian city of Porto Alegre was governed by consecutive

administrations of the Workers’ Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores – PT). During this period, an

elaborate and successful system for grassroots participation in municipal governance was set up

around the annual municipal budget. The system included a participatory budget council at city level

that debated and voted on a consolidated participatory budget. The mayor was held to incorporate this

budget into his annual budget law proposal to be put forward to the municipal legislative council. The

mayor and key top-level civil servants appeared before the participatory bodies to give accounts of the

progress of policies voted for in previous years.

In practice, the participatory budget system favoured active participation in policy and spending

deliberations, especially in the poorer neighbourhoods of Porto Alegre, home to half a million people

or one fifth of the metropolitan population. In the course of a decade and a half, the system helped

bring about a notable transformation of the poorer parts of the city: improvement of infrastructure and

public services, improvement of security, and, perhaps most significantly, the strengthening of popular

trust in and hence commitment to local democracy. This, in turn, contributed to the strengthening of

comprehensive citizenship at the local level.

The impact was not only visible with respect to improved and better targeted provision of public goods

and services in the poorest districts of the city, but also with respect to the quality of the political

process of public policy making (transparency and accountability). The consolidation of formal

democracy in Brazil after 1985 thus proved key to the emergence of a political party (the PT) that

effectively sought new formats for local governance which has full citizenship as its core objective.

Securing livelihoodThe l�vel�hood strateg�es of poor people often depend on the degree to wh�ch access to assets or ga�nful employment can be secured. Pol�t�cal and �nst�tut�onal space and the capac�ty to use these are key precond�t�ons for poor people to effect�vely pursue spec�f�c ent�tlements �n doma�ns such as work and �ncome, assets or access to markets. Pol�t�cal exclus�on usually means a lack of poss�b�l�ty to secure and defend such ent�tlements. The trade un�on struggles �n labour-�ntens�ve export manufactur�ng zones, the so-called maquila �ndustry, prov�de an example of the complex �nterplay between (pol�t�cal) r�ghts, mob�l�sat�on and l�vel�hood outcomes.


1�

Box 4. Women workers’ rights and trade union action in the maquiladoras of San Pedro Sula,

Honduras8

Over the past two decades, labour intensive manufacturing of mass consumer goods (especially

clothing) and simple components (such as electronics), has expanded spectacularly in the northern

coastal regions of Honduras. These so-called maquiladora plants were established around 1990; by

the year 2000 several hundreds of manufacturing firms employed over 130,000 semi- and unskilled,

mostly young female, workers.

The typical organisational form of the maquiladoras was one of often foreign-owned factories

clustered in closed industrial estates exploited by Honduran businessmen. Low labour costs and high

labour discipline being the typical ‘comparative advantage’, working conditions were characterised

by long hours, low pay, high surveillance and high turnover. The industrial estates claimed some sort

of ‘extraterritorial’ status in terms of labour rights, meaning that the existing labour and trade union

legislation of Honduras was rarely observed.

Against all odds, the local department of the national trade union initiated efforts to improve working

conditions and claim labour rights for the workforce. Aided by international support from, among

others, the Dutch labour confederation CNV, but also due to the effective political connections of the

leadership of the trade union, the local trade union office succeeded in organising several firm-level

unions (sindicatos) which gradually widened the space for negotiating working conditions and even

collective contracts in these factories. In addition, the unions actively engaged in offering institutional

and legal support to fired workers; the regional trade union office even established an incipient

dialogue with the maquiladora owners association.

Politics�govern�the�willingness�to�prioritise�and�target�comprehensive�poverty�reduction�within�the�international�(donor)�communityPol�t�c�ans and pract�t�oners w�th�n the �nternat�onal donor commun�ty often tend to th�nk that the pol�t�cal d�mens�on of poverty allev�at�on �s only a matter of concern to develop�ng countr�es. Th�s assumpt�on, however, overlooks two obv�ous pol�t�cal aspects of poverty allev�at�on strateg�es.

F�rstly, donor agenc�es are themselves pol�t�cal actors �n the nat�onal and local arenas where they enter �nto pol�t�cally charged relat�ons w�th ‘host’ governments – and hence donors may become part of certa�n pol�t�cal all�ances, wh�le be�ng excluded from others. Somet�mes, donor agenc�es enter �nto d�rect relat�onsh�ps w�th poor populat�ons. They usually do so �n order to bypass obstacles created by partner governments and to enhance the �mpact and v�s�b�l�ty of the�r programmes. In the process, so-called ‘donor darl�ngs’ are created, add�ng to the complex�ty of power and pr�v�lege, �nclud�ng the often compet�ng �nterests between d�fferent donor agenc�es �n a g�ven host country.

Secondly, �nternat�onal poverty allev�at�on strateg�es are part of a broader agenda of compet�ng econom�c, pol�t�cal and geo-strateg�c �nterests set �n a h�ghly complex arena made up of donor governments, nat�onal a�d bureaucrac�es, mult�lateral agenc�es, and NGOs. The processes of power, �nfluence, status and prest�ge that rule these arenas often y�eld �ncoherent pol�c�es and subopt�mal outcomes.

The pol�t�cs of donor �nterests w�ll be further d�scussed later on, after tak�ng a closer look at the actors and �nterests that shape pol�t�cal processes and outcomes at the nat�onal and local levels �n develop�ng countr�es.


1�

Interests,�power�relations�and�mobilisation�capabilities

Poverty �s surrounded by pol�t�cs. But who are the pol�t�cal actors? Power relat�ons and pol�t�cal strateg�es reflect the soc�etal pos�t�ons and �nterests of a great number of relevant actors or ‘stakeholders’, who �nclude: powerful �nd�v�duals and the�r networks, organ�sat�ons or movements and the�r leadersh�p, and representat�ves or soc�etal groups and categor�es based on class, ethn�c�ty, profess�onal background or k�nsh�p.

These stakeholders pursue pol�t�cal agendas and spec�f�c strateg�es �n the �ntersect�on of formal and informal �nst�tut�ons, rules and pract�ses. Wh�le the rat�onal-legal-bureaucrat�c state and the formal doma�ns of pol�t�cal and c�v�l soc�ety are often taken as the a priori cond�t�ons for pol�t�cs and governance, there �s no soc�ety where these are the only or exclus�ve doma�ns for pol�t�cs. For a comprehens�ve understand�ng of the pol�t�cs of poverty and exclus�on, one needs to take �nto account so-called �nformal mechan�sms such as cl�entel�sm, patr�mon�al�sm, char�sma, ethn�c or rel�g�ous foundat�ons of author�ty and pr�mord�al loyalt�es. These mechan�sms are �ntertw�ned w�th mechan�sms that character�se the formal doma�n, such as electoral mandates, rat�onal pol�cy formats, accountab�l�ty and the legal framework.9

The scheme �n Box 5 offers a toolbox of quest�ons that can be used to assess the pol�t�cal landscape w�th respect to the poverty problem and the poverty allev�at�on agenda �n any g�ven country.

Box 5: Political dimensions of poverty: identifying stakeholders and actors

Overarching questions:

· Who benefit from structures and social relations that perpetuate poverty?

· Who stand to lose from reforms and interventions aimed at poverty alleviation; how and why?

· What power do they have?

· Who will benefit from reforms and interventions aimed at poverty alleviation; how and why?

· How can their power be strengthened?

Obstacles:

· Which interests/interest groups form an obstacle to poverty alleviation? (likely from elite segments).

· What are their founding motives and forms of legitimation?

· How do they assess poverty and exclusion?

· What are their power base and resources? How can these be influenced?

· Do they block effective policy-alleviation interventions and policies? How?

Supporters:

· Which interests/interest groups support or drive poverty alleviation? (possibly from counter-elites

and emerging/upward mobile groups).

· What are their founding motives and forms of legitimation?

· How do they assess poverty and exclusion?

· What are their power base and resources? How can these be influenced?

· Can they lose part of an effective anti-poverty alliance? How?


15

Excluded:

· What groups and categories are excluded from power or vulnerable to the use and abuse of power?

· What are the sources of powerlessness and vulnerability?

· How does powerlessness and vulnerability interact with other dimensions of poverty and

deprivation?

· What mechanisms for empowerment are available and how can these be supported?

· Can they be part of an effective anti-poverty alliance? How?

Box 6 offers, by way of �llustrat�on, an �deal-typ�cal contrast between a soc�ety and pol�ty �n wh�ch the formal �nst�tut�ons and actors of c�t�zensh�p, democrat�c pol�t�cs and accountab�l�ty preva�l (‘developed’, r�ght-hand-s�de) and a soc�ety and pol�ty dom�nated by soc�al exclus�on, power h�erarch�es, �nchoate pol�t�cs and donor presence (‘develop�ng’, left-hand-s�de).

Box 6: Sociogram of the political environment and position of the poor

GovernmentBureaucracy

Civil Servants

GovernmentPoliticians

TechnocratsDonoren

NGOs

Poor and excluded

GrassrootsCBO/CSO

Legislaturepoliticalparties

CivilSociety

Civil, political and social rightsSuffrage Taxation Participation

Citizens

Democracy/good governanceideal type

Elitist/exclusionary/fractured stateideal type

Public Policies

Public Policies

Empowerment

Co-optationClientelismRepressionRebellion

Security forcesArmed actors

Elites

Politics�and�the�role�of�donors�and�the�international�community

It was argued above that the �nternat�onal arena �s a cruc�al but under-acknowledged doma�n for the pol�t�cs of poverty, w�th two relevant aspects.

The f�rst aspect concerns the way �n wh�ch the �nternat�onal donor commun�ty relates to, and becomes �ncorporated �nto, the domest�c pol�t�cal arena of a host country and �ts nat�onal and local stakeholders. Th�s ra�ses the �mportant quest�on of outs�de �nfluence on domest�c pol�t�cal and pol�cy processes.

The scope for the �nternat�onal commun�ty’s pol�t�cal pressure and pol�cy �nfluence presents the f�ne l�ne between two ma�n pr�nc�ples �n �nternat�onal cooperat�on: ownership and conditionality. Through ‘ownersh�p’, the comm�tment of host governments to poverty allev�at�on agendas �s consol�dated and these w�ll reflect the �nterests and pr�or�t�es of the poor �f and when host governments pract�se good governance w�th suff�c�ent space for part�c�pat�on. ‘Cond�t�onal�ty’ has been w�dely d�savowed �n pol�t�cally correct d�scourse (after the reject�on of ‘t�ed a�d’ formulas �n the 1970s and structural adjustment packages �n the 1990s). In pract�ce, however, cond�t�onal�ty �s st�ll part of the new poverty allev�at�on agenda. Th�nk of the al�gnment of nat�onal pol�c�es w�th the


16

�nternat�onal poverty consensus and of the pressure for change that donors exert when ‘good governance’ �s falter�ng. Th�s type of cond�t�onal�ty �s determ�ned by the pol�t�cal and soc�etal support base for �nternat�onal cooperat�on �n the donor countr�es and the requ�rements of effect�veness and accountab�l�ty w�th regard to the spend�ng of taxpayers’ money.

The �mpl�cat�on of th�s t�ghtrope act �s that host countr�es and domest�c stakeholders enter �nto a pol�t�cal process w�th the �nternat�onal donor commun�ty to negot�ate the balance between ownersh�p and cond�t�onal�ty and to determ�ne the pol�cy package that �s to be supported by the donors. Th�s process �s set w�th�n a number of boundar�es:

· Acknowledgement of and respect for nat�onal sovere�gnty· The �mportance of pol�t�cal stab�l�ty and �nst�tut�onal cont�nu�ty· Preference for work�ng w�th the domest�c ‘powers that be’· Avo�dance of pol�t�cal �ssues and fl�ght �nto ‘technocrat�sm’

The second aspect concerns the pol�t�cal �nterests, object�ves and strateg�es of actors w�th�n the �nternat�onal commun�ty �tself.10 Some key �ssues and quest�ons of th�s complex yet �mportant f�eld are br�efly rev�ewed below:

· Donor countr�es and agenc�es have d�fferent op�n�ons and pr�or�t�es concern�ng the�r shared object�ve, �.e. susta�nable poverty allev�at�on. Moreover, spec�al�sed development agenc�es are always compet�ng w�th the development agendas or pol�cy �mpact of other sector agenc�es �n f�elds such as f�nance, trade, technology, secur�ty, d�plomacy and m�grat�on. Th�s compet�t�on �s the background to the debate on policy coherence, a problem that makes �nternat�onal cooperat�on often resemble the Echternach process�on: two steps forward, one step back. ‘Pol�cy coherence’ may sound l�ke a techn�cal or plann�ng �ssue, but �n fact presents a profoundly pol�t�cal matter.

· Poverty allev�at�on may be the stated common ground for �nternat�onal cooperat�on (reflected �n the MDGs), but �t �s certa�nly not the only pr�or�ty w�th�n the �nternat�onal commun�ty at large – �f �t �s a real pr�or�ty at all. Nat�onal econom�c and strateg�c �nterests, as well as �nternat�onal all�ances and loyalt�es between states, often preva�l. Bes�des, states (and the�r mult�lateral agenc�es) are not the only �nternat�onal stakeholders: transnat�onal corporat�ons, transnat�onal CSOs and advocacy networks, d�aspora networks based on rel�g�on or ethn�c�ty, and even unsavoury and ‘unc�v�l’ transnat�onal cr�m�nal organ�sat�ons and terror�st networks, further compl�cate the conf�gurat�on of �nterests and the power structure of our so-called ‘global v�llage’. The quest�on to be asked �s how these w�dely d�vergent and often antagon�st�c actors affect the �nternat�onal poverty allev�at�on agenda.

· How may the leg�t�mate representat�ves and organ�sat�ons of poor and excluded groups acqu�re vo�ce �n th�s complex and antagon�st�c �nternat�onal arena? Although modern commun�cat�on fac�l�t�es have contr�buted greatly to w�den�ng �nternat�onal space for so-called underpr�v�leged actors, �nternat�onal support networks for empower�ng poor people at the �nternat�onal level rema�n of v�tal �mportance. At the same t�me, there �s a r�sk that these networks turn �nto stakeholders themselves w�th the�r own agendas. Related to th�s �s the �ssue of the so-called ‘global publ�cs’: doma�ns w�th�n publ�c op�n�on that transcend nat�onal boundar�es, that are concerned w�th global �ssues and that exert a certa�n degree of pressure desp�te. In�t�ally, such ‘publ�cs’ may r�se �n support of, �n th�s case, global poverty allev�at�on (th�nk of �n�t�at�ves l�ke ‘L�ve A�d’ �n 1985, Jub�lee 2000, and ‘L�ve 8’ �n 2005),


17

but the quest�on must be posed to what extent they adequately vo�ce the concerns of poor people and whether they support poverty allev�at�on strateg�es that actually make sense.

Conclusions

It �s clear that there �s an �mportant pol�t�cal d�mens�on to poverty and poverty allev�at�on, wh�ch has been largely �gnored �n preva�l�ng v�ews on poverty. In recent years, the emerg�ng consensus on the mult�d�mens�onal concept of poverty and on the pr�or�ty for poverty allev�at�on w�th�n �nternat�onal cooperat�on strateg�es, have helped to br�ng ‘pol�t�cs �nto poverty’. The r�ghts-based approach, the PRSP approach and the adopt�on of the MDGs have covered new ground. However, a more thorough conceptual�sat�on of the pol�t�cal d�mens�ons of poverty and poverty allev�at�on �s st�ll needed.

Pol�t�cs should be among the core components of the poverty concept �tself. Be�ng excluded from vo�ce and part�c�pat�on �s a fundamental aspect of be�ng poor. Pol�t�cal factors often determ�ne other d�mens�ons of poverty, namely access to l�vel�hood and the �nc�dence of �nsecur�ty. Pol�t�cs shape the form and content of the poverty allev�at�on strateg�es of key stakeholders, espec�ally nat�onal governments and �nternat�onal (donor) agenc�es, and the partnersh�ps that these stakeholders form.

In order to become more sens�t�ve to these pol�t�cal d�mens�ons, stakeholder analyses are requ�red w�th respect to the mechan�sms and �ntervent�ons that affect poverty and poverty allev�at�on outcomes. Key quest�ons are: Who benef�t from structures and soc�al relat�ons that perpetuate poverty? Who stand to lose from reforms and �ntervent�ons a�med at poverty allev�at�on – and what power do they have? Who w�ll benef�t from reforms and �ntervent�ons a�med at poverty allev�at�on – and how can the�r power be strengthened? What are the �nterests and power resources of the poor?

These quest�ons can be d�rected at local and nat�onal arenas but should not �gnore the �nternat�onal arena. The agendas, pr�or�t�es and strateg�es of donor agenc�es are not �mmune to pol�t�cal �nterests and calculat�on. Not only do such agenc�es �nev�tably become part of local and nat�onal pol�t�cal arenas, but the �nternat�onal commun�ty �tself const�tutes a pol�t�cal space �n wh�ch poverty allev�at�on �s tackled d�fferently by d�fferent stakeholders and where as a pol�t�cal and pol�cy goal �t has to compete w�th other �nterests and pr�or�t�es.

Recommendations�for�practitioners

What does the above d�scuss�on mean for pol�cymakers �nvolved �n the des�gn�ng, plann�ng, �mplementat�on and mon�tor�ng of poverty allev�at�on �ntervent�ons? The follow�ng are broad-brushed recommendat�ons (ma�nly �n the form of alert�ng quest�ons) wh�ch may help to make such �ntervent�ons more sens�t�ve to pol�t�cs and hence more effect�ve.

· Acknowledge that pol�t�cs �s part of the poverty complex, rather than an obstacle that stands �n the way of ‘proper’, that �s to say, techn�cal or a-pol�t�cal strateg�es and �ntervent�ons

· What are the key areas of the poverty problem �n terms of l�vel�hoods, empowerment and secur�ty? Who are the pr�nc�pal stakeholders? What are the�r �nterests? Wh�ch �ntervent�ons or reforms w�ll be supported or opposed, by whom and why? How effect�ve w�ll th�s support


18

or oppos�t�on be �n pract�ce? · What are necessary and poss�ble pro-poor all�ances �n local and nat�onal pol�cy arenas? How

can they be establ�shed?· Support�ng the r�ghts, vo�ce and empowerment of poor and excluded groups has a d�rect

poverty relevance, but what are effect�ve and leg�t�mate �nst�tut�ons, organ�sat�ons and representat�ves and how can these be effect�vely strengthened? How can th�s be balanced aga�nst the �mperat�ve (�f any) to work w�th the formal or �nformal ‘powers that be’?

· Can the pr�or�t�es and efforts for poverty allev�at�on of d�fferent donors be harmon�sed? Can other �nterests and pr�or�t�es (�rrelevant for or host�le to poverty allev�at�on) be m�t�gated? What are the relevant pol�t�cal cond�t�ons or obstacles to ach�eve th�s?

· How can donor strateg�es be l�nked to local or nat�onal pol�cy arenas? How should key pol�t�cal �ssues such as ownersh�p, cond�t�onal�ty, sovere�gnty and stab�l�ty be dealt w�th?

References

Koon�ngs, K. (200�) Strengthening Citizenship in Brazil’s Democracy: Local Participatory Governance in

Porto Alegre, Bullet�n of Lat�n Amer�can Research 2�(1).Koon�ngs, K. et al. (2002) Arbeid in Onderhandeling. Beleidsevaluatie van VMP van de CNV-Actie Kom

Over in Midden-Amerika, 1995-2000. Utrecht: CNVMaxwell, S. (200�) Heaven or Hubris: Reflections on the New ‘New Poverty Agenda, Development

Pol�cy Rev�ew 21 (1). OECD/DAC (2001) The DAC Guidelines on Poverty Reduction. Par�s: OECDWorld Bank (2000) Attacking Poverty. World Development Report 2000/2001. Wash�ngton: The

World BankYashar, D. (2005) Contesting Citizenship in Latin America : The Rise of Indigenous Movements and the

Postliberal Challenge. Cambr�dge: Cambr�dge Un�vers�ty Press

Notes

1 Maxwell, 200�, pp. 5-25.2 See chapter ‘Another bluepr�nt from the draw�ng table’ �n th�s book. � Maxwell, 200�, p. 1�. � Maxwell, 200�, p 15.5 Yashar, 2005.6 Amartya Sen (19��) �s an Ind�an econom�st and ph�losopher, who won the Nobel Pr�ze for

Econom�cs �n 1998, for h�s work on fam�ne, human development theory, welfare econom�cs, the underly�ng mechan�sms of poverty, and pol�t�cal l�beral�sm.

7 Koon�ngs, 200�.8 Koon�ngs et al., 2002.9 See chapter ‘Beh�nd the façade’ �n th�s book. 10 See chapter ‘A lesson �n modesty’ �n th�s book.


contents · pdf filebram van ojik (iob) 6 talking ... (utrecht un vers ty), bram van oj k ......

Documents