The politics of what works in tackling chronic poverty

This policy brief looks at the role that politics plays in shaping efforts towards poverty reduction. While this has received growing recognition within international development over the past decade, from the ‘good governance’ agenda to attempts to encourage the formation of ‘developmental states’, the authors feel that there is as yet little firm evidence concerning what sorts of political systems or practices might be more likely to produce pro-poor outcomes, and politics is still often seen as simply an obstacle to development.

This study seeks to move the debate forward by focusing on the actual politics of ‘what works’, i.e. on policies and programmes that have been successful in terms of reducing extreme forms of poverty. It summarises a research programme that looked at the politics behind anti-poverty interventions in Bangladesh, India, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia.

The first finding is that context matters: it is difficult to find any general conclusions that can offer adequate explanations for every success. However, it has been possible to draw out some general tendencies regarding the key dimensions of politics that have shaped some successful examples of poverty reduction.

Key findings are:

• building sustainable programmes of support for the poorest groups involves extending the ‘political contract’ between states and citizens. New or renewed acknowledgements of state responsibility for previously excluded citizens characterise many social protection programmes
• the processes driving the adoption of such programmes are complex and historically rooted. Donor agencies need to identify emerging political contracts; support them where possible; and crucially, avoid undermining them. This will require the stronger use of political and historical analysis, and better engagement with both political society and broad national discourses
• events matter. The ‘politics of crisis’ (moments of political upheaval where elites need to respond to new pressures) can provide more fertile ground than ‘politics as usual’ for the introduction of pro-poor policies. Such windows of opportunity cannot be manufactured but need to be closely monitored and responded to
• elections may offer opportunities to re-draw such contracts. There are often positive correlations between national polls and anti-poverty interventions. However, the quality of political institutions is critical. Dominant political parties, operating within well-institutionalised and broadly representative party systems, were often vital to success in the cases we examined
• within government, social sector ministries often provide a ‘natural’ home for pro-poorest policies, but require the political backing of key ministries (e.g. finance, planning). Cross-ministry partnerships and hybrid institutional arrangements might be worth exploring
• civil society organisations do not emerge as critical to the uptake of pro-poorest policies, although they may play a valuable role in forming a constituency of support for policies and ensuring accountability in implementation
• certain policies that reach the poorest rely on productive synergies with patron-client forms of politics, suggesting that trade-offs between the priorities of ‘good governance’ and poverty reduction may need to be considered
• there is little evidence that programmes targeted at the chronically poor are politically unsustainable. Such programmes may endure and be expanded, even during economic decline, while more universal programmes can be placed under political pressure on cost grounds
• before starting afresh, it is worth exploring the possibility that existing policies may be extended to include the poorest people. This approach was taken in many of the cases studied here, even where existing policies had colonial or discriminatory roots and required dramatic reform, and helps to build a more inclusive contract between state and citizens
• ideas about poverty matter. Better data (especially on the persistence of poverty) is important, but the broader battle of ideas in society – on the causes of poverty, or around concepts of development and nation-building – must be engaged with too. Elites need to be convinced that the poor face significant constraints that require public action. A renewed focus on causality within poverty diagnostics can play a role here, e.g. within PRSPs.