The politics of poverty: is pro-poor politics possible?

Politics is widely viewed as inherently problematic, and political analysis invoked mainly to try to explain development policy failures. But can political analysis tell us whether governments are likely to be pro-poor? And why are pro-poor outcomes often so difficult to achieve? An Institute of Development Studies working paper identifies a wide range of opportunities that exist for pro-poor policies and offers a series of guidelines for thinking about specific cases. Using the guidelines, policymakers can obtain a more realistic perspective on their projects and programmes and increase chances of success.

Political analysis is mainly used in development agencies to explain why things have gone wrong and to fix them. It could, however, be used more positively. How can political analysis improve understanding of poverty? By exploring what drives politics in poor countries political analysis can identify:

• openings for political coalitions and alliances that benefit the poor
• ways in which ‘friends of the poor’ inside and outside the government can shape public programmes and policies to increase the political capabilities of the poor
• areas where there are common interests between poor and non-poor.

The study provides guidelines about the: type of politics that are likely to dominate in different situations; roles that poor people and the organisations representing them might play; the scope for both local political actors and external agencies to advance the interests of the poor.

Research findings include:

• Democratic political systems are not necessarily pro-poor.
• Political mobilisation of poor people depends to a large degree on the effectiveness and coherence of states and the policies they pursue.
• Decentralisation is not necessarily pro-poor.
• There exists a wider range of possibilities for pro-poor political alliances than is widely believed.
• Many of the policies needed to improve governance will benefit the poor.

Policy recommendations include:

• Although the economic logic of a particular project, programme or policy intervention may be flawless, political analysis may reveal an entirely different set of concerns and conclusions.
• Donors must recognise that they are political actors themselves.
• Donors should undertake political impact assessments before embarking on major projects and programmes.
• In some cases, rather than promoting pro-poor policy, donors should first encourage governments to eliminate those aspects of current practice and policy that are clearly ‘anti-poor’.

Source(s):
‘Thinking Strategically About Politics and Poverty’ IDS Working Paper #101 Institute of Development Studies, Brighton by Mick Moore and James Putzel (1999)

Funded by: DFID (Escor)

id21 Research Highlight: 24 January 2001

Further Information:
Mick Moore
Institute of Development Studies
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9RJ, UK

Tel: +44 (0)1273 606 261
Fax: +44 (0)1273 621 202/ 691 647
Contact the contributor: M.Moore@ids.ac.uk

Institute of Development Studies (IDS), UK

James Putzel
Development Studies Institute
London School of Economics
Houghton Street
London WC2A 2AE

Contact the contributor: J.Putzel@lse.ac.uk

London School of Economics, UK

Other related links:
Search the UNDP Poverty pages for a broad selection on human development and livelihoods

Wisconsin's Institute for Research on Poverty is a gateway of information with links further into the issues

PovertyNet has good links to other sites, downloadable papers and details of the next World Development report on poverty

Children are the largest group of poor people in the world. UNICEF has various important sources of information, research reports and links to major sites on poverty vis-à-vis children and their parents

Neglected food poverty issues in the UK are highlighted by Oxfam

The Poverty Research Unit at Sussex contributes to a better understanding of poverty, its causes and alleviation

IIED presents excellent research and applied experience