Last post from Manchester: social protection and how do we get to grips with politics and power?

More thoughts (increasingly incoherent as workshop fatigue sets in) from the Manchester conference. What are the big changes in WAP_LOGO1-small-yellowthinking from ten years of research on chronic poverty in dozens of countries?

First, social protection, which has mushroomed from fringe issue to magic bullet with extraordinary speed. If the SP advocates really have won the argument on this, the next stage will involve a lot more experimentation and evidence. What kinds of SP? Who for? How much does it cost? Who benefits? Do shocks and crises provide the best conditions for its introduction? What sort of political contexts help/hinder? Sub-categories of SP and SP research will develop further: SP and gender/children/older people; urban v rural; SP and climate change; SP for migrants; SP and disability. How can SP be scaled up from local to national to global? When is SP counterproductive, eg feeding clientilism or welfare dependence, or exacerbating gender disparities? Lots of this is already being studied, but plenty still to do.

Moser-family-and-friends-1978-150x150Second, poverty dynamics: look under the bonnet of poverty and there is a heaving, churning universe as people enter/emerge from poverty due to shocks, luck, hard work or their phase of life. Caroline Moser touched on this when she discussed her great book (reviewed here) on 30 years of research in a shanty town in Ecuador. During that time, she changed from seeing her neighbours in terms of poverty to thinking in terms of ‘asset accumulation’. The first asset people try and acquire on arriving in a city is housing. Once migrants have a house, they move on to accumulating other assets – financial, physical, human and social capital. Once the basics are achieved, the second generation develops different needs and expectations – what matters are secure jobs (and alienation from the lack of them), social cohesion, crime and distrust. Aid donors and local authorities prefer to focus on more tangible and do-able first generation issues – roads, street lights, playgrounds and health and education. So do local politicians, because new slums mean new votes, whereas in the established communities, party loyalties are more fixed. So all the attention is on the new shanty towns on the rim of the city, with nothing left for the rotting tenements or crumbling second generation settlements further in.

Finally, I asked a panel of chronic poverty gurus how we get onto the subject of politics and power, and actually stay there (see yesterday’s moan). What we need is a Chronic Politics Research Consortium, moving on from vague words like “governance” and “political will”, which have no explanatory power and are better seen as words to describe our areas of ignorance. Just as CPRC has dug into ‘poverty’ and ‘poverty reduction’, the CPRC 2.0 would get beneath the bonnet and explore the political roots of chronic poverty’s reduction or persistence. Here are their answers to where a CPRC 2.0 might start.

Andrew Shepherd: First we need to understand the interaction between research and politicians, (i.e. not just with policy makers), including via public opinion. We need to build strong research capacity in developing countries, so that national researchers can become more influential actors. As for the content of the research agenda, political parties and movements (and accountability mechanisms) often matter more than formal policy design process, producing the ‘underlying politics where norms and moral issues are being shaped’.

Myles Wickstead acknowledged the difficulties of aid donors funding work on parliamentary processes, and focussed on how little we understand elites. In many countries, local elites are largely unaware of the realities of their own poor people. What might trigger a revolution in attitudes?

Caroline Moser decided to go on the offensive (that’s definitely the last time I’m nice about one of her books): part of the problem is convergence. Why are researchers supposed to be advocates, and vice versa. Why did Oxfam do the global economic crisis research, rather than a university? Interesting question. Short answer is because UK universities are too slow and expensive, while we did work with universities in some of the case study countries. And we do know our limits – the research niche we aim for is generally rigorous qualitative work that builds on our programme experience. No point in us trying to compete on the big data gathering exercises. Longer answer is is watch this space – Caroline and I then had lunch to discuss how we might work together in future – that’s the real  benefit of conferences like this.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our Privacy Policy.

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.

Comments

3 Responses to “Last post from Manchester: social protection and how do we get to grips with politics and power?”
  1. Duncan, thanks for the coverage!

    I am sensing some frustration here with the theoretical labels attached to research. I agree that terms like ‘governance’ and ‘political will’ can take a great deal of clarity and meaning away from important issues. Governance, in particular, is not used to define a political system or political relations, but is more synonymous with the hyper-extended networks (both vertical and horizontal) that now seem to underpin global political relations… This got me thinking about some comments you made at the Politics of Poverty Conference recently – which could incidentally be used to help frame the next phase of research carried out by the CPRC (as discussed by Andrew Shephard). In a video [http://tiny.cc/94v6l] available on R4D TV [http://tiny.cc/tcxcu] you talk about the need to customise research and get away from the clunky ‘Fordist’ 20th Century model and instead build a research model that tells you what to do on Monday morning and provide the ‘now’ answers (presumably also moving away from terminology that is not helpful in the prescription of social issues). In this short video you talk about this model in terms of bringing researchers and practitioners together – but what about the policy makers and politicians – how do we bring them in?

    I know you support the kind of research carried out by the CPRC, but I am also aware that you would like to see a better balance between theoretical research and research that has real value for practitioners (and policy makers?). I think the CPRC is one programme that is aware of the important need to combine research-evidence with policy analysis and strategic policy engagement. Perhaps in the next phase of their research they should ask you how to take these objectives to the next level – to help produce the ‘now’ answers.
    It worth noting that all the research carried out by the CPRC is available on R4D – DFID’s research portal. No one seems to have mentioned that! [http://tiny.cc/egpca]

    Andrew Clappison [http://tiny.cc/4q0uj]

  2. Duncan, You’re right. Universities are far too slow. Part of this (and only part) has to do with the systems of rewards, what counts as ‘real’ scholarship. In the UK it is even worse because you are bound to the Research Assessment Exercise, where articles in top notch journals (often appearing over a year following submission) are lauded and policy reports or community-engaged scholarship are snubbed. The pressures are not as great in Canada where we still have tenure, but they exist in different forms. It’s time for universities to wake up to the demands of the majority world and make the institutional change that would increase their relevance in the community.

  3. Siddharth Bargate

    KIVA:Loans That Change Lives
    Kiva empowers individuals to lend to an entrepreneur across the globe. By combining microfinance with the internet, Kiva is creating a global community of people connected through lending.

    Kiva was born of the following beliefs:

    1.People are by nature generous, and will help others if given the opportunity to do so in a transparent, accountable way.
    2.
    The poor are highly motivated and can be very successful when given an opportunity.
    3.
    By connecting people we can create relationships beyond financial transactions, and build a global community expressing support and encouragement of one another.

    Kiva promotes:
    1.
    Dignity: Kiva encourages partnership relationships as opposed to benefactor relationships. Partnership relationships are characterized by mutual dignity and respect.
    2.
    Accountability: Loans encourage more accountability than donations where repayment is not expected.
    3.
    Transparency: The Kiva website is an open platform where communication can flow freely around the world.

    As of November 2009, Kiva has facilitated over $100 million in loans.

    Kiva is a U.S. 501(c)3 non-profit organization.

    http://www.kiva.org

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.