Turning Governance Thinking Upside-down? Insights from ‘the politics of what works’

Abstract

Mainstream thinking within international development around what constitutes ‘pro-poor’ forms of politics is increasingly at odds with the growing evidence-base on the politics of development. Ideological bias towards Weberian modes of governance and rational actor models of political behaviour, and a growing belief in the power of ‘evidence-based policy making’ fail to reflect the extent to which informal and patronage-based forms can sometimes play a positive role in enabling poverty reduction, as well as the fact that political elites respond to a wider range of incentives than commonly assumed, including a role for political ideology and discourse rather than evidence per se. These findings offer further support for a fundamental rethinking around the role of politics in shaping development.

Notes

1 Centre for the Future State, An Upside Down View of Governance, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies (ids), 2010.

2 MH Khan, ‘Governance, economic growth and development since the 1960s’, background paper for World Economic and Social Survey 2006, New York: undesa, 2006.

3 Centre for the Future State, An Upside Down View of Governance, p 69.

4 EA Brett, ‘Participation and accountability in development management’, Journal of Development Studies, 40(2), 2003, pp 1–29; S Hickey & G Mohan, ‘The politics of establishing pro-poor accountability: what can poverty reduction strategies achieve?’, Review of International Political Economy, 15(2), 2008, pp 234–258; and A Joshi, ‘Producing social accountability? The impact of service delivery reforms’, ids Bulletin, 38(6), 2007, pp 10–17.

5 dfid, ‘Better government for poverty reduction: more effective partnerships for change’, paper produced for Drivers of Change Policy Division Team, London, 2004.

6 S Hickey, ‘The government of chronic poverty: from exclusion to citizenship?’, Journal of Development Studies, 46(7), 2010, p 1151.

7 D Booth, ‘Missing links in the politics of development: learning from the prsp experiment’, odi Working Paper 256, London: Overseas Development Institute, 2005.

8 R Jenkins, ‘The emergence of the governance agenda’, in V Desai & RB Potter (eds), The Companion to Development Studies, London: Arnold, 2002, pp 485–489; and AS Sverrisson, ‘The politics and governance of poverty alleviation programmes: comparative case-studies in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America’, European Journal of Development Research, 8(2), 1996, pp 129–156.

9 M Grindle, ‘Good enough governance revisited’, Development Policy Review, 25(5), 2007, pp 553–574.

10 S Hickey, ‘The politics of protecting the poorest: beyond the anti-politics machine?’, Political Geography, 28(8), 2009, pp 473–483.

11 JB Gelbach & L Pritchett, ‘More for the poor is less for the poor: the politics of targeting’, World Bank Development Research Group, Washington, DC: World Bank, 2007.

12 P Evans, ‘Development as institutional change: the pitfalls of monocropping and the potentials of deliberation’, Studies in Comparative International Development, 38(4), 2004, p 30.

13 D Booth, ‘Elites, governance and the public interest in Africa: working with the grain?’, appp Discussion Paper 6, London: Overseas Development Institute (odi), 2009, p 3.

14 L Pritchett & M Woolcock, ‘Solutions when the solution is the problem: arraying the disarray in development’, World Development, 32(2), 2004, p 192.

15 Grindle, ‘Good enough governance revisited’.

16 M Grindle, ‘Good enough governance: poverty reduction and reform in developing countries’, Governance, 17(4), 2004, p 526,

17 Booth, ‘Elites, governance and the public interest in Africa’, p 5.

18 S Sutcliffe & J Court, Evidence-based Policymaking: What is it? How does it Work? What Relevance for Developing Countries?, London: odi, 2005, p iii.

19 J Nelson, The Politics of Social Sector Reforms, Washington, DC: Overseas Development Council, 2000.

20 V Kozel, P Fallavier & R Badiani, ‘Risk and vulnerability analysis in World Bank analytic work: FY2000–FY2007’, Social Protection Discussion Paper Series 44780, Washington, DC: World Bank, 2008, p 10.

21 S Hickey, with R Sabates-Wheeler, G Guenther & I Macauslan, ‘Promoting social protection and social transfers: dfid and the politics of influencing’, evaluation report for dfid, London, 2008.

22 J Nelson, ‘Grounds for alliance? Overlapping interests of the poor and not so poor’, in P Houtzager & M Moore (eds), Changing Paths: International Development and the Politics of Inclusion, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2003, pp 119–138.

23 Nelson, The Politics of Social Sector Reforms, pp 24–25.

24 Gelbach & Pritchett, ‘More for the poor is less for the poor’. See also L Pritchett, ‘A lecture on the political economy of targeted safety nets’, World Bank Social Protection Discussion Paper 0501, Washington, DC: World Bank, 2005.

25 M Moore, ‘Arguing the politics of inclusion’, in Houtzager & Moore, Changing Paths, pp 260–284.

26 S Unsworth, ‘What's politics got to do with it? Why donors find it so hard to come to terms with politics, and why this matters’, Journal of International Development, 21, 2009, pp 883–894.

27 For example, C Graham, ‘Public attitudes matter: a conceptual frame for accounting for political economy in safety nets and social assistance policies’, Social Protection Discussion Paper Series, Washington, DC: World Bank, 2002; and M Moore & V Jadhav, ‘The politics and bureaucratics of rural public works: Maharashtra's Employment Guarantee Scheme’, Journal of Development Studies, 42(8), 2006, pp 1271–1300.

28 Nelson, The Politics of Social Sector Reforms, p 3.

29 Most country case-study reports are available in working paper form at www.chronicpoverty.org, including N Hossain, ‘The politics of what works: the case of the Vulnerable Group Development Programme in Bangladesh’, cprc Working Paper, 92, Manchester: idpm, 2007; and L Pelham, ‘The politics behind the non-contributory old age social pensions: in Lesotho, Namibia and South Africa’, cprc Working Paper, 93, Manchester: idpm, 2007.

30 For findings relating to the other four dimensions of this analytical framework (ie political drivers and political context, policy spaces, the role of civil society, and social contracts), see S Hickey, ‘The politics of protecting the poorest: beyond the anti-politics machine?’, Political Geography, 28(8), 2009, pp 473–483.

31 M Bulmer (ed), Social Science and Social Policy, London: Allen & Unwin, 1986.

32 Hossain, ‘The politics of what works’.

33 Pelham, ‘The politics behind the non-contributory old age social pensions’

34 Gelbach & Pritchett, ‘More for the poor is less for the poor’.

35 M Green & D Hulme, ‘From correlates and characteristics to causes: thinking about poverty from a chronic poverty perspective’, World Development, 33(6), 2005, pp 867–879.

36 D Mosse, ‘A relational approach to durable poverty, inequality and power’, Journal of Development Studies, 46(7), 2010, pp 1156–1178.

37 Hossain, ‘The politics of what works’, p 7.

38 Lesotho Government, 2004, cited in Pelham, ‘The politics behind the non-contributory old age social pensions’.

39 M Bratton & R Mattes, ‘Support for economic reform? Popular attitudes in Southern Africa’, World Development, 31(2), 2003, pp 303–323.

40 Moore & Jadhav, ‘The politics and bureaucratics of rural public works’, p 1283

41 Hickey with Sabates-Wheeler et al, ‘Promoting social protection and social transfers’.

42 Hickey, ‘The politics of protecting the poorest’.

43 Pelham, ‘The politics behind the non-contributory old age social pensions’.

44 S Devereux, ‘Social pensions in Namibia and South Africa’, ids Discussion Paper 379, Brighton: ids, 2001.

45 Pelham, ‘The politics behind the non-contributory old age social pensions’.

46 J Nelson, ‘Grounds for alliance? Overlapping interests of the poor and not so poor’, in Houtzager & Moore, Changing Paths, pp 119–138.

47 T Mkandawire, Targeting and Universalism in Poverty Reduction, programme on Social Policy and Development, paper no 23, Geneva: unrisd, 2005.

48 S Hickey, ‘Conceptualising the politics of social protection in Africa’, in A Barrientos & D Hulme (eds), Social Protection for the Poor and Poorest: Risk, Needs and Rights, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2008, pp 247–263; and Moore, ‘Arguing the politics of inclusion’.

49 For example, Graham, ‘Public attitudes matter’.

50 Moore, ‘Arguing the politics of inclusion’.

51 A Kumar and N Anand, ‘Poverty Target Programs for the Elderly in India, with Special Reference To National Old-Age Pension Scheme, 1995'. Case-study report for the CPRC ‘Politics of What Works' Research Project, Unpublished mimeo, 2006.

52 Hossain, The politics of what works'.

53 Ibid, p 10.

54 Ibid.

55 Pelham, ‘The politics behind the non-contributory old age social pensions’.

56 Joshi & Moore, ‘The mobilising potential of anti-poverty programmes: concepts and cases’, Journal of Development Studies, 37(1), 2000, pp 25–56.

57 SG Corbridge, G Williams, M Srivastava & R Véron, Seeing the State: Governance and Governmentality in India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

58 Booth, ‘Missing links in the politics of development’; and Centre for the Future State, An Upside Down View of Governance.

59 J Bastiaensen, T de Herdt & B D'Exelle, ‘Poverty reduction as local institutional process’, World Development, 33(6), 2005, pp 979–993.

60 N Hossain, ‘Rude accountability: informal pressures on frontline bureaucrats in Bangladesh’, Development and Change, 41(5), 2010, pp 907–928.

61 Booth, ‘Elites, governance and the public interest in Africa’, p 9.

62 Centre for the Future State, An Upside Down View of Governance, p i.

63 Mosse, ‘A relational approach to durable poverty, inequality and power’.

64 Ibid.

65 J Beall & L-H Piron, dfid Social Exclusion Review, London: odi, 2005.

66 S Unsworth, ‘What's politics got to do with it?’; and W Hout, ‘The anti-politics of development: donoragencies and the political economy of governance’, Third World Quarterly, 33(3), 2012, pp 405–422.

67 P Evans, ‘Development as institutional change’.