Food for a bad thought about Attacking Poverty
----------------------------------------------
THE WB's WORLD DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2000/2001 OR THE TRIVIALIZATION OF
THE CONCEPT OF "EMPOWERMENT".
For readers of the WDR that may have been caught off guard, let me
start by assuring you that empowering poor people is NOT about "mak-
ing the state and social institutions more responsive to them", not
about removing a series of social barriers through some kind of a
reasoned consensus from the top, and not about promoting opportuni-
ties for the poor through market access. Even if the aforementioned
were possible, the Report does not tell us how the mechanics of this
peculiar brand of empowerment would work. [What we are not told is
that only people's organized pressure -- the goal of the real empow-
erment -- is what is eventually going to work]. (1)
In all honesty, "Attacking Poverty" does flirt with some of the at-
tributes of the real empowerment. Among other good things, we read:
-that social structures that are exclusionary and inequitable, such
as class stratification(!) or gender division are major obstacles to
the upward mobility of poor people; [little is said on how to remove
these obstacles though];
-that experience indicates that a mix of political, legal and direct
public action ("bringing groups together and channeling their ener-
gies into political processes") is required to achieve progress in
education and health; [this experience is then forgotten in the ensu-
ing text];
-that actions will be needed to strengthen the poor people's capacity
to influence policy; [no word on how];
-that, in affairs that affect them, poor people ("the main actors in
the fight against poverty") and poor countries should have greater
voice in national and international fora; [no word on whether in the
World Bank as well, and no word on how to achieve this];
-that empowering women and disadvantaged groups by eliminating legal
discrimination against them is needed; [no word on how];
-that many forces affecting poor people's lives are beyond their in-
fluence or control; [not much of an empowering substantiation is
given on how to give them such influence and control];
-that debt relief and making aid more effective, as well as ensuring
full transparency and being in constant dialogue with civil society
are priorities in the battle against poverty; [not much is written on
how all of these would have to start by looking at how the WB's own
operations comply with these priorities].
But -- bottom line -- the take-home message is that the Report fails
to live up to its own recognition that poverty is more than inade-
quate income or human development -- it is also vulnerability and
lack of voice, of power, and of representation. Instead, as one of
its three-pronged approach to attacking poverty, the Bank prescribes
its own recipe for what it -- in a veritable character assassination
-- calls empowerment. Conversely, real grassroots empowerment, spe-
cifically embarks in actions that give the people voice, power and
representation, not waiting for the state and social institutions to
benevolently give those to them. (1)
Here then is a Report -- born in internal controversy -- that is a
strange mix of progressive thinking and old WB jargon -- inevitably
often contradicting each other. The 2000/2001 Report sought to expand
the understanding of poverty and its causes and, to a good extent, it
does. It was ambitiously published to set out actions that would cre-
ate a world free of poverty in all its dimensions ("directly address-
ing the needs of the poor"). [But it falls way short of it]. This,
because the Bank still thinks that, by a touch of sudden good will,
the interaction of markets, state institutions and civil society can
harness the forces of economic integration and technological change
to serve the interests of the poor and to increase their share of so-
ciety's prosperity. It also still believes that progress in reducing
some aspects of deprivation is possible (sustainably) even if other
aspects [probably meaning the root causes of poverty] remain un-
changed. [So, what is new?].
Much of the slow progress towards reducing poverty is attributed by
the Report to negative growth and rising inequality. But no mention
is made of how the process of globalization (which the Bank fosters)
is behind -- not of slow progress -- but of growing rates of poverty
worldwide. When this is happening, actions by the state to compensate
the "potential" losers and attempts to tinker with redressing new in-
equities are clearly not enough. The losers are just not "potential"
and coping mechanisms are just not a form of long term adaptation;
they are barely making the best of a bad situation without changing
its structural determinants.
Actually, what is required is action by the people; actions that lead
to sustainable changes, i.e. social and political action; not just
"action". And for this to happen, active collaboration among poor
people, the middle class and other groups in society is simply not
enough. A militant organization is needed. [And strengthening this is
what empowerment is all about].
Responsive official institutions are most often not responsive in a
vacuum. They are responsive as a result of sustained pressures. The
Report tells us that the Bank's approach to redressing poverty will
have to be set based on what is institutionally feasible in each in-
dividual case. But it fails to tell us that the people themselves are
going to have to exert pressures to create such conditions -- to make
institutions part of what is 'feasible'. We do not need pro-poor ac-
tion; we need proactive by-poor action. The political will to do the
needed changes will only come from organized social and political
pressures. Governments themselves will not do much to enact those
changes, as the Report suggests; they will not benevolently build po-
litical support for pro-poor action; they will not foster debates
over exclusionary practices supporting active participation of the
excluded, and will not implement selective affirmative action. Even
if they did -- without a negotiated people's involvement -- these ac-
tions would remain paternalistic. [Thus the need for people's empow-
erment].
I further beg to disagree with several of the Banks recipes to curb
poverty as presented in the document, for instance:
-that market access increases the independence of poor people; [it
does not necessarily do so; it may actually increase their depend-
ence];
-that opportunities exist to make markets work for poor people or
that investment and technological innovation are the main drivers of
growth; [unless people gain control over markets, investments and
technology this has not and will not be but wishful thinking --and
gaining such control is impossible without empowerment];
-that opening national economies to international markets offers a
huge opportunity for job and income growth; [existing industrial ex-
port zones are there to prove this wrong in dozens of countries];
-that expanding the country's infrastructure primarily integrates the
poor; [it has actually been proven to benefit new users proportion-
ately according to their preexisting level of wealth and power; the
poor benefit, but the rich do more, and the gap grows];
-that opening of the capital account (the inflow of foreign capital
to countries), if managed prudently, is another tool to grow out of
poverty; [just look at what havoc speculative capital has played in
the last few years.];
-that sound governance and the use of multiple (private) agents is
what is most needed to assure good quality social services delivery
or, even more daring, that privatizing can be achieved in a fashion
that ensures expansion of services to poor people; [now, give us a
break!];
-that social norms and networks are a key form of capital that people
can use to move out of poverty; [social and political mobilization
and coalition forming are the key instead]; and my favorite for the
end,
-that actions by multinational corporations, such as adhering to
ethical investment practices and adopting labor codes, .can also em-
power poor groups; [no comment].
In a nutshell then, this is what the 2000/2001 WDR has to propose un-
der empowerment as part of what it calls "a new dynamic for change,
that will tackle human deprivation and create just societies". I let
you be the judges.
Claudio Schuftan
Hanoi, vietnam
mailto:aviva@netnam.vn
(1): Schuftan, C. The community development dilemma: What is really
empowering? Comm. Dev. J. 31(3), July 1996, pp.260-264.
--
Send mail for the `AFRO-NETS' conference to `afro-nets@usa.healthnet.org'.
Mail administrative requests to `majordomo@usa.healthnet.org'.
For additional assistance, send mail to: `owner-afro-nets@usa.healthnet.org'.