Reducing poverty through shaping strategies

Incidence of poverty is not new in human history, but its analysis, discourse or the efforts for reduction are. The emergence of urban poverty in Europe in the eighteenth century in the wake of industrialisation drew initial attention in a formal sense. Even till recently some people used to believe that the affluent West succeeded in striking out this evil even as it came to be revealed that at the fag end of the last century poverty still kept sticking out its ugly head, in no less a highly industrialised country than the United Kingdom.
Countries like Bangladesh, India and Nepal from this part of the world are often the examples in the discourse on poverty. Naturally any research dealing with the philosophy or strategy of poverty alleviation can hardly overlook the perspectives of these countries. Two research monographs by Rehman Sobhan and MM Akash deserve careful reading for the simple reason that they critically look into some vital issues of pertinence. This is an outcome of a study commissioned by CPD and SACEPS.
Together the two works have nine chapters. The first monograph mainly consists of remarks on conceptual issues relating to poverty reduction approaches pursued by a few major international organizations, namely, like WB, ADB, OECD, UNCTAD, and IFAD, who are not only important development partners or financing institutions but are also known to play a significant role in shaping the economic policies of several countries. The second monograph focuses on the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper or PRSP of the selected South Asian countries mainly, as it will presumably provide guidance to the poverty reduction initiatives, particularly in framing the programmes of the countries concerned (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan). One can easily understand why these monographs should receive readers' attention, for they are related not only to their wide geographical coverage but also the very critiquing of poverty reduction strategies.
While one would not expect indefinite reproductions of the observations and analyses the monographs have already made, selective reference will however be needed to set the tone of this brief review. More significant is that these monographs pursue an important analytical point regarding the main philosophy of poverty reduction. They avowedly assert that the first and foremost need is a structural change if the ultimate goal is poverty reduction. As a corollary they criticise 'micro' initiatives that do not take into account such imperatives. We quote to clarify this point, "…poverty originates in the structural features of society which can only be addressed at the macro level…' or '…micro programmes remain incapable of generating the synergy needed to eliminate poverty…'
Certainly for any avid reader a curiosity to know more about the issue of structural imperatives in changing the face of poverty will be there. While the authors did not much labour to pen in a few paragraphs or pages on what underlies such structural imperatives, the discussion in different sections gradually offers up a perspective as to what they mean to transpire. Since the issue of structural change is the main argument for critiquing against these institutions it could help the reader more had there been a little more elaboration on the composition and strategies of structural change they are arguing for in a single section.
One of the major aspects of the critique of these two monographs is the calling into question of some of the axioms and policies advocated in development parleys as they are inconsistent with the views of the aforementioned organisations. Let us give some examples from the authors. One of them says: 'Not withstanding this broader and stronger commitment to poverty reduction, the WDR 2000/01 remains essentially astructural in its conception of problem of poverty and thus fails to present any suggestion which could really enhance the capacity of the poor to emerge as a significant producers of goods and services in a market economy'. Now what is wrong with WB and ADB? The central critique lies in the point that they usually place market mechanism at the forefront to fight poverty, while for the poor it is impossible to act as a strong player in such a context as they hardly possess their own resources, reasonable education or competitive skill. On the other hand, accessing services in health and education competing with the affluent in society will also not be easy for the poor. However, all international organisations, as the first monograph shows, do not toe the WB or ADB line. The authors finally show how different approaches have emerged in course of time, some pushing forward neo-liberal ideas while others opt for structural change through redistributive justice.
The second part of the two monographs is about poverty alleviation policies and approaches in broad terms, primarily in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan. Here the main critique is the control exercised by organisations like WB in the formulation of strategy papers on poverty alleviation. Although PRSP has put forth ideas like good governance in poverty reduction, they have still not been generated in a free atmosphere and with only a cosmetic participatory approach.
Now the point is how to bring about these structural changes and who will do so. The authors themselves admit that the task is not easy. Mobilizing the poor at the national level is an uphill task indeed when poverty does not lend much coherence needed for such mobilisation. Think of occupational, regional, ethnic and other types of divide that may act as a centrifugal force!
Next comes the question: even if we allow the national players to set the rules of the game, in this respect the policies of poverty alleviation, how far will they remain above the politics of a class divided society, and genuinely push forward structural changes which may require a major shake-up in the given institutional order?
Finally, the very history of poverty alleviation in Bangladesh is quite illustrative with dynamics of its own kind. It amply shows that sincere initiatives sometimes hardly wait for a favourable policy set up. Think of conscientisation later shifting to economic empowerment through micro credit or Rights Based Approach types programs that have rolled in Bangladesh with a targeted spear. In the words of Sobhan and Akash, these are micro initiatives. But can silence or non-responsiveness be the correct strategy while structural change (though better) was not feasible in the early 1970's?
In the changing world where many established postulates (both market and central planning) are often questioned, one may need to be more nuanced in adopting a strategy as one of the two reflected in tangential manner. It may be easily surmised that these two monographs will provide a departing point for further analysis overlooked for quite sometime.

Monirul I. Khan is Professor, Department of Sociology, Dhaka University; Khaleda Islam is Professor, INFS, Dhaka University.