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 “making 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 opportunities 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 empowerment– is what is eventually going to work]. (1)
In all honesty, “Attacking Poverty” does flirt with some of the attributes 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 energies into political processes”) is required to achieve progress in education and health; [this experience is then forgotten in the ensuing 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 influence 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 inadequate 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, specifically 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 create a world free of poverty in all its dimensions (“directly addressing 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 society’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 unchanged. [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 inequities 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 individual 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 action; 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 political 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 actions would remain paternalistic. [Thus the need for people’s empowerment].
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 dependence];
– 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 export 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 proportionately 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 empower poor groups; [no comment].
In a nutshell then, this is what the 2000/2001 WDR has to propose under 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, Saigon
schuftan@gmail.com
(1): Schuftan, C. The community development dilemma: What is really empowering?, Comm. Dev. J. 31(3), July 1996, pp.260-264.