PRSP Learning Event

1
PRSP Learning Event

• In-week Russia/Ukraine - April 10th 2002

2
Origins of the PRSP Idea

• Poor record on poverty reduction in 1990s
• (Africa, Transition countries especially)
• Findings on aid effectiveness (aid undermining
• govt. systems capacity, limits of
  conventional
• policy conditionality, nb of ownership)
• Justification for big increase in multilateral
• funding for debt relief (HIPC II)

3
Core PRSP Principles

• Country-led, country-owned
• Based on broad-based participation
• Comprehensive macro, structural, social
• Medium to long term perspective
• Results-oriented
• Donor partnership under government
• leadership

4
Whats new?

• Costed poverty reduction strategy linked to macro
  fiscal framework
• Reducing the disconnect between policy results
• Opening up the policy process to broad-based
  local participation
• Working behind Govt. leadership/new aid
  delivery/partnership possibilities

5
Relevance in MICs?

• 500 million living on lt 2/day 12 of poorest
• people reside in MICs
• Costed policy framework linked to resource
• allocation universally relevant
• Joining-up macro, structural social policy a
• challenge everywhere (CDF)
• Broad societal support for policy change
• often critical to effectiveness

6
Relevance cont.

• Results-orientation widely applicable
• Donor role secondary to domestic constituencies
• /electorates
• BUT poverty, political economy, capacity
• weaknesses and the leverage of external
• partners are all different from LICs.
• Wholesale application of PRS principles probably
• not appropriate but variations on a theme.

7
Ownership

• What does ownership entail?
• - locus of idea resides domestically
• - technocratic conviction political support
• - broad societal support
• - institutionalistion embedded in new
  inst.arrgs
• How is the PRS doing?
• - PRS principles gradually being internalised
• (as part of the political project
  popularisation
• as framework for budget guidelines)
• - Upgrading of poverty policy with involvement of
• MoF technocrats given higher profile

8
Ownership cont.
- Some new institutional arrangements (cross-
sectoral technical committees, PRS working
groups) - Domestic constituencies are more
engaged in policy debate (national dialogues,
policy fora)

• Challenges
• - deepening understanding through info compaigns
• - engaging political constituencies more directly
  -
• Parliaments, political parties, TUs (again
  media)
• - locking-in commitment to principles through
• complementary reforms (CSR/pay reform)
• changes in the aid relationship

9
Participation

• Experience shows
• - Opportunity has been created for more
  strategic engagement (NGOs engaging with policy
  questions)
• - New spaces for domestic policy dialogue are
  emerging (joint policy fora, participatory PER
  processes)
• - New coalitions also emerging CSOs, INGOs and
• local NGOs, academic institutions
• - Participation often limited to consultation,
  sometimes in conflict with formal political
  institutions

10
Participation cont.

• Significant challenges remain
• - There are costs risks to participation how
  to avoid
• loss of trust is a key issue
• - Consistent, long term support to participatory
  policy processes is necessary to yield desired
  results
• - Over-privileging of NGOs can be at the cost of
  local political institutions, membership
  organisations etc.
• - Not just dialogue but also collective analysis,
  a link to action monitoring for feedback
  results

11
Partnership

• Experience so far
• Recognition that a broader policy dialogue is
  needed
• beyond projects
• - Acknowledgement of Govt. leadership in mgmt of
  aid
• New aid modalities
• Donor moves towards harmonisation results
  focus
• But the potential is also there to
• Further streamline donor processes benchmarking
  of
• donor performance establish common mechanisms
• Move towards longer term commitments based on
• mutual accountabilities

12
Partnership

• Possible approaches include
• - Extend national partnership agreements to
  include
• sub-national local authority (even
  community)
• - Linking institutions with experience with
  participatory
• methods/social assessment/monitoring
• - Extending partnership by linking to private
  sector/
• chambers of commerce, corporate social
• responsibility issues

13
Results Oriented

• Assessing progress key to public credibility of
• poverty policy
• Feasibility and evaluability of policy
  priorities
• targets are in turn key to monitoring progress
• PRS monitoring requires (at a minimum)
• - clear articulation of intermediate output,
  outcome
• final outcome indicators
• - national, local and household level poverty
  data
• - administrative/facility level data
• - qualitative policy analysis/quick
  monitoring tools
• (citizen report cards consumer surveys)

14
Results Oriented

• But monitoring is not just about data crucial
  are
• the systems that feed evidence back into
  policy.
• Institutional arrangements must enable
• domestic policy dialogue around poverty to
• continue and deepen (link data, analysis
• dissemination)
• Build demand through budget/PER reform
• processes, links with research advocacy
• community, (town-hall meetings
• e-govt.)

15
Results Oriented

• Participatory tools can increase access to info
• increase trust, particularly in excluded
• communities
• Supporting capacity for poverty social impact
• analysis (research community, TUs etc)
• can help to inform the domestic debate
• about policy change contribute to better
• evidence-based policy making.

16
What does this mean for you?
How do these lessons challenges fit with your
current experience of working in Russia/ Ukraine?
Whats different what are some of possibilities
for working more directly with PRS principles?