The%20Political%20Economy%20of%20the%20PRSP%20Process%20Case%20Studies%20on%20Education%20from%20Tanzania%20and%20Vietnam

1
The Political Economy of the PRSP ProcessCase
Studies on Education from Tanzania and Vietnam

• Rosa Alonso
• Washington October 2004

2
Starting point

• Poor government policies that were neither
  pro-poor nor pro-growth
• Poor development assistance that substituted for
  instead of built government and country capacity
  for policy development and implementation
• Weak accountability frameworks for both
  government and donors

3
The PRSP approach

• The PRSP approach tries to increase the pro-poor
  focus and accountability of policy-making by
  affecting
• The environment within which policies are being
  made
• The key actors involved in the development,
  implementation, monitoring and evaluation

4
The policy-making environmentincreasing
transparency and accountability

• Increase in production, availability and
  dissemination of
• Information (on government strategies, policies
  and institutional processes)
• Data (budgetary, economic, social), and
• Analytical reports/studies
• Focus on monitoring and evaluation of results
• For evidence-based policy-making

5
The role of key actors

• From a political economy and a historical
  perspective, attempting a quick change in the
  pro-poor focus of policy-making is a radical
  endeavor
• The only dramatic shifts in economic
  policy-making have historically come through
• Revolution from below
• External forces

6
The role of key actors

• The PRSP process tries to combine both
• Pressure from belowthrough consultations of
  grass-roots communities and a greater role for
  civil society
• Pressure from the outsideby the donor community
  and international NGO
• Building alliances with Govt. champions

7
ParticipationCivil Society

• Participation/bringing in civil society as an
  attempt to make policy-making more pro-poorbut
• We should not expect civil society to be
  necessarily any more representative or
  representative of the interests of the poor than
  governments

8
Participation--Civil Society

• If the poor are the largest group, geographically
  disperse, with bad roads and other
  communications, and speak a variety of languages
  with no common language
• And the non-poor are a smaller group,
  geographically-concentrated (in urban areas),
  with better communications and a common language

9
Participation--Civil Society

• The best organized among civil society will be
  civil servants, unions, the business sector, and
  other non-poor groups
• And civil society (just like the government) will
  be heavily biased toward representing the
  non-poor

10
The other Civil Society--Local NGOs

• Connect with the grassroots
• Produce locally-relevant research
• Publicize research results
• Advocacy--coalition-building with
• International NGOs
• Local research institutes
• Government and
• Donors

11
The other Civil Society-- Research Institutes
Provide

• Research on poverty issues
• Support to PRSP teams
• Capacity-building for government and civil
  society in-country
• Coalition-building--key link between government,
  civil society and donors
• Help in feedback loops between research and ME
  results and policy-making

12
Globalization Helps

• International NGOs can play a key role in
  fostering pro-poor policies through
• Research
• Global information and advocacy campaigns
• Connecting with and financing local NGOs
• Lobbying key actors in the North

13
Building Alliances with Governments Poverty
Champions

• Part of the increased pro-poor focus should come
  from strengthening the position of
• Social ministries
• Planning ministries
• Poverty units
• Relative to that of the traditionally most
  powerful unitsMinistry of Finance

14
Changing Institutions

• Increasing the
• Evidence based orientation
• Participatory nature
• Transparency
• Accountability and
• Pro-poor focus of
• Sectoral policies and budgeting processes

15
Creating Pro-Poor Policy ShiftsThe Case of User
Fees

• Introduction of user fees and informal
  contributions in primary education in 1990s in TZ
  and VN
• Effects
• Regressive and non-transparent
• Effectively kept poor children out of school
• Used as fungible funds by local government
• Yielding only 1 of government recurrent
  expenditure (TZ)
• Highly resented by parents

16
Key Factors in the Process
PRSP
Entry points
Education Sector Programs
17
Background Factors

• The role of research on the impact of user fees
• Global Education for All Initiative
• The PRSP process
• Focus on poverty
• Participatory processturning the priorities of
  the poor into policies
• Prominence given to social sector ministries and
  poverty units

18
Roles of Key ActorsCivil Society

• Local CSOs
• Connecting with the grassroots
• Research
• Publicity of research results
• Advocacy
• Northern NGOs
• Global information campaign against user fees
  (since 1999)
• Connecting with local NGOs
• Research on role and impact of fees on the poor
• Financing local NGOs
• Advocacy in the North

19
Key Actors in the Process--Tanzania

• NGO Research--1999 Studies by Aga Khan Foundation
  and Maarifa ni Ufunguo
• NGO Advocacy
• Collaboration with other NGOs to ensure
  publicization of Maarifa ni Ufunguos study
• Amendment to US foreign appropriations bill
• GovernmentFirst opposed elimination later
  brought around ? Education Sector Development
  Program (with WB, DFID)
• Donor Financing Commitment
• 2000 Elections--President Mkapas announcement
• Final PRSP document 1 October 2001

20
Key Actors Factors in the Process Vietnam

• Key Role of Poverty Working Group
• Led by World Bank
• In cooperation with Vietnamese government, NGOs
  and other donors (DFID)
• Research/AdvocacyQuantitative and qualitative
  studies culminating in Attacking Poverty Report
  1999 a key document leading to the governments
  decision
• CPRGS consultations as the breakthrough at the
  policy-making level

21
Making it Happen--Tanzania

• Elimination of enrollment fee implemented in 2002
  
• Financed by donor-supported Primary Education
  Development Program
• Resultmarked increase of enrollment rate

22
Making it Happen--Vietnam

• Elimination of contributions in poorest 189
  districts included in Bank-supported Education
  Sector Program, but
• CPRGS one of several long-term planning documents
  used by the Vietnamese authorities
• Decentralization means great leeway of local
  authorities in implementing (or not) CPRGS
  commitment
• Financing. Elimination of contributions poses a
  financial challenge

23
Lessons LearnedImportance of

• Applied research (quantitative and qualitative)
• Cooperation b/n NGOs, donors and government
• IFI influence
• The PRSP process
• The EFA initiative
• Importance of availability of financing

24
Lessons Learned (cont.)

• Key Role of civil society in
• Raising concerns of the poor to the policy level
• Providing qualitative and quantitative research
• Raising awareness
• Identifying and lobbying key players
• Coalition-building--international and North/South
• Rising influence of poverty units and social
  ministries in national policy making
• Challenges to PRSP implementation in
  decentralized settings

25
Lessons Learned on PRSP Process

• To ensure sustainability, key actors in
  implementation stage need to be involved
• In TZ, all key actors on boardimplementation not
  a problem
• In VN, MoF and local governments not on
  board--questionability of implementation

26
Lessons learnedinstitutionalization of PRSP
process key

• Key actors in PRSP process (e.g., communities,
  civil society, poverty units, social ministries)
• Key principles of PRSP process
• Evidence-based policy-making
• Participation and transparency
• Pro-Poor Focus
• Donor alignment
• Need to be institutionalized in implementation
  phase