Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) have been adopted by Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Malawi in recent years. The resulting focus on decentralisation and participation has not had the desired success, however. How can PRSPs address the problems that poor people face in trying to escape poverty?

A paper from the Overseas Development Group at the University of East Anglia, UK summarises the findings of a research project entitled Livelihood and Diversification Directions Explored by Research (LADDER), conducted in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Malawi. In doing so it considers whether PRSPs successfully identify and seek to remove the real barriers confronted by rural poor people trying to improve their lives.

The authors find that the high expectations being placed on decentralisation, participation, and effective service delivery by public organisations are not being met. For example, while donors and some governments wish to make district councils or assemblies less dependent on state funding, this often leads to local taxes which increase the burden on poor people.

The authors evaluated the appropriateness of PRSP activities by looking at the assets, activities and local public sector contexts that characterise rural poor people seeking more secure livelihoods. Key findings include:

• Within agriculture, farm sizes and livestock holdings are declining, and more farmers are relying on subsistence activities (providing for themselves rather than being involved in market transactions).
• It is important for poor people to use a variety of occupations and transactions to achieve food security and higher living standards.
• Production from farms and non-farm earnings complement each other.
• Structural adjustment programmes such as those imposed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank fail to make agriculture profitable, as they lead to unstable prices, poor market coverage, high prices for agricultural inputs and greater risk for farmers.
• There is poor governance at local levels, and barriers with respect to exchange and mobility in the form of multiple taxation, high license fees and business regulations, movement permits, resident registration and roadblocks that affect poor people disproportionately.

The strengths and weaknesses of the PRSP format need to be debated. PRSPs are strong on taking individual Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) such as provision of universal primary education, and turning these into national plans with targets and dates. They tend to be weak on issues which involve different sectors, and on creating environments that help individuals and families find new opportunities.

Policy-makers using the PRSP framework need to consider:

• encouraging rather than blocking diversity, mobility and exchange in the rural economy, and rural-urban interactions;
• reversing the negative viewpoint on migration that is prevalent in most PRSPs
• balancing increased financial independence at district level with realistic assessment of who is being taxed, with what purpose, and with what effect on poverty reduction.

Without positive changes in public sector governance in rural areas, the impact of donor resources channelled through PRSP frameworks will be limited to a few highly visible results such as schools and roads. This will have little real impact on the opportunities available for the rural poor. Decentralisation needs to be part of the solution for rural poverty, not the problem.

Source(s):
‘Rural Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction in Four African Countries’, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 40, No. 4, by Frank Ellis and H. Ade Freeman April 2004
'Rural Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction Policies', London: Routledge, Frank Ellis and H.Ade Freeman (eds), 2005
Research Programme - Livelihood and Diversications Explored by Research (LADDER) 2000-04 Full document.

Funded by: Department for International Development, UK

id21 Research Highlight: 15 June 2005

Further Information:
Frank Ellis
School of Development Studies
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
UK

Tel: +44 (0)1603 592807
Fax: +44 (0)1603 451999
Contact the contributor: f.ellis@uea.ac.uk

University of East Anglia, UK

H. Ade Freeman
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)
P.O. Box 30709
Nairobi
Kenya

Contact the contributor: a.freeman@cgiar.org

International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Kenya

Other related links:
'Can bilateral donors make local communities ‘own’ Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers?'

'Any change in policy-making? Assessing Benin’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper'

'Innovation and progress? The Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper process in Tanzania'

'The Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper in Rwanda: working together to fight poverty?'

'The Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper: the right approach?'

'PRSPs and decentralisation in Malawi: can they offer any progress?'