Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) have been introduced in most of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. Potentially they could bring about a worthwhile change in the way aid for poverty reduction is delivered. They could help overcome the tendency for development aid to repeatedly reinforce the problems that it is meant to solve. PRSP processes are meant to enable poverty reduction policies that national governments have real commitment to (which are ‘owned’ by them), be backed by political leaders, and be more effective and sustainable as a result. But does the reality match what is emphasised in reports and speeches?

Research coordinated by the UK's Overseas Development Institute reports on PRSP processes in seven African countries. It emphasises that that there are many different dimensions of national ownership. In many cases, ownership of PRSPs is quite strong amongst small groups of civil servants and technical experts in government. But political commitment is much less. This is a source of difficulty, because successful PRSP implementation requires broad support for other administrative and governance reforms, especially concerning budgeting, planning and decentralisation. Outside central ministries, not much has been achieved in building broad based support for PRSPs across central and local government. The impact of PRSPs on public consciousness is still very limited.

Experiences across the seven countries varied considerably, but there were a few common patterns. In all cases, the PRSP process was influenced greatly by the fact that policy-making processes are fragmented and unsystematic, and countries are not complete democracies. Despite this challenging background, the researchers found that PRSPs have made a difference for the better in several important ways:

• PRSPs have brought poverty reduction efforts more into the mainstream of national policy: poverty reduction is increasingly seen as a goal of all sectors and policy areas, rather than being focused on social sectors.
• When combined with other reforms, especially in public sector administration, the PRSPs are much more credible: but this also means that where previous reform initiatives have failed, it is more difficult for PRSPs to create positive change.
• This has created new opportunities to have discussions about domestic policies: politically poverty issues are considered more important; campaigning organisations have, in several cases, mobilised to influence policy-making in a more strategic way than before; and in some cases, working relationships between government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have improved.
• Poverty monitoring activities provide ongoing opportunities to build on the foundations laid by PRSPs: information on poverty profiles and trends is about to improve significantly in all countries as a result of the PRSP-related initiatives.

Experience with PRSPs has confirmed the need for a more substantial transformation of aid relationships. The way that donors behave can either support or frustrate national poverty reduction efforts, and this needs to be addressed. Equally, many aspects of the way that governments work have to change if PRSPs are to be successful. The researchers recommend that:

• Governments need to produce PRSPs that not only say what needs to be done to reduce poverty, but are realistic about how this can be done. They should also make sure that there are definite linkages between PRSP processes and government expenditure-management processes.
• Donors need to seriously consider adopting rules which allow them to be more open and transparent with both governments and the public of the countries they are dealing with: it is also necessary to streamline reporting and review processes, to avoid overburdening key officials.
• Bilateral donors have been particularly important in supporting PRSP consultation processes: however, a deeper and richer policy dialogue will only come if donors adopt longer time frames and include a wider range of organisations and perspectives.

These recommendations recognise some amount of uncertainty and suggest that key development actors need to change the way they do work. But if PRSPs are to work to break vicious circles of aid dependency – both for governments and donors – more of the same is not an option.

Source(s):
Chapter One: ‘Introduction and Overview.’ Fighting Poverty in Africa: are PRSPs making a difference? edited by David Booth London: Overseas Development Institute, by David Booth, 2004.

Funded by: Department for International Development (UK)

id21 Research Highlight: 7 November 2004

Further Information:
David Booth,
Research Fellow,
Overseas Development Institute,
London,
UK.

Tel: +44 (0)20 7922 0300
Fax: +44 (0)20 7922 0399
Contact the contributor: d.booth@odi.org.uk

Overseas Development Institute, UK

Other related links:
'Reforming public expenditure management: an unachievable aspiration for poor nations?'

'Poverty reduction in the Americas: on course to deliver debt relief?'

'Mainstreaming the poverty-reduction agenda'

'The PRSP approach: a basic guide for CARE International' from ELDIS

'Politics and the PRSP approach: Bolivia case study' from Eldis

'Politics and the PRSP approach: synthesis paper' from Eldis

'How, when and why does poverty get budget priority: poverty reduction strategy and public expenditure in five African countries: synthesis paper' from Overseas Development Institute