Poverty Reduction knowledge process

Poverty is increasingly acknowledged to be multidimensional. There is no reason to limit a concept and even measurement of vulnerability to income, consumption or other moneymetric dimensions only, even when using quantitative means. Other dimensions of poverty, such as related to educational opportunities, mortality, nutrition and health are also accounted. Broader dimensions, such as exclusion and the experience of poverty are valid dimensions to consider as well. Earlier the focuses of poverty alleviation programmes were very much on the development and transfer of new technologies for use in developing countries. Latterly there was a shift in emphasis, with a greater proportion of projects investigating barriers to infrastructure provision, maintenance and access, with a particular focus on sustainable solutions and pro-poor ‘livelihoods’ approaches and increasing involvement of southern partners in projects. Working with local partners facilitates access to local communities, understanding specific vulnerabilities and building trust amongst project participants. Studies are focused on technical, managerial and policy solutions in the infrastructure and urban development sectors that enable poor people to escape from poverty on a sustainable basis.

In many communities there are considerable possibilities for the health sector to interact with social development. However such programmes have been initiated rather infrequently and rarely evaluated. With increasing numbers of communities now looking toward their own activities for improving health rather than relying on governments there are considerable opportunities for evaluating the impact of programmes which enhance analysis, planning and action by communities themselves. Whereas there is a strong knowledge base on how to enhance participation within other sectors such as agriculture and rural livelihoods, there is little documentation of its impact on health.
It is important to be aware of the availability of health services, nutritional status of the population, food security and shelter as well as the more obvious water and sanitation issues and for agencies to plan their response in collaboration with each other. The success of any emergency intervention is dependent on the coordination of all those involved and no one intervention can address the problems on its own.
Assessment data is meaningless without subsequent analysis of the information and the setting of priorities. Compiling a problem tree may allow a closer examination of the causes of problems and possible solutions and help to focus on the most significant risk factors. A problem tree is formed by outlining problems and for each problem asking the question ‘why’. By continually asking ‘why’, the root causes of problems may be discovered and priorities for intervention thus become clearer.

Although infrastructure issues (water excepted) are not mentioned in the headline MDGs, the key role of infrastructure in livelihoods improvement, sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction is widely recognized. Infrastructure is found to be the key to achieving the central MDG of halving poverty by 2015. In an updated description3 of the international consensus on development, Maxwell (Head of Research, DFID) usefully points out that, “Growth is the most important and maybe the easiest driver of poverty reduction…. Infrastructure for productive sectors, water, health and education are the priorities for public expenditure.” But growth has to be environmentally as well as economically sustainable.

There has been emphasise on the importance of an ‘innovation’ approach rather than a more narrowly focused ‘research’ approach. This emphasis has arisen out of awareness that overcoming gaps in knowledge is not, in and of itself, sufficient to ensure a positive pro-poor outcome from programmes. This generic guidance has been effective in helping to shift the focus over time away from primarily ‘engineering’ solutions developed at arms length from potential users, to a far more participatory, action research and innovation centered approach. It has also been helpful in ensuring that projects cover more than one (and ideally all) of the key stages of the knowledge process – ranging from identification of needs, the research and development of one or more viable solutions, the production of outputs and transfer of results, commercialisation or policy implementation and uptake pathways.

Key factors:

Identify critical knowledge gaps and main areas of knowledge benefit
Assess dissemination needs and opportunities and develop strategies
Select, support & monitor knowledge programmes and knowledge projects
Review knowledge programmes
Build capacity for poorer countries to manage knowledge
Liaise with other development agencies on knowledge activities
Evaluate knowledge and research programme


Recently the importance of infrastructure service provision to both sustainable development and the eradication of poverty in developing countries has been well documented. Improved infrastructural services can bring immediate benefits in terms of helping poor people to meet their basic needs for safe drinking water, secure shelter, energy, transport, and so on. They can also facilitate sustainable economic growth in the longer term through, for example, the development of improved employment opportunities; reduced input and transaction costs associated with the production and sale of goods and services; and enhanced human capital and mobility.

While researches confirm the importance of infrastructure service provision to sustainable development, investment in infrastructure has not always contributed to pro-poor growth. Inadequate attention to governance and institutional frameworks, high levels of personal and political corruption, and weak systems have resulted in a situation where the benefits have often been less than anticipated, and too often there have been negative rather than positive consequences for poor people. Influenced by negative experiences of this kind, DFID and other bilateral donors have turned away from major investment programmes through the public sector and reoriented the assistance that they provide to more direct poverty reduction measures in recent years.

Despite these negative experiences with infrastructure investment, it is hard to imagine how any country could escape from poverty whilst its people lack proper access to basic services such as water, energy and transport. Indeed, DFID’s own Target Strategy Papers - developed recently in order to help frame DFID’s work in support of the MDGs - recognises the key role of infrastructure to livelihoods improvements, sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction. The challenge with respect to infrastructure is therefore to:

- Develop an improved understanding of the technological, economic, social and institutional problems associated with the provision of infrastructure and the
development of urban areas in developing countries, and

- Identify and foster those policies, technologies and skills that improve poor people’s access to infrastructure and help them to escape from poverty on a sustainable basis

These issues has been addressed directly by researches in the key sectors associated with infrastructural development – water and sanitation, transport, energy, geosciences, urbanisation, disability and healthcare, and information and communication technologies.

Since 1990, the idea of ‘systems of innovation’ has become widespread, and with it an emphasis on the importance of networks and interlinkages in the innovation process – both among firms and between industry and research. There has been growing concern with knowledge users’ ‘absorptive capacity’ – that is, their ability to perceive external technological opportunities and to absorb the knowledge needed to make use of them. As a consequence of these changes, innovation policy makers have tended to move away from instruments that give money to single actors and increasingly invest in partnerships and, more recently, innovation networks. The idea is to secure the needed coupling between push and pull, to strengthen the network relationships that help innovation and to support the growth of absorptive capacity.

The recent House of Commons Select Committee report on the use of science in UK development policy stresses the importance of science for development, the need for DFID to strengthen its policies and its personnel in this important area, to increase the involvement of beneficiary countries in developing its research strategy and the need to evaluate the outcomes of research.

There is also concern about the guides on dissemination and communication, which while of a good quality and utility, do not help much to overcome the key barriers identified, namely that:

Stakeholders are largely unaware of the information that is being disseminated
Potential users often do not have the resource, knowledge or incentives to use the information
There is insufficient attention paid to the tailoring of outputs to the real needs of real users
There is rather too much information ‘out there’ leaving potential users unsure of what they should and should not be paying attention to


These barriers are not easy to overcome, but their resolution certainly requires more than improved information management and dissemination organised at the UK end of things. The general focus of these ‘additional’ communication efforts on those elements that can be readily addressed in the UK without the expense of having to conduct a lot of activity overseas are in line with DFID’s preferences.

Reviews of the literature and experience suggest that research is more likely to be taken up into policy in international development if research programmes develop a detailed understanding of: (i) the policymaking process – what are the key influencing factors, and how do they relate to each other?; (ii) the nature of the evidence they have, or hope to get – is it credible, practical and operationally useful?; and (iii) all the other stakeholders involved in the policy area – who else can help to get the message across?. This is the basis for developing an overall strategy and practical activities for ensuring that the programmes maximise their chances of policy influence.



Sources:

Evaluation of DFID’s Engineering Knowledge and Research (EngKaR) Programme,
Technopolis & Overseas Development Institute, July 2005

Oxfam GB’s experience with Cash for Work, Poverty Reduction Programme, June 2005

ADAMS, J., Managing Water Supply And Sanitation In Emergencies, OXFAM, 1999



“But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.”


Cited in DFID’s Simon Maxwell report, 20th October 2003