Do PRSPs empower poor countries and disempower the World Bank, or is it the other way round?

Abstract

Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) have been introduced by the World Bank and the IMF as a necessary aspect of securing HIPC debt relief and access to other funds. They are intended to increase national 'ownership' of programmes, through extensive participation. This paper assesses whether they actually do empower poor countries, by exploring the process and content of the PRSPs. It finds that as far as civil society is concerned, the PRSPs currently permit little significant contribution to programme design. Governments appear to take a bigger role, but are also heavily constrained, especially with respect to macro-policy. The fact that the content of PRSPs is very similar to previous adjustment packages suggest that little real change has occurred through this process. Moreover, some large IFI programmes are unaffected by the process. Hence PRSPs do not significantly empower poor countries. They may give the appearance of greater ownership, but so long as there is no significant underlying change, such a change in perceptions about ownership, which could make IFI designed programmes more effective and thereby empower them, is likely to be short lived

Climate change and disaster management

“…This externally guided approach, although focused on needs and rights, does raise concerns about appropriateness, as the humanitarian system is 'largely ignorant of the views of the affected people as to the assistance being provided' (Hofmann et al, 2004, p. 32). By contrast, the principal vehicle for the development sector is the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) whose mandate is to ensure stakeholder participation, though there are doubts regarding the value and depth of participation (Stewart and Wang, 2003).…”

The Legacy of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Processes in Latin America: Introduction and Overview

“…The contents of the original PRSPs reflected the then dominant international poverty agenda: market-based growth, continuation of liberalizations and privatizations, attention for good governance, and a focus on social sectors and social protection mechanisms (Craig and Porter, 2003;Stewart and Wang, 2003). This could but does not necessarily indicate that PRSPs were superimposed on domestic policy agendas: the similarity across PRSPs may also reflect the internalization of this poverty agenda by a group of key actors in government and society who stood to win by cooperation with donors; some countries have become 'post-conditionality regimes' (Harrison, 2001) or have a 'fraternity of economists' who direct the domestic policy agenda (Holtom, 2007).…”

“…Yet most concur that participation was in practice, at best, consultation (Stewart and Wang, 2003;IEO, 2004;OED, 2004;Gould, 2005;Lazarus, 2008). The World Bank -IMF review of the PRS process (2005) characterized PRS participation as broad rather than deep and primarily focused on PRS formulation.…”

The Great Experiment: Testing the PRSP Approach in Nicaragua, 2000–2007

“…A recent presentation of these principles (IMF, 2008) states that PRSPs should be to make it more participatory, results-oriented and genuinely multidimensional, the PRSP approach provides a unique opportunity for governments to improve clarity, coherence and effectiveness of mechanisms of service delivery. Critics point out, however, that PRSPs have done little to increase ownership by national governments or civil society; that the IFI's promise that they would support countries in developing their strategies without predetermining the outcome (World Bank, 2001a) is contradicted by the strong resemblance between PRSPs of countries in very different circumstances and by their similarity to structural adjustment packages; and that if a strategy were truly countryowned and viewed by citizens as the outcome of a democratic process, there would be no need to make aid and debt relief conditional on its implementation (Klees, 2001;Stewart and Wang, 2003;WDM, 2005;Lazarus, 2008). Focusing on the political dimension, Craig and Porter (2003) argue that PRSPs use apparently apolitical catchwords like participation, partnership and community to legitimize ' "inclusive" liberal approaches' that consolidate the dominance of creditors' interests in the development policy arena.…”