Exploring the Politics of Chronic Poverty: From Representation to a Politics of Justice?

www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev

World Development Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 851–865, 2005 Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0305-750X/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.09.012

Editorial

Exploring the Politics of Chronic Poverty: From Representation to a Politics of Justice? SAM HICKEY and SARAH BRACKING University of Manchester, UK

*

Summary. — Chronic poverty is an inherently political problem. Its persistence over time reflects its institutionalization within social and political norms and systems, its legitimation within political discourse and by political elites, and the failure of the poorest groups to gain political representation therein. The different ways in which extreme forms of poverty and the poorest are politically ‘‘represented’’ contributes significantly to understanding the ways in which politics both reproduces and reduces poverty. However, gaining voice and material progress for the poorest groups may require more than a politics of representation, and we advocate here for poverty reduction to be relocated within a broader political project of justice. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Key words — representation, chronic poverty, politics, social justice

1. INTRODUCTION (a) The politics of chronic poverty The continuation of poverty over time—or chronic poverty—is an inherently political problem, both in terms of its reproduction and reduction. The persistence of poverty reflects its institutionalization within social and political norms and institutions, and its legitimation within political discourse. To challenge such structural and deeply embedded poverty requires the sustained (re)allocation of resources and shifting of power relations within which chronic poverty is embedded. People who live in poverty over extend periods of time are the least likely to gain political representation and have few immediate or natural allies in either civil or political society. Nonetheless, and with the chronically poor those least likely to benefit from economic growth (CPRC, 2004), politics and political change remain the key means by which such poverty can be challenged, and there is little evidence to support an overtly pessimistic position on the prospects of such change (Moore, 1999). Rather we need to focus clearly 851

on the following questions: in what ways do political actors, processes, institutions, and discourses both reproduce and reduce poverty? In what ways are the chronic poverty and the poorest people represented in these forms of politics? Which political strategies and agents are the most effective and legitimate means by which such representation can occur? Although the theme of ‘‘representation’’ has received little attention within the renewed focus on politics within development theory and policy, we find it to be critical when considering

* As authors, we are grateful to Tony Bebbington, Peter Houtzager, and David Hulme for their insightful comments and suggestions on this Introduction, while as editors, we are indebted to the authors, who provided us with such stimulating material. We also thank the anonymous referees who provided important critical insights and comments. Thanks go to Karen Morgan Tallents, who provided excellent administrative support throughout this process. Final revision accepted: September 9, 2004.

852

WORLD DEVELOPMENT

the politics of chronic poverty. In a sense, the chronically poor are, by definition (Hulme & Shepherd, 2003), those most lacking in the assets required to exercise a political voice. The poorest are also those most likely to enter what Wood (2003) has described as a Faustian bargain, whereby they trade away their agency in search of livelihood security, usually with more empowered and potentially exploitative political actors. Relatedly, the poorest may view direct participation as a risky and time-consuming strategy, which, aligned with other findings presented here, suggests that the participatory turn in international development over the last two decades—as exemplified through the World Bank’s (2001) ‘‘empowerment’’ agenda which comprises decentralization and ‘‘social capital’’—offers little promise to the poorest people. The concept of chronic poverty focuses on those who stay poor, thus offering a useful palliative and longer-term focus to the Millennium Development Goals. The chronic poor have been defined as those who experience ‘‘significant capability deprivations for a period of five years or more’’ (Hulme & Shepherd, 2003, p. 405), and can be differentiated from the transitory poor who tend to move in and out of poverty. By conservative estimates, there are between 300 and 420 million chronically poor people in the world, with the majority residing in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (CPRC, 2004). 1 Several of the papers collected here consolidate this differentiated perspective on poverty. In addition to Green and Hulme’s development of the concept of chronic poverty, Cleaver distinguishes the ‘‘very poor’’ (those with no apparent prospects of reversing the downward trend in their livelihood) from ‘‘poor-but-coping’’ households, while Blair’s fourfold typology identifies the chronically poor as ‘‘submergees,’’ or those who stayed poor across two periods of growth in Bangladesh. Harriss-White defines the poorest of the poor as ‘‘destitute’’—reflecting Devereux’s (2003) warning that a focus on the duration of poverty may distract from a focus on its severity—and offers a political and political economy analysis of how this condition is created and perpetuated. Perhaps most evocatively, Hossain defines the poorest simply as those whom it is permissible to ignore. (b) Structure of the collection Most of the papers in this collection were presented at the Political Perspectives sessions

of the International CPRC Conference in April 2003, with others invited later. Each focuses on political issues of representation in relation to the poorest groups, albeit from diverse geographical, methodological, and disciplinary perspectives, including, social anthropology, economics, geography, and political studies. The countries represented broadly reflect the global distribution of chronic poverty, from Thorp et al.’s wide-ranging study of collective action for the poor across the developing world, to single-country case-studies on Bangladesh (Blair, Hossain), India (Harriss-White), Tanzania (Cleaver), and Uganda (Hickey). The importance of inequality in ensuring the persistence of poverty recommends the inclusion of some middle-income countries, namely Brazil (Lavalle et al.), Cameroon and Nicaragua (Bastiaensen et al.), and Peru (Bebbington). Some contributions address explicitly theoretical concerns (Bracking; Green & Hulme; HarrissWhite), while others are more policy focused (e.g., Blair). The methodological approaches range from ethnographic analyses (Cleaver) to large-scale quantitative survey work (Lavalle et al.). Although this breadth of insight problematises the task of drawing out a synthesized and common set of findings concerning the politics of how the poorest are represented, we argue below that some common themes are apparent, in addition to the richness of insight offered by each contribution. The collection is structured according to the two main types of representation we examine here, namely the discursive ways in which chronic poverty and the chronically poor are spoken ‘‘of,’’ and the more material ways in which different political actors attempt to speak ‘‘for’’ the chronically poor. The opening two papers thus examine the ways in which chronic poverty is represented within academic and policy discourses, before the majority of papers focus on the ways in which the chronically poor are ‘‘spoken for’’ by actors from both formal and informal elements of civil and political society. The final paper (Bracking) adopts a broader perspective on how the political agency of the poorest people is represented with the prevailing intellectual climate. This introduction now goes on to establish the key theoretical and contextual themes that underlie the collection’s focus on ‘‘representing the poorest,’’ before locating the key findings of the later contributions within the broader literature on how poor groups are politically represented.

EXPLORING THE POLITICS OF CHRONIC POVERTY

2. THINKING ABOUT REPRESENTATION (a) The contemporary political economy and politics of representation The contemporary politics of representation is shaped by processes of political economy and political change at both global and national levels. For Harvey (2003), the changing character of capital accumulation has underpinned a shift from ‘‘old’’ to ‘‘new’’ forms of collective response to the problems of uneven development. Harvey identifies ‘‘accumulation by exploitation’’ and ‘‘accumulation by dispossession,’’ noting how the former, workplacecentered process has historically generated labor movements, trade unions, and related political organizations. 2 Meanwhile, resistance to accumulation by dispossession (as with the ‘‘privatization’’ of land and water) has tended to take the form of ‘‘new’’ social movements, around issues such as land and minority rights (Harvey, 2003, p. 160). This shift has been consolidated by the ways in which globalization and economic liberalization have transformed both the state and the workplace (e.g., Houtzager et al., 2002). Changes in the workplace—including increased levels of labor market flexibility, contracting out, and the frequent migration of capital in search of cheaper forms of labor—have eroded the extent to which the workplace can form the basis of sustained collective action. The informal sector in many poor countries, augmented by structural adjustment processes that have also caused public sector retrenchment and contractions in the formal economy, have, in turn, undermined unionized activities. Although we would reject an overly economistic reading of class as the basis of collective action, 3 uneven processes of class formation in developing countries have further undermined the emergence of certain forms of labor movements. The diminished role of the state under this neoliberal hegemony has further reduced the range of public issues around which citizens can organize. At this stage, we do not deem it useful to attempt to privilege one form of representation over another, particularly as the typology of ‘‘new’’ (life space) and ‘‘old’’ (work-place) movements is not as clear cut as it might seem. 4 Rather, following Harvey (2003), Spivak (1988), and Blair (this volume), we suggest that the forms of agency that are best placed to represent the poorest must necessarily emerge

853

from a critical dialectic with the particular form of subjection they are experiencing. Moreover, these broad-level debates need to be read in relation to particular political contexts, where we find that it is the linkages (rather than the distinctions) between ‘‘old’’ and ‘‘new’’ forms of democratic representation that hold the key to the effective representation of the poorest groups. In terms of political change, moves toward democratization, good governance and human rights since the 1990s have arguably increased the political space within which citizens can organize and seek representation (EngbergPedersen & Webster, 2002). The rise of new forms of participatory democracy—including decentralization, participatory budgeting, citizens forums—have been heralded as reinvigorating and even transforming the tired and untrusted institutions of representative democracy (e.g., Fung & Wright, 2003; Gaventa, 2004). Development policy-making has ostensibly opened up to the ‘‘voices of the poor,’’ with their inclusion now embedded within participatory poverty reduction processes (McGee & Norton, 2000). However, these developments have been subjected to a growing critique. The rise in direct democracy has been characterized by some as a fundamentally instrumental form of politics, allowing neopopulist leaders to engage directly with unorganized parts of society in ways that undermine and weaken the institutions of representative democracy (Barczak, 2001). While some decentralization reforms can be associated with greater state responsiveness and increased levels of citizens’ activity, the majority are not (Crook & Sverrisson, 2001), and there are also concerns that this localization of politics fracture and disempower ostensibly national level movements (e.g., Goetz, 2003). This localization of politics may obscure wider patterns of injustice (Mohan & Stokke, 2000), and undermine collective responses to them (Houtzager, 2003). A related concern is that the contemporary politics of representation in some countries tends to recognize and empower political identities on the basis of ‘‘difference’’ and ‘‘diversity’’ rather than material want or need (e.g., Kumar, 2004), thus ensuring a further schism between political processes and the poor. The new consultation processes have provoked similarly critical responses. For example, Gould and Ojanen (2003, p. 7) illustrate how PRSP consultations in Tanzania empowered

854

WORLD DEVELOPMENT

an ‘‘iron triangle’’ of select government ministries, donor agencies, and international NGOs, leading to a ‘‘depoliticized mode of technocratic governance.’’ Others describe how legislative bodies are being bypassed in these processes (Elberlei & Henn, 2003; Hickey, this volume), raising questions as to the democratic legitimacy of such processes (Brown, 2004). The inclusion of the poor in participatory poverty assessments may have little weight compared to the ways in which poverty and the poor are represented within elite political discourse. Moreover, the poorest often seek to avoid rather than engage directly with political actors and institutions, preferring to delegate to intermediaries. The focus, then, should turn toward understanding the motives and capacities of those actors that manage to gain what Bourdieu termed the ‘‘symbolic capital’’ required to speak for others, bearing in mind the maxim that ‘‘any organization claiming to represent the interests of the poor must be viewed with scepticism’’ (Engberg-Pedersen & Webster, 2002, p. 264). 5 Overall, the papers collected here suggest that the participatory turn in international development has distracted from a more direct focus on exploring the most legitimate and effective forms of representation available to the poorest members of society. (b) Conceptualizing representation: towards an holistic approach There is little agreement within political theory concerning theoretical and conceptual approaches to political representation (e.g., Beetham, 1992; Manin, Przeworski, & Stokes, 1999). 6 A prevalent approach has been to analyze the actors involved, either in terms of the strategies and resources they employ, as in resource mobilization theory, or with regards to the role of identity formation that they fulfil (Foweraker, 1995). However, the broader politics and effects of representation cannot be understood solely in terms of the actors involved, without also examining representation as a process. A process approach to representation involves examining ‘‘the relationship between the interests of citizens and the policy outcomes of government’’ (Manin et al., 1999; cited in Lister, 2004, p. 6), by ‘‘focus(ing) attention on the functioning of different institutions and practices which together mediate the relationships between citizens interests and policy outcomes’’ (Lister, 2004, p. 6). For example, the separation of powers between different ele-

ments of the political system, such as the executive and legislature, will help determine the effectiveness of political parties. The experience of ‘‘special interest representatives’’—sometimes linked to the poorest groups—suggests that the electoral system through which such representatives are chosen closely shapes their perceived legitimacy and effectiveness (Goetz, 2003; Hickey, this volume). Here, Lavalle et al. (this volume) show how the institutional design of participatory processes affects the level of civil society representation within the political system. However, this focus on formal channels and systems can only offer limited guidance here (Bracking, this volume), and we argue that studies of representation must also examine two other dimensions of representation: the informal as well as the formal, and discursive as well as material modes of representation. Particularly in countries where processes of state formation are still in relative infancy, key policy decisions are often taken outside the official structures within which representatives hold positions (Lister, 2004, p. 29). Here, ‘‘the political’’ cannot be narrowed to the formal structures of the state, but needs to be extended to include informal means of representation. Of particular concern to our contributors are the roles of patronage and clientelism as modes of representation and networking that often pervade polities in some poor countries (Blair, Cleaver, Bastiaensen et al.). The final departure from formal political analysis that we make here regards our focus on the discursive as well as the material modes of representation. Actors, systems, and processes are not fully constitutive of the formal and informal political arenas within which claims and representations are made, which also include norms, ideas, and moral values. The range of possible political responses to poverty, and to different categories of poor people, are closely shaped by the ways in which political discourse frames issues of poverty and responsibility for poverty reduction (Dean, 2001; Webster & Engberg-Pedersen, 2002), both nationally and internationally. Such discourses are influenced by academic analyses of poverty, and also popular and elite perceptions of ‘‘deserving’’ and ‘‘undeserving’’ categories of poor people. Following Spivak’s (1988) distinction concerning the politics of representation, it is therefore imperative that we analyze the ways in which poverty and the poorest are spoken of, as well as who tries to speak for

EXPLORING THE POLITICS OF CHRONIC POVERTY

the poorest, while recognizing the links between the two forms. 3. SPEAKING OF CHRONIC POVERTY The multiple ways in which poverty and the poor are spoken of within academic, policy, and broader political discourses closely shapes the possibility that development policy will include the chronically poor. Political discourse both emerges from and helps to reproduce the broader power relations within which chronic poverty exists, and Webster and EngbergPedersen (2002) have shown how political discourse shapes the political space within which agents of the poorest can secure their inclusion. More specifically, and following on from Bauman’s (1987, p. 1) observation that a primary role for intellectuals in the modern era is to ‘‘interfere directly with the political process through influencing the minds of the nation and moulding the actions of its political leaders,’’ Keeley and Scoones (1999) reveal how ‘‘epistemic communities’’ produce and articulate particular forms of knowledge within development policy processes . In this volume, several papers discuss how academics and development agencies speak of chronic poverty (Bebbington; Green & Hulme; Harriss-White), with some also drawing the links between these representations and policy outcomes (Bebbington, Hickey, Hossain). The key concern that emerges across these papers is the extent to which current understandings of poverty offer only limited insights into the long-term persistence of poverty, and tend to depoliticize debates over the causes and reduction of poverty. For Green and Hulme, current conceptualizations of poverty focus on the correlates rather than the causes of poverty, a claim supported by Bastiaensen et al.’s opening point that we should not confuse the individual symptoms and institutional determinants of poverty. This tendency to characterize rather than explain tends toward a homogeneous rather than differentiated perspective on the ‘‘poor,’’ a tendency further apparent in the construction of poverty lines. As Hossain and Moore (2001) have noted, the original poverty lines established by Charles Booth in 19th century Britain were deliberately drawn at a level that would ensure that enough of the ‘‘right type’’ of ‘‘deserving’’ poor would be included, namely those considered to share the same values as the nonpoor. This was

855

thought more likely to generate sympathy amongst the political elite, but also had the dual effect of diluting the more ‘‘exotic’’ poor within a broader category, and damning them by comparison as ‘‘feckless’’ and ‘‘undeserving.’’ More broadly, the absence of ‘‘power’’ from prevailing discourses on the agency of the poor offers further cause for concern (Bracking). For Green and Hulme, the concept of ‘‘chronic poverty’’ helps to steer us toward a more social and political understanding of impoverishment, by suggesting how poverty is allowed to remain over time both by certain social norms and by becoming politically institutionalized in ways that ensure the reproduction of poverty over time. Harriss-White makes similar claims for the concept of ‘‘destitution,’’ noting how certain people can be forcibly expelled from social context, with certain forms of poverty and destitution becoming criminalized by the state. It is in this vein that Hossain describes the poorest as ‘‘those whom it is permissible to reject,’’ while Bastiaensen et al. also refer to the political and institutional arrangements that permit the reproduction of poverty. Thus, in the sense that concepts of ‘‘chronic poverty’’ and destitution represent deprivation as structural and political, this helps to portray the causes of poverty as surmountable, rather than intractable. These representations of poverty and the poor help shape poverty reduction policy and practice. For Bebbington (this volume), the closeness of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to mainstream donor agencies and governments has led them to adopt a similarly narrow (economistic and individualist/household) conception of poverty to that outlined above. This delimits the field of action to income-based interventions that tend to be biased toward the ‘‘productive’’ poor, and tends to consolidate less political forms of collective organization (e.g., credit groups become preferred over peasant movements). The poorest are left with protective measures which garner relatively little financial support from donors and potentially even less local political support (Nelson, 2003). As Hossain and Hickey illustrate, respectively (this volume), this bias converges with an emphasis within national level political discourses that privilege the ‘‘productive’’ (Bangladesh) or ‘‘economically active’’ (Uganda) in ways that further subordinate the interests of the poorest. This suggests the need for poverty reduction to be conceptualized in

856

WORLD DEVELOPMENT

ways that both oppose this further rejection of the poorest, and can recognize more political responses to poverty reduction. It is argued below that linking poverty reduction to a wider project of social justice might begin to fulfil this requirement.

4. SPEAKING FOR THE POOREST: MOVING FROM THE SOCIAL TO THE POLITICAL The majority of this collection focuses on the more material ways in which different sociopolitical actors—or what O’Neill (2001) refers to as ‘‘agents of justice’’—might or might not speak for the poorest groups. Those focused on here include civil society organizations, political parties, political elites and informal political networks. This reflects a wider shift from the ‘‘social’’ to the ‘‘political’’ within international development, which goes beyond earlier moves to ‘‘bring the state back in’’ and focus on ‘‘social capital’’ and ‘‘civil society,’’ and extends to a broader focus on political society (e.g., Harriss, Stokke, & Tornquist, 2004; Houtzager & Moore, 2003). (a) Civil society organizations The optimism that grew during the late 1980s and early 1990s concerning how civil society would offer a space through which collective interests could be represented, with civil society organizations (CSOs) providing a voice and means of empowerment to previously excluded people, has become matched with skepticism over these claims. Recent reviews reveal only limited evidence of success for CSOs in this political role (e.g., Mercer, 2002), while the lowlevel of self-organization among the poorest groups has proved a significant impediment to intermediary organizations seeking to reach and empower these groups (e.g., Riddell, Robinson, et al., 1995). However, although these broad findings receive further support here (e.g., Cleaver, Thorp et al.), there are also indications that relatively new approaches—particularly involving advocacy, social movements, linkages to political parties, and rights-based approaches—may offer promising ways forward for CSOs seeking to represent the poorest groups. In her local-level study of ‘‘social capital’’ in Tanzania, Cleaver concludes that, ‘‘the social

effort to the chronically poor of maintaining family and social networks, participating in collective action and accessing institutions is enormous’’ and with few guarantees of steady, meaningful returns. This negative finding is supported by Thorp et al.’s research on group action for the poor across the developing world. Here, the poorest are disadvantaged with regards group membership because of their low levels of assets, isolation, low level of access to political institutions, and lack of recognition as citizens therein. Importantly, even groups that include the poor are likely to exclude the poorest, either at entry or over time. However, these negative findings relate to a certain type of social institution. A more promising route for the poorest—argued by Thorp et al., Harriss-White, and by Blair—is through claims-based or advocacy organizations that adopt a rights-based approach. For example, Thorp et al. show that claims groups—such as trade unions, women’s groups and associations of the poor such as landless movements—are more effective representatives of the poor than those established to either overcome market failure/economic efficiency or to fulfil pro bono functions. Key factors for success include a strong identity-based focus, and a shared project of ‘‘justice’’ between membership groups and supporting external agencies. HarrissWhite similarly notes that only the more politicized organizations and approaches have engaged with destitute peoples in India, supporting the wider sense in which social movements rather than professionalized development NGOs offer the most promising form of representation for the poorest groups. For Blair, the problem is one of returning to the poorest a sense of agency, particularly in offering them a route out of exploitative patron– client relationships (see below). Here he sees a role for rights-based advocacy organizations who directly seek to represent issues of key importance to the poorest (e.g., social safety nets); encourage the federation of grassroots organizations; and also hold to account local political elites, playing on their need for local legitimacy (Hossain, this volume). The overall point here is that civil society action needs to adopt fundamentally political perspectives and strategies in order to represent the poorest and issues of poverty successfully. As argued by Thorp et al., ‘‘It is the political function of groups that is of primary importance in helping to overcome marginalization and social

EXPLORING THE POLITICS OF CHRONIC POVERTY

exclusion experienced by the poorest.’’ While the papers here support the recently touted potential of advocacy (Eade, 2002) and rightsbased approaches (e.g., Kabeer, 2003), they also illustrate the importance of a contextual focus and caution against a panacea. For example, there are legitimate concerns that moves to a rights-based approach may further disadvantage the very poorest, as they lack the capacity to make claims on their rights and may prefer the less confrontational world of patron–client linkages or even isolation. NGO advocacy generates its own problems of legitimacy, particularly in terms of the dangers of misrepresentation in this process (Jordan & van Tuijl, 2000), or of advocacy NGOs displacing the voices of more representative forms of political agency. Importantly, Lavalle et al. (this volume) note that advocacy NGOs were not very successful in gaining the effective political representation in Brazil. The most successful were national network NGOs, particularly those that had historical links to political parties through a shared commitment to social justice. (b) Political parties The role of political parties in representing the chronically poor is closely related to their ideological and programatic stance, the character of their political constituency, and also the systemic constraints on political parties in general. It is suggested here that even where political parties can be broadly characterized as pro-poor, they may fail to adequately represent the poorest groups. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the political parties most clearly associated with programs of propoor reform are those with ideological commitments to promoting social justice (Herring, 1999). Such a commitment can be drawn from a range of leftist positions or anti-imperialist/ pronationalist struggles, such as successive Christian Democratic and Socialist parties of Frei and Allende in Chile during the 1960s and 1970s; and the Indian nationalist movement that founded the contract against famine (De Waal, 2000). According to Bastiaensen et al. (this volume), the legacy of the Sandinistas in some parts of Nicaragua helps explain local political commitment to poverty reduction. However, some political parties can be directly associated with the creation and reproduction of extreme poverty, as in Botswana where Good (1999) argues that the social basis of Botswana’s only ruling political party to

857

date—constituted around cattle owners and traders—is essential in understanding the systematic creation of extreme poverty, particularly amongst the hunter-gathering Sans. A key distinction concerns the extent to which political parties are founded and motivated according to a ‘‘programatic’’ or a ‘‘clientelistic’’ focus, a tension drawn out particularly strongly in sub-Saharan Africa (van de Walle, 2003), but also apparent elsewhere. Both Blair and Hossain (this volume) note how the political parties in Bangladesh are remarkably similar in ideological terms, and link this apparent lack of a distinctive program of social change to their minimal focus on poverty. Good (2003) links this decline of interest in social justice amongst political parties to the desertion of working class constituencies by mainstream leftist political parties. This link between program and constituency is further underlined in Burnell’s argument that the lack of political attention paid to poverty in Zambia during the 1990s was strongly related to the fact that ‘‘(the poor) do not obviously register in the inner councils of the three main parties, and they do not have notable standard bearers among the parties on the fringe’’ (Burnell, 1995, p. 681). Where political parties have maintained a programatic focus on the poorer sections of society, the links to these constituencies are usually based on organic partnerships with social movements (Harriss, 2000; Heller, 2001). A key issue here is that neither the poor nor the poorest are a specific political constituency; they constitute neither a class nor any other form of ‘‘identity’’ group based on shared territory or culture. At best, the poorest groups may constitute what Hossain refers to as a ‘‘weak but symbolically powerful constituency,’’ in cultures where there is embarrassment to be caused to those political elites who have proved unable or unwilling to assist the poorest and most excluded members of society (see below). In addition to these constraints, the representative functions of political parties in relation to policy outcomes are closely mediated by the organization of power within the state. For example, the programatic agenda of political parties may count for little where parliament is weak and dominated by the executive branch of government (van de Walle, 2003). In Uganda, parliament is generally taken lightly not only by the president but also by civil servants and international donors (Hickey, this volume), while parliaments in general have been marginal to the PRSP process (Elberlei &

858

WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Henn, 2003). Those parliamentarians charged with acting as special representatives for the poorest groups are frequently marginal within the legislature, struggling to forge crossparty alliances and fulfil multiple roles (Geisler, 2000, p. 622). However, the most concerning finding is that even those political parties who have revealed a commitment to poverty reduction might still not be inclined to represent the chronically poor. For example, the trade unions that often underpin the links between civil and political society, and which are often associated with propoor parties, tend to work explicitly for the ablebodied, thus privileging those in the formal sectors of the economy as opposed to the destitute (Harriss-White, this volume). For example, the constituency of the Workers Party in Brazil does not stretch to all sectors of the poor, and excludes those likely to be among the poorest such as disorganized rural labor (Saha & Lima, 2003). Similarly, although the Left Front in West Bengal is frequently cited as the model of a propoor political party (e.g., Harriss, 2000), Hill (2003) shows that while the ‘‘middle-poor’’ have been well represented, significant sections of the poorest groups, particularly the landless, have gained little from their political program, either in terms of agrarian reform, social protection programs or political empowerment. This failure to represent the poorest is related to the changing character of political parties over time, as both internal struggles and external electoral pressures result in a politics of ‘‘middle-ness’’ (Bhattacharrya, 1999) that sees parties move increasingly away from their more marginal constituents. Clearly, such political trajectories should not be read as linear and deterministic. While few political parties seem able to maintain a focus on the poorest groups over time, initial moments of collective engagement between parties, new regimes and the poor may not entirely dissipate as a result of internal divisions and pressures of electoral viability. Political commitment to the poor may become embedded in the form of a moral and social contract that endures and/or is recalled at a later moment where further opportunities for such engagements and coalitions re-emerge (e.g., Whitehead & Gray-Molina, 2003). (c) Political elites Increased attention has recently been paid in international development to the role of politi-

cal elites in securing support for long-term poverty reduction (Hossain & Moore, 2001). However, when the focus is on the poorest rather than the poor in general, elements of the emerging consensus on this issue appear to be questionable. For example, the critique that the ostensibly pro-poor reforms of decentralization and targeted social protection tend to be captured by local elites has led some to conclude that local elites are probably less propoor than national elites (Crook & Sverrisson, 2001; Manor, 1999). However, Hossain (this volume) argues that local elites in Bangladesh are more likely than national elites to support policies that protect the poorest groups, as this converges with their need for local electoral legitimacy. Local elites are better able to differentiate among the poor as their proximity allows for a more nuanced understanding of the multiple causes and characteristics of poverty. In relation to targeted poverty reduction projects in India, there is also limited evidence that sympathetic local government officials may provide the poorest with their only viable form of representation (Kumar & Corbridge, 2002), while Thorp et al. also stress the importance of ‘‘honest brokers’’ within the local state. At the national level, and as already noted, elites in both Bangladesh and Uganda tend to operate within a discourse of poverty that stresses the importance of productivity, a discourse that tends to deprioritize those more ‘‘protective’’ interventions required by the poorest. However, this does not constitute an argument to return to an uncritical celebration of the role of the local in politics and development. As Bastiaensen et al. note, some local elites remain complicit in the reproduction of poverty, often through informal means. (d) Informal political networks Although patron–client relations are usually depicted as contradictory to more democratic forms of political representation, they continue to pervade many polities in the developing world despite ‘‘democratization,’’ while also proving durable in more ‘‘modern’’ countries (Roniger & Gunes-Ayata, 1994). In focusing on how these informal political actors and networks represent the poorest, our contributors uncover some ambiguous findings. For Blair, local patrons in Bangladesh offer the chronically poor the chance of survival, and the transitory poor a means of avoiding destitution. In India, some urban slum dwellers have been able

EXPLORING THE POLITICS OF CHRONIC POVERTY

to use patron–client links to reclaim their agency, thereby turning clientelism into a form of ‘‘direct democracy’’ (Benjamin, 2000, p. 44). However, Bastiaensen et al. (this volume) show how the capture of antipoverty projects within local patron–client networks in Cameroon reproduces the local causes of poverty. Here, local patrons are able to re-direct projects toward providing capital inputs that can serve rent-seeking purposes, thus strengthening the vertical linkages of patron–client relations in ways that preclude the emergence of more horizontal forms of collective action. 7 In addition, Thorp et al. reveal how informal political networks subvert the use of legislature by local peasants. As such, the ‘‘asymmetrical reciprocity’’ of clientelism (Chabal & Daloz, 1999) appears to reinforce socioeconomic and political inequalities. However, Cleaver’s research (this volume) suggests that the reciprocal character of patron–client relations effectively rules out the poorest as active agents within such networks as they simply lack the resources required to reciprocate. If ‘‘(t)he truly destitute are those without patrons’’ (Chabal & Daloz, 1999, p. 42), then the heralded shift from ‘‘clientelism to citizenship’’ (DFID, 2003) appears to be of limited relevance to the chronically poor. 5. KEY FINDINGS AND WAYS FORWARD Given the contextualized nature of the research findings and policy recommendations presented here, drawing unambiguous findings and identifying precise policy recommendations from the papers in this volume is neither feasible nor desirable. Nonetheless, following a summary of the key findings, we identify some of the key emerging themes and issues, and suggest ways in which they can be taken forward within development theory and policy, in conceptual, strategic and political terms. (a) Speaking of and for chronic poverty and the chronically poor: a summary The ways in which poverty is currently represented within academic and policy discourses tend to offer apolitical readings of poverty and the means of its reduction. Whether the concepts of ‘‘chronic poverty’’ and ‘‘destitution’’ move us beyond this stasis remains open to debate, although their implicit suggestion

859

that long-term poverty is inherently socially constructed and tolerated, and also institutionalized within political processes and discourses, holds some promise, if requiring of further theoretical development. The politics of these complex structural processes are poorly understood in development policy research, which tends instead to focus on normatively prescriptive concepts such as empowerment and social capital. Moreover, it is crucial that poverty policy itself is viewed as fundamentally political. While local antipoverty interventions constitute new political spaces within which struggles for resources between and within elite and popular actors take place, national poverty policy is understandable only with reference to the wider political project being pursued by a given regime. This should direct current research and policy-making attention beyond the content and form of poverty policy, and toward the ideological underpinnings and political constituency of ruling regimes, with a specific focus on the links and divergences with the international consensus on poverty reduction. In terms of representative actors, somewhat unsurprisingly, we find no singular form of representation that can best secure voice for the chronically poor. The poorest comprise neither a class nor an identity grouping, and do not easily gain representation within either old or new movements. Coalitions between different socioeconomic actors appear to work better for the transitory than the chronic poor. Moreover, it is highly likely that the effectiveness of representation varies between different groups of the poorest, one of many areas in need of further research. In different political contexts, advocacy NGOs, social movements, local elites, and politically connected civil organizations emerge as effective and legitimate representatives of the poorest. The ability of the poorest and their agents to represent themselves to political elites as deserving remains critical to the effective relief of material poverty. What is particularly important to highlight here is that, as suggested by several of the papers, the more general links between politics and poverty need to be re-thought once the poorest are included as the key focus of analysis, particularly concerning the role of political parties, local political elites, and political solidarity between different sections of the poor. The focus on the poorest thus adds a useful layer of depth and nuance to the more general field of research on politics and poverty. Finally, it has been the linkages rather than

860

WORLD DEVELOPMENT

the distinctions between the civil and the political that emerge from these papers as central to the successful representation of the poorest, and it is to the conceptual and strategic implications of this finding that we now turn. (b) Conceptual advances in understanding the politics of poverty reduction The importance of understanding the linkages between civil and political society with regards the representation of the poorest suggests the need to move beyond the ‘‘social’’ turn within international development, without making a simplistic substitution of civil for political society. This in turn requires a broader definition of the polity than is often the case within mainstream political science (Bracking, this volume), and involves recognizing the multiple ways in which representation works, through actors and as a process; formally and informally, and in material and discursive modes. Moreover, the analytical means of capturing this broader political field in relation to poverty reduction are fast developing, as with the ‘‘polity’’ (Houtzager, 2003) and ‘‘political space’’ approaches (Webster & Engberg-Pedersen, 2002) discussed here by Lavalle et al. and Hickey respectively. While emerging from different academic traditions—one from critical social theory (political space), the other from institutional history (polity)—each adopts a broad view of the political, and provides a contextualized and sociologically informed approach to understanding how issues of power shape the means and modes of representation in different political communities. Significantly, these approaches draw on a longer intellectual and deeper analytical trajectory than the more explicitly normative concepts that currently pervade understandings of politics within international development. 8 (c) Strategic issues: linking civil and political society Although the empirical linkages between civil and political society that either have or promise to result in the effective representation of the poorest groups are complex and contextual, the contributions to this collection suggest that three aspects of this relationship have particular salience. These are the links between social movements and parliamentary institutions; the nature of electoral and other forms of political alliance between civil and political actors; 9 and

the broader issue concerning the ‘‘universalism’’ that might be required for ‘‘particularistic’’ causes to reach mainstream politics. With regards social movements that gain inclusion within institutions of political power, many struggle to maintain organic links to their original constituency, and may lose key personnel within the political hierarchy (Geisler, 2000). A related problem concerns the way in which social movements may be co-opted within regimes and parties as a means of securing their legitimacy rather than the objectives of the movement (e.g., Stiefel & Wolfe, 1994). However, in the context of a joint commitment to a shared project of social justice, Lavalle et al. show here how social movements maintained can achieve close working relations with political parties and institutions without falling foul of co-option. With regards the issue of strategic alliances, Blair (this volume) insists that pro-poor civil society organizations must swiftly join forces with non-poor constituencies in order to become politically persuasive. Such alliances will lead to the achievement of more universalistic goals and allow propoor CSOs to develop their ‘‘political capabilities’’ with which to pursue their more specific agenda later. Such opportunities will arise regularly, as with elections where CSOs can opportunistically forge relations with ‘‘agenda-less’’ parties. The argument for coalitions between poor and non-poor stratas in order to secure funding for poverty reduction is also made more broadly. For example, Nelson (2003, p. 123) suggests that such alliances are possible because the threat of movement into poverty creates a shared sense of vulnerability and thus solidarity amongst both poor and nonpoor groups. However, a less sanguine view is also required here. The case made by Nelson focuses on the transitory poor rather than the chronic poor. As Hossain notes here, political sympathy tends to lie with those who visibly fall into poverty, not those for whom poverty is a persistent state. In India, there appears to be little solidarity between the destitute and the less poor or nonpoor, often because of caste differences (Harriss-White, this volume). Coalitions between the poor and elites are possible, but usually only where there are high levels of competition between elites (Thorp et al.). In terms of opportunistic coalition building, Villareal (2002, p. 90) reveals how this strategy can yield important rewards, yet is complex and risky, with little certainty that the CSO involved will

EXPLORING THE POLITICS OF CHRONIC POVERTY

retain its goals and focus in the opportunistic pursuit of influence. Rather, as noted here by Thorp et al. and in the discussion of political parties above, the trajectory of civil and political organizations over time tends toward a more rather than less exclusive focus in relation to the poorest. It is therefore problematic to assume that an agency or coalition that lacks an embedded agenda for the poorest or organic links to them will at some later stage include them in their political program, advocate for and implement policies on their behalf. At one level, this debate concerns the strategic merits of the ‘‘particular’’ projects of civil society and the more ‘‘universal’’ projects of political parties (Habermas, 1987). Despite the strategy put forward here by Blair, we find little evidence to support a CSO strategy of starting with broad coalitions before specifying issues of particular relevance to the poorest. Indeed, studies of successful social movements in Europe and Latin America show that it has been easier for such movements to move from the particular toward the universal (e.g., Foweraker & Landman, 1997). A period of ‘‘particularism’’ offers marginal groups the chance to develop a sense of autonomy, solidarity, and a strategic direction, and perhaps to federate with similar groups, before forming alliances from a position of (some) strength. This particularistic focus (e.g., minority rights) later becomes transformed into a more universal set of citizenship claims through the iterative political process of demand making and lobbying. These mixed messages regarding the role of civil and political society combining in ways that secure representation for the poorest, suggests that a careful mix of policy proposals need to be taken forward. In particular, the historical sequencing of moves between each sphere suggests the need for contextual nuance rather than broad prescriptions. The increasingly well-accepted advice that donors should focus on securing an enabling environment through indirect and parametric support for associationalism and democracy more broadly rather than through directly subsidizing civil society organizations themselves (Moore, 2001; Van Rooy, 1998) appears to remains sound. However, further research may find that civic representatives of the poorest also require a period of direct support before being able to fulfil their potential. In terms of political society, and although direct support for parties is unlikely to fall within the remit of major donors, there is a strong case for a

861

‘‘do no harm’’ policy, particularly in terms of avoiding the tendency to either sideline (e.g., in PRSP ‘‘consultations’’ processes) or denigrate (e.g., virulent anticorruption campaigns) representative political institutions (Putzel, 2004). However, the papers presented here strongly suggest that such programatic level engagements will be insufficient, given the severe constraints on the political agency of the poorest groups, but also the concern that even securing a democratic environment within which representation can take place may not be enough to secure gains for the poorest. (d) From policy to politics, and representation to justice? From a broader perspective on politics rather than policy, we find little evidence that certain forms of democratic rule can be unproblematically associated with greater representation for the chronically poor. The democratic principle of majoritarianism can preclude strong support for programs that target the poorest groups in society (Nelson, 2003), while the specious labeling of groups as ‘‘undeserving’’ remains prevalent in countries such as the United States and United Kingdom (Appelbaum, 2001; Goldson, 2002). ‘‘Advanced’’ liberal democracies can easily tolerate high levels of inequality (Varshney, 2003), as in sub-Saharan Africa, where despite unbroken democratic rule since independence in Botswana, the regime’s adherence to a neoliberal ideology and tolerance of high levels of inequality has helped ensure the reproduction of long-term poverty (Good, 2003). Efforts to square the circle between capitalism and social justice, as with ‘‘third way’’ versions of social democracy, have been heavily critiqued for the way in which their brand of individualistic ‘‘life politics’’ effectively ‘‘disappears the poor,’’ by ‘‘stripping them of their social personalities and evading or misconstruing key issues in the analysis of contemporary patterns of inequality in the North and the South’’ (Gledhill, 2001, p. 123). Significantly, the most effective representatives of the poor have emerged from a shared sense of political struggle under oppressive political circumstances (Thorp et al.). Overall, there remains little guarantee that— whether under liberal democracies, participatory democracies such as Uganda or countries like India which are currently dominated by a politics of recognition (Kumar, 2004)—that a politics of representation necessarily amounts to a politics of influence or justice for the

862

WORLD DEVELOPMENT

poorest groups. Although it is beyond the scope of this collection to resolve this conundrum, the papers gathered here begin to suggest that it is an attachment to a project of social justice that is the most definitive characteristic of those political actors and approaches that actively seek to represent the poorest. 10 There is a particular resonance between justice and the case of the poorest and destitute. The institutionalization of chronic poverty within political, social, and economic norms; relations; institutions; and processes requires a stronger and more thoroughgoing challenge than a technocratic focus on ‘‘poverty reduction’’ can offer. In focusing on principles of fairness and redistribution, few precepts of justice could allow the active rejection of certain categories of the poor, as with John Rawl’s theory of justice which invites us to re-imagine social arrangements from behind a ‘‘veil of ignorance.’’ As explained by Corbridge (1994, p. 107), given that ‘‘. . .on present odds one’s chances of being born into a middle-class family in the USA are much less than the chance of being born into destitution in the developing world—the rational actor would want to (re)arrange society so that at least minimal standards of freedom and livelihood are guaranteed for all.’’

Moreover, the notion of justice not only resonates with the rights-based approaches advocated here by some contributors, but also offers them a broader philosophical grounding. Rights-based approaches attach political rights and responsibilities to fundamental aspects of human needs and well-being, and seek to enforce a minimum standard of social and economic rights. As such they constitute a political response to the problem of chronic poverty, and should discourage the extreme

inequalities that keep people poor. However, the ethnocentric character of this discourse remains a problem, as does the issue of how the weakest members of society mobilize to actively claim their rights, suggesting a need here to look beyond rights-based approaches. Justice explicitly refers to ‘‘the way in which the major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties’’ (Rawls, 1999, p. 3), and, as Corbridge (1994, p. 108) argues, ‘‘suggests a series of reasons for building political programs and institutions that are fired by the idea of securing for ‘‘distant strangers’’ their basic needs not as alms but as of right.’’ For us, such a project of social justice can be most convincingly framed within a critical theory of transnational justice (Forst, 2001). This locates injustice within unequal and ‘‘unjustifiable’’ relations within and between states, rather than in abstract notions of a ‘‘good society’’ (e.g., Sen, 1999). This focus on the relational resonates with the understandings of chronic poverty and destitution offered here, and offers ‘‘a Ôthin’ but strong normative foundation that can plausibly claim to be both culture-neutral and culture-sensitive,’’ and which can translate easily into ‘‘thick’’ political contexts (Forst, 2001, p. 176). As such, the concern with ‘‘who represents the poorest’’ becomes a search for ‘‘agents of justice’’ at local and global levels, and among state and nonstate actors (O’Neill, 2001), while the politicization of poverty reduction is worked toward through its re-location within a project of social justice at national and global levels. Such a move may provide a first step in trying to bridge the problematic relationships between the chronic poor and destitute on the one hand, and political actors, discourses, systems, and processes on the other.

NOTES 1. For more on chronic poverty, see the World Development Special Edition, 31(3), March 2003. 2. See Hill (1985) on how the changing character of capital accumulation in Britain produced different forms of collective responses. 3. For example, Marx claimed with reference to smallholder peasants in prerevolution France that, to the extent that ‘‘the identity of their interests begets no community, no national bond, and no political organi-

zation among them, they do not form a class. . . They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented’’ (Marx, Eighteenth Brumaire, Section VII, cited by Fetscher, 1983, p. 81). 4. This division between ‘‘old’’ and ‘‘new’’ social movements reflects a highly contested debate within the literature on collective action, while being hotly contested itself. In particular, we would not necessarily concur with the ‘‘newness’’ of contemporary social movements, particularly as they appear to be demanding

EXPLORING THE POLITICS OF CHRONIC POVERTY the same (modernist) rights and forms of democracy and development as ‘‘old’’ social movements (Veltmeyer, 1997).

863

8. Another promising approach to understanding the representation of the poor is offered by Harriss et al.’s (2004) use of Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of practice to understand local level politics.

5. h 6. For reasons of brevity and relevance, we do not discuss here the fairly well-established set of typologies concerning representation (e.g., ‘‘descriptive representation’’ as opposed to ‘‘acting on behalf;’’ the principal/ agent problem, such as whether or not on representatives should represent the views of the electorate or her/ his own judgement; Beetham, 1992).

9. The relationships that are catalyzed between civic and political actors by decentralization processes might prove to be critical to the progressive character of the reforms. In Bolivia’s Law of Popular Participation, for example, relations between the new grassroots institutions and political parties appear in some regions to be perpetuating rather than challenging patronage forms of politics (Jeppesen, 2002).

7. A wide-ranging study into the political practices of the poor similarly concludes that ‘‘the patron–client relations that have dominated the political practice of poor people have served throughout history to exclude and obscure decision-making processes from the eyes and ears of the poor’’ (Engberg-Pedersen & Webster, 2002, p. 269).

10. The notion of justice has been subject to a more indepth and contested debate than can be adequately covered in this article, which seeks simply to argue the case for considering this as a way forward for framing the politics of poverty and poverty reduction. For a good overview of debates on justice, see Campbell (2001).

REFERENCES Appelbaum, L. D. (2001). The influence of perceived deservingness on policy decisions regarding aid to the poor. Political Psychology, 22(3), 419–442. Barczak, M. (2001). Representation by consultation? The rise of direct democracy in Latin America. Latin American Politics and Society, 43(3), 37–59. Bauman, Z. (1987). Legislators and interpreters: On modernity, post-modernity and intellectuals. Oxford: Blackwell. Beetham, D. (1992). The Plant report and the theory of political representation. Political Quarterly, 63(4), 460. Benjamin, S. (2000). Governance, economic settings and poverty in Bangalore. Environment and Urbanization, 12(1), 35–56. Bhattacharrya, D. (1999). Politics of middleness: The changing character of the Communist Party (Marxist) in West Bengal, 1977–1980. In B. Rogaly et al. (Eds.), Sonar Bangla? Agricultural change in West Bengal and Bangladesh. Delhi: Sage. Brown, D. (2004). Participation in poverty reduction strategies: Democracy strengthened or democracy undermined. In S. Hickey & G. Mohan (Eds.), From Tyranny to transformation? New aqpproaches to participation. London: Zed Books. Burnell, P. (1995). The politics of poverty and the poverty of politics in Zambia’s Third Republic. Third World Quarterly, 16(4), 675–690. Campbell, T. (2001). Justice (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Macmillan. Chabal, P., & Daloz, J.-P. (1999). Africa works: Disorder as political instrument. London: James Currey/International Africa Institute. Corbridge, S. (1994). Post-marxism and post-colonialism: the needs and rights of distant strangers. In D.

Booth (Ed.), Rethinking social development: Theory, research and practice (pp. 90–117). Harlow: Longman. CPRC (2004). The chronic poverty report: 2004–5. Manchester: CPRC. Crook, R. C. & Sverrisson, A. S. (2001). Decentralisation and poverty-alleviation in developing countries: A comparative analysis or, is West Bengal unique? IDS Working Paper 130. Sussex: Institute of Development Studies. Dean, H. (2001). Poverty and citizenship: Moral repertoires and welfare regimes. In F. Wilson, F. N. Kanji, & E. Braathen (Eds.), Poverty reduction: What role for the state in today’s globalized economy? (pp. 54–73). London: Zed. Devereux, S. (2003). Conceptualising destitution. IDS Working Paper 126. Sussex: IDS. De Waal, A. (2000). Democratic political process and the fight against famine. IDS Working Paper 107. Sussex: IDS. DFID (2003). Better government for poverty reduction: More effective partnerships for change. Consultation document, April. London: DFID. Eade, D. (2002). Development and advocacy. Oxford: OXFAM. Elberlei, W. & Henn, H. (2003). Parliaments in subSaharan Africa: Actors in poverty reduction? Division 42, State and Democracy, Planning and Development Department, Section Economic Affairs, PRSP Africa Dept, GTZ. Eschborn: GTZ. Engberg-Pedersen, L., & Webster, N. (2002). Political agencies and spaces. In N. Webster & L. EngbergPedersen (Eds.), The name of the poor: Contesting political space for poverty reduction (pp. 255–271). London: Zed Books.

864

WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Forst, R. (2001). Towards a critical theory of transnational justice. Metaphilosophy, 32(1–2), 160–179. Foweraker, J. (1995). Theorizing social movements. London: Pluto Press. Foweraker, J., & Landman, T. (1997). Citizenship rights and social movements: A comparative and statistical analysis. New York: Oxford University Press. Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. London: Verso. Gaventa, J. (2004). Towards participatory local governance: Assessing the transformative possibilities. In S. Hickey & G. Mohan (Eds.), From Tyranny to transformation? New approaches to participation (pp. 25–41). London: Zed Books. Geisler, G. (2000). ÔParliament is another terrain of struggle’: Women, men and politics in South Africa. Journal of Modern African Studies, 38(4), 605–630. Gledhill, J. (2001). Disappearing the poor? A critique of the new wisdoms of social democracy in an age of globalization. Urban anthropology, 30(2–3), 123– 156. Goetz, A.-M. (2003). The problem with patronage: Constraints on women’s political effectiveness in Uganda. In A. M. Goetz & S. Hassim (Eds.), No shortcuts to power: African women in politics and policy-making (pp. 110–139). London: Zed. Goldson, B. (2002). New labour, social justice and children: Political calculation and the deservingundeserving schism. British Journal of Social Work, 32, 683–695. Good, K. (1999). The state and extreme poverty in Botswana: The San and destitutes. Journal of Modern African Studies, 37(2), 185–205. Good, K. (2003). Democracy and the control of elites. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 21(2), 155–172. Gould, J. & Ojanen, J. (2003). Merging in the circle. The politics of Tanzania’s poverty reduction strategy. IDS Policy Paper 2. Helsinki: Institute of Development Studies, University of Helsinki. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Volume II: Lifeworld and system. Cambridge: Polity. Harriss, J. (2000). How much difference does politics make? Regime differences across Indian states and rural poverty reduction. LSE Working Paper Series 1. London: London School of Economics. Available from http://www.lse.ac.uk/. Harvey, D. (2003). The new imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harriss, J., Stokke, K., & Tornquist, O. (Eds.) (2004). Politicising Democracy: The New Local Politics of Democratisation in Developing Countries. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Heller, P. (2001). Moving the state: The politics of democratic decentralization in Kerala, South Africa, and Porto Alegre. Politics and Society, 29(1), 1–28. Herring, R. J. (1999). Political conditions for agrarian reform and poverty alleviation. Background paper prepared for World Bank World Development Report 2000/1. Available from http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/wdrpoverty/.

Hill, C. (1985). The collected essays of Christopher Hill, Vol. 1. Writing and revolution in 17th century England. Brighton: Harvester. Hill, D. (2003). Policy, politics and chronic poverty: The experience of Bankura District, West Bengal. Paper presented at CPRC Conference, 7–9 April, Manchester. Available from http://www.chronicpoverty.org. Hossain, N., & Moore, M. (2001). Arguing for the poor: Elites and poverty in developing countries. IDS Working Paper 148. Sussex: IDS. Houtzager, P. (2003). Introduction: From polycentrism to the polity. In P. Houtzager & M. Moore (Eds.), Changing paths: International development and the new politics of inclusion (pp. 1–31). Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Houtzager, P., & Moore, M. (Eds.) (2003). Changing paths: International development and the new politics of inclusion. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Houtzager, P. et al. (2002). Rights, representation and the poor: Comparisons across Latin America and India. LSE Working Paper, 02-31. London: London School of Economics. Hulme, D., & Shepherd, A. (2003). Conceptualizing chronic poverty. World Development, 31(3), 403–423. Jeppesen, A. M. E. (2002). Reading the Bolivian landscape of exclusion and inclusion: The law of popular participation. In N. Webster & L. EngbergPedersen (Eds.), In the name of the poor: Contesting political space for poverty reduction (pp. 30–51). Zed Books. Jordan, L., & van Tuijl, P. (2000). Political responsibility in transnational NGO advocacy. World Development, 28(12), 2051–2065. Kabeer, N. (2003). Making rights work for the poor: Nijera Kori and the construction of Ôcollective capabilities’ in rural Bangladesh. IDS Working Paper 200. Sussex: IDS. Keeley, J., & Scoones, I. (1999). Understanding environmental policy processes: A review. IDS Working Paper 89. Sussex: IDS. Kumar, A. (2004). The political sociology of poverty in India. CPRC/IIPA Working Paper 3. New Delhi: Indian Institute of Public Administration. Kumar, S., & Corbridge, S. (2002). Programmed to fail? Development projects and the politics of participation. Journal of Development Studies, 39(2), 73–103. Lister, S. (2004). The processes and dynamics of pastoralist representation in Ethiopia. IDS Working Paper 220. Sussex: IDS. Manor, J. (1999). The political economy of decentralization. Directions in Development Series. Washington, DC: World Bank. Manin, B., Przeworski, A., & Stokes, S. C. (1999). Introduction. In Przeworski, Stokes, & Manin (Eds.), Democracy, accountability and representation (pp. 1–26). Cambridge, UK/New York, US: Cambridge University Press. McGee, R., & Norton, A. (2000). Participation in poverty reduction strategies: A synthesis of experience with participatory approaches to policy design, implementation and monitoring. IDS Working Paper 109. Sussex: IDS.

EXPLORING THE POLITICS OF CHRONIC POVERTY Mercer, C. (2002). NGOs, civil society and democratization: A critical review of the literature. Progress in Development Studies, 2(1), 5–22. Mohan, G., & Stokke, K. (2000). Participatory development and empowerment. Third World Quarterly, 21(2), 266–280. Moore, M. (1999). Politics against poverty: Global pessimism and national optimism. IDS Bulletin, 30(2), 33–46. Moore, M. (2001). Empowerment at last? Journal of International Development, 13, 321–329. Nelson, J. (2003). Grounds for alliance? Overlapping interests of the poor and not so poor. In P. Houtzager & M. Moore (Eds.), Changing paths: International development and the new politics of inclusion (pp. 119–138). Michigan: University of Michigan Press. O’Neill, O. (2001). Towards a critical theory of transnational justice. Metaphilosophy, 32(1–2), 180–195. Putzel, J. (2004). The politics of Ôparticipation’, civil society, the state and development assistance. Discussion Paper 1, LSE Crisis States Development Research Centre. Available from http://www.lse.ac.uk. Rawls, J. (1999). Development and main outlines in Rawls’s theory of justice. New York: Garland (edited with an introduction by H. S. Richardson). Riddell, R. C., Robinson, M., et al. (1995). Nongovernmental organizations and rural poverty alleviation. London, ODI/Oxford: Clarendon Press. Roniger, L., & Gunes-Ayata, A. (Eds.) (1994). Democracy, clientelism and civil society. Boulder, Co: Lynne Reinner. Saha, S. K., & Lima, M. C. (2003). The dynamics of chronic poverty and social exclusion in Brazil: Which way after Lula Victory? Paper presented at CPRC Conference, 7–9 April, Manchester. Available from http://www.chronicpoverty.org. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

865

Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Stiefel, M., & Wolfe, M. (1994). A voice for the excluded: Popular participation in development. New York: UNRISD. van de Walle, N. (2003). Presidentialism and clientelism in Africa’s emerging party systems. Journal of Modern African Studies, 41(2), 297–321. Van Rooy, A. (Ed.) (1998). Civil society and the aid industry. London: Earthscan. Varshney, A. (2003). Democracy and poverty. In P. Houtzager & M. Moore (Eds.), Changing paths: International development and the new politics of inclusion. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Veltmeyer, H. (1997). New social movements in Latin America: The dynamics of class and identity. Journal of Peasant Studies, 25(1), 139–169. Villareal, M. (2002). The voice and representation of the poor: Striving for government aid in Western Mexico. In N. Webster & L. Engberg-Pedersen (Eds.), The name of the poor: Contesting political space for poverty reduction (pp. 78–103). London: Zed Books. Webster, N., & Engberg-Pedersen, L. (Eds.) (2002). In the name of the poor: Contesting political space for poverty reduction. London: Zed Books. Whitehead, L., & Gray-Molina, G. (2003). Political capabilities over the long run. In P. Houtzager & M. Moore (Eds.), Changing Paths: International Development and the New Politics of Inclusion (pp. 32–57). Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Wood, G. (2003). Staying secure, staying poor: The faustian bargain. World Development, 31(3), 455–471. World Bank (2001). World development report 2000/01: attacking poverty. Washington DC: World Bank.