Document Library

Key Text Rethinking Participation: Questions for Civil Society About the Limits of Participation in PRSPs

Author: R Rowden and J O Irama
Date: 2004
Size: 52 pages (2.84 MB)

Access document Access full text: available online

Summary

In 1999, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) promised to open their controversial structural adjustment policy reforms to public consultation. These reforms, attached as loan conditions to borrowing countries, have been criticised for failing to raise economic growth or reduce poverty over the last 20 years. This ActionAid International (AAI) discussion paper argues that reform policies have not been meaningfully debated in government-led public consultations in Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) processes. It suggests Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) participate in alternative civic forums in questions of development policy.

The benefits of CSO engagement in public PRSP consultations have included better coordination of civil society, deeper knowledge of financing issues and scrutiny of government officials. In several countries, the PRSP process has improved relations between civil society and governments. However, this process is donor-driven, with a significant power imbalance between borrowers and creditors. Limitations in the PRSP consultations that have been documented thus raise important questions.

The analysis builds on earlier AAI research that explored how CSOs were prohibited from raising public policy debates about alternative economic policies in PRSP consultations. Fundamental issues not debated include: fiscal policy, monetary policy, financial liberalisation, privatisation, trade policy, land reform, labour policy, foreign investment regulation and domestic investment.

  • Governments appear more comfortable for CSOs to play the traditional role of ‘implementers’ rather than providing policy solutions.
  • The rhetoric of ‘country ownership’ is contrasted by the fact that final PRSP content must be pre-approved by the IMF and World Bank.
  • The lack of economic literacy within governments and civil society may partly explain why structural adjustment policies have not been discussed.
  • The lack of debate is also related to power imbalances between creditors and debtors. Governments may reasonably fear that public discussion could lead to alternative policies in draft PRSPs which might be rejected during pre-screening.

The following questions and recommendations aim to stimulate further discussion among participants in PRSP consultations:

  • Do PRSP consultations bypass formal democratic processes? CSOs should maximise the opportunity to involve their parliamentarians in monitoring and discussing structural adjustment policies within parliaments and alternative public forums.
  • Is ‘poverty reduction’ the same thing as development policy? By agreeing to focus only on poverty-related areas such as health and education, CSOs risk neglecting other core areas of development policy.
  • Are right-based approaches to development compatible with International Financial Institutions (IFIs)? IFIs do not acknowledge contradictions between loan conditions and the ability of borrowing governments to fulfil commitments under human rights conventions.
  • Possible improvements to PRSP consultations include: IFIs no longer endorsing PRSPs and accepting PRSPs only if they have been subjected to public debate; greater transparency on PRSP goals deemed realistic; and disclosure of draft Country Assistance Strategies (CASs).
  • Invited spaces or created spaces? If CSOs see the lack of debate surrounding structural adjustment policies as unacceptable, they should consider participating in their own alternative public spaces.

Access document Access full text: available online

Source: Rowden, R. and Irama, J.O., 2004, ‘Rethinking Participation: Questions for Civil Society About the Limits of Participation in PRSPs’, ActionAid International, Washington D.C. and ActionAid International Uganda, Kampala
Author: Rick Rowden , Rick.Rowden@actionaid.org ; Jane Ocaya Irama , j.ocayairama@gmail.com
Action Aid, http://www.actionaid.org/


 
© 2006 University of Birmingham. Some portions © other authors. enquiries@gsdrc.org www.gsdrc.org       Feedback : Disclaimer