Is power and politics a massive distraction? Crossing swords with the World Bank.

This post is written on the hoof, dashing between presentations, so please pardon the rough edges. Yesterday I shared a platform with Marcelo Giugale, the World Bank’s Africa Director for Poverty Reduction and Economic Management (right). We weremarcelo-giugale coming from very different places, some might say different planets, which is always stimulating. I did my standard power and politics spiel, focusing on multidimensional poverty, inequality and complex systems and their implications for aid agencies (more on that to follow). Marcelo responded by saying that this was all a massive distraction, and that we should keep our eyes on the prize of ending poverty. And on this he was relentlessly upbeat, optimistic and pretty apolitical. ‘We can end poverty without blasting the system… we have the technology’ he said. Marcelo argued that six key developments have made this possible:

  • We will know the poor by name, individually. Thanks to a combination of technology and the widespread introduction of cash transfers, governments are increasingly registering all their poor citizens (the mega example being India’s biometric identity card programme – below, left). This allows them to scale up transfers rapidly in the event of shocks.
  • Biometric-ID-a-must-to-buy-property-in-IndiaWe can determine impact, not just outcome. He defined impact as ‘that subset of outcomes that would not have happened without the intervention’ and pointed out that many of them are negative. Eg aid agencies give aid for education, so the education budget is redirected to something less worthwhile.
  • ‘The time has come to link people with their natural resources.’ The World Bank seems to be getting behind the ‘doing an Alaska’ proposal to distribute natural resource revenues straight into the hands of poor people. Interestingly their power analysis suggests that the most likely way to overcome domestic political barriers (politicians not wanting to give up their slush funds) is by persuading ‘desperate oppositions’ who do not expect to win to adopt it as a last throw of the dice. Something a bit similar led to the introduction of India’s renowned Rural Employment Guarantee scheme. They think early adopters will ease the political logjam and increase pressure on neighbouring countries to follow suit.
  • Equity not Equality: the way to steer a course through the politically polarized terrain of inequality is to focus on children. Hence the Bank’s new Human Opportunity Index, which asks ‘how important are a child’s  personal circumstances  over which he/she has no control or responsibility (e.g., gender, family income, skin colour, birthplace, etc), to his/her probability to access the services without which he/she can’t succeed in life (things like completing 6th grade on time or having potable water in the first two years of life)?’ I’m not sure about this – is it a way to get at the real causes of inequality, breaking the transmission between generations that has grown so much more rigid in recent years. Or is it a convenient way of dodging politically contentious issues of distribution and redistribution, kicking the can down the road with a new version of the kind of ‘equality of opportunity’ approach (aka the American Dream), which I thought we had left behind?
  • Focus on non-cognitive skills, such as punctuality, respect and dedication to understand the reasons for success. Why? Because they are important and becoming more measurable.
  • A proliferating set of ‘standards’ for public expenditure will help governments to introduce results-based payments and budgeting.
Most of this is taken from his (freely downloadable) 2010 book The Day After Tomorrow. Several things struck me about his presentation. Firstly, the overwhelming can-do optimism is very seductive. And the emphasis on technology neatlyoptimism avoids any difficult political decisions. This is a happy technocratic world of win-wins. In contrast my presentation was all about difficult politics – I’m not sure I had the best tunes. But in the end, I didn’t buy a lot of it – by invoking the use of ‘we’, as in ‘we can end poverty, by fixing X or Y’, he reminded me of Pierre Jacquet’s great question – who is we? And why assume that ‘we’ have a common agenda? Marcelo has a remarkably outsiderish view of the ‘we’ – in a follow-up email he defined them as “All those that care about ending poverty, not just 19th Street, but NGOs, advocacy groups,  faith-based organizations, the college kid that spends a year in a developing country giving a  hand, etc”. In contrast, I would argue that these are all bit players: the key ‘we’ is within developing countries – political actors, civil society organizations, faith leaders and the rest. There, assumptions of a common agenda are likely to prove unfounded. That’s why we need to go back to school on power and politics. Which all reminded me of Matt Andrews’ critique of the World Bank’s efforts to ‘roll out best practice’ on institutional reform, including the institutions needed to introduce these new technologies. Today I’m launching the book at the World Bank at 12.30, so expect the debates to continue……]]>

Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our .

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.


10 Responses to “Is power and politics a massive distraction? Crossing swords with the World Bank.”
  1. Roy Trivedy

    Duncan, Fascinating. Thanks for sharing this. I found your critique of Marcelo’s ideas ver compelling. Looking forward to hearingh next installment. Roy

  2. Of course it is “a convenient way of dodging politically contentious issues of distribution and redistribution”
    And all this apparently totaly seperated from other global challenges like climate change and ‘justice’. But I guess the World Bank is also convinced it has all the technical fixes for that too.

    • Duncan

      OK, my shorthand was obviously a bit cryptic. There’s a dumb version of equality and a clever version. The dumb version, which I (ironically) call the ‘American Dream’ is ‘we all have equal opportunity to eat at the Ritz – equal opps in theory, but obviously, actual inequality massively shapes people’s ability to take advantage of it. The clever version is ‘if a poor village girl and a rich urban boy put in the same effort at school, they should be equally likely to get good outcomes. Now THAT is radical. But also, the debate has moved on because of people thinking more about intergenerational issues (see Ricardo Fuentes’ recent blog) – one generation’s equality of outcomes is the next generations equality of opportunity (eg what kind of school do they send their kids to). That make sense?

  3. tannerjc

    Hi Duncan,
    You have referred to equality of opportunity as ‘The American Dream’ (or even for UK readers, ‘The Giddens Grail’?) in 2 recent blogs.
    Have you written a post on why we should ‘leave this behind’ as you put it? I would be very interested to read it. Or maybe you will tell me its a crux of the book and I should buy a copy!?

  4. Irene

    Scary that technocratic views as the answer are still pervasive – or in vogue again perhaps (?) after the 1990s of ‘participatory development – governance, advocacy, democracy, etc. They were seen as ‘necessary but insufficient’ I thought after the 1980s. Clearly not. Your not so catchy tunes, Duncan, are too darn hard! Let’s just measure punctuality…
    Speaking of which – punctuality as the basis for success?? Important how? Success of what? Makes development sound like departure time targets for Easyjet. A simple ‘buckle down /up, listen while we go through the safety procedures and have a punctual departure. Success guaranteed no doubt.

  5. tannerjc

    Yes, much more so thanks.
    Although I tend to consider equality of opportunity the outcome of the ‘clever version’.
    The only place equal opportunities currently exist is ‘in theory’.
    I would more likely equate the kind of thing you call the American Dream with the Darwinian theory of economics I used to encounter at University. The one which says it’s a case of survival of the fittest/most tenacious where the winner takes all. Which wilfully ignores the fact that the rules of the game are so stacked against most people that a decent standard of living for themselves and those they love is pretty damn successful.
    The split on this tends to come when you ask people what’s the optimum equality of outcome!

  6. Steve

    This is an excellent post Duncan.
    The World Bank is in many ways a great institution but until it stops being scared of politics it will always fail to fully achieve its mission. Bank staff know full well how political the world is but -with honorable exceptions – fail to reflect the knowledge of the centrality of politics in their chosen strategies. Of course, this in itself is a political decision.
    Your post also encapsulated nicely some of the reasons why I left a staff job at the World Bank for a job in an NGO. It also, for the first time in a long time, made me think maybe I should have stayed to fight the good fight…
    Incidentally (re your Ritz comment above) I have only once attempted to eat at the Ritz and was denied the opportunity as I didn’t have a jacket – even though I worked for the World Bank at the time…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *