Published on December 1, 2007
CSO, The Government and Poverty AlleviationEHDR 2007: CSO, The Government and Poverty Alleviation EHDR 2007 Hania Sholkamy SRC 17/6/07 Outline: Outline Explaining the Case Study: Research for policy formulation Linking forward and backwards with EHDR 2005 Poverty, dire poverty and poverty traps in Egypt The Case Study New Welfare and New Partnerships The policy formulation process: The policy formulation process Not what but how! Principles to draft pilot and mointor social programs Participation and mutual responsibility and obligation Experimental design to accumulate an evidence base Parallel programs and an eye on distribution of power and resources. Explaining the Case Study: Explaining the Case Study Motivations Representation vs. illustration Evidence base to propose concrete partnerships and programs Program for the ultra poor in EHDR 2005 Opportunity to work with MSS Basics Mapping of region Survey of 400 families masakin ahaly ‘ashwaqy Ddaman Interviews with registered active NGO’s Observation and interviews with MSS Linkages with EHDR 2005: Linkages with EHDR 2005 Making operational the program for ultra-poor Grounded understanding of current “welfare-scape”: Who does what. How do families and individuals relate to current programs, what are the existing human resources. Dangers of targeting and only on the basis of objective assessments The role and vision of CSO’s Partners in Poverty: Partners in Poverty Poverty Has proliferated so have the CSO’s Has been used as a political and professional raison d’etre Needs have risen sharply so has subjective poverty Some families are caught in poverty traps Poverty Alleviation Welfare state as stipulated in constitution and welfare laws Taken as an objective by most CSO’s in the area Has had very limited success Waste, poor planning, lack of sustainability, modest human resources and an unclear vision The Case Study: The Case Study Some preliminary conclusions Welfare and Poverty Alleviation efforts: Welfare and Poverty Alleviation efforts Some general observations (1): Some general observations (1) Beneficiaries are the same group of people CSO respond to available projects and rely on external inspiration and support Governance issues are observed but the indicators are unable to regulate and protect CSO’s Links with beneficiaries are tenuous and based on mutual benefit Violations are not un-known Burdens of morbidity, disability and special needs are high Current projects encourage dependency General Observations (2): General Observations (2) Targeting is poor Sustainability is rare Developmental approach exists in name There is a need for a vision Inter CSO linkages are complex: competition, sub-contracting, duplication. Mission statements and structures of CSO’s differ. They are very different entities. The Visions: The Visions The vision has to be national, developmental, anti-poverty, humanist, supported, and sustained. The application has to be participatory, collective, adaptive, responsive and well-monitored Conditional Cash Transfers for this Area: Conditional Cash Transfers for this Area Collective orientation for MSS, CSO and religious institutions Joint goal and criteria setting Mutual recognition of goals and roles Sharing resources, responsibilities and learning Not a patron client relationship as is the situation now.