Policy Corridors: The context and the subtext of social protection policy influencing in select countries in Asia and Africa

Preface  

The book is about social protection.

Social protection (SP), defined broadly by UNICEF as “a set of public and private policies and programmes aimed at preventing, reducing and eliminating economic and social vulnerabilities to poverty and deprivation” is now imbedded within SDGs as a key strategy for helping countries achieve GOAL 1 of ‘No Poverty’. With this, social protection can rightly claim to have ‘arrived’. This is a testimony to its successes in addressing poverty and other basic rights of individuals but also to the avalanche of evidence and data that has been generated of late confirming its efficiency and effectiveness.

In 2015, the global war against poverty, which began more systematically in 2000 with MDGs (Millennium Development Goals), was furthered strengthened and resourced with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

SDGs are unusual in two key fashions. Firstly, they are applicable globally, to all countries. Secondly, they track results for all, within emphasis on ‘leave no one behind’ credo. It makes it impossible for governments to hide behind national averages, holding them accountable for demonstrating results and progress among the poorest and the most marginalized along the lines of race, gender, ethnicity, remoteness etc. So, in India, for example, the progress in Bastar, one of the most backward districts of Chhattisgarh, is important and will be tracked and reported, no longer allowed to be masked by the traditional stellar performers like say Ernakulum in Kerala. The attention on inequality and accountability for bridging the gap is here to stay and that is good news.

Social protection is key to this inclusive growth and development.

Over the past 10 to 15 years, the number of social protection programs has expanded exponentially and close to 1 billion people are covered in some form of cash transfers in 52 countries. Specific child and family benefit programmes rooted in legislation, exist in 108 countries. However, despite such progress, according to ILO, overall only 27% of the world population has a meaningful social protection cover.

The financial outlays for SP have increased though there is sharp global divide within OCED countries normally committing more than 20% of their GDP to social protection or social transfers as opposed to less than 5% for most of the LDCs and low middle-income countries. According to an ILO-OECD analysis, UK without its current levels of social transfers will have poverty levels as high as thirty two percent, France thirty percent and in the mightiest of countries, the USA, poverty will hover around 25%.

This booklet is about the undefined, ambiguous, ever-shifting world of policy influencing in setting up of social protection systems in select countries in Asia and Africa. It delves into and splays out the level of interest, the drivers and, the influencers as well as the wet blankets, the sceptics without necessarily naming them but only identifying them by their characteristics and their positions in the scheme of the things. Finally, it is the realm of deconstruction and translation that the development agencies and the partners have to entertain. The book recounts triumphs and follies of us UN staffers driven by the zeal of the mission of ‘making a difference’. It is about our naivety, our errors as well as our drive, passion and the sheer perseverance.

 The structure: 

1.     Bangladesh: The introduction of social protection: Looking for policy hook

2.     Cambodia: Social Protection gains currency

3.     Ethiopia: Policy plays catch up

4.     Tanzania: Social Protection becomes a national business

5.     Afghanistan: Social protection in fragile contexts

6.     India: Whither social protection-the challenge of plenty

Chapter 1 :Bangladesh  

The introduction of social protection: the soft landing, the serendipity factor, a clear strategic launch, links with the larger policy making.

In the sunny vibrant Dhaka, in the summer of 2004, a few colleagues from DFID and WFP had recently learnt about the new term ‘social protection’. We liked its definitional scope and the tenor-charged with emotion and values as powerful as that of ‘human rights’. It had the right phraseology, the right flavour, imbued with and reminiscent of concepts of protection and social, as opposed to mere economic. It at once closed the gap between the patronising ‘hand-out policies and the accountability of the state i.e. protection of the citizens. We liked its theory and more importantly, what it stood for. Above all, the warm fuzzy feeling that it evoked among us all. We are perpetually on the lookout for solution after all- in search of something far more effective-if not for silver bullets than for silver linings.  In the rural areas poverty was wide spread, with about 40% of the population living below the international poverty line of USD 1 per day. Frequent floods, seasonal droughts and occasional storms battered the nation of 140 million to the bottom of the pile, periodically wiping out its progress significantly and tragically. Poverty and unfairness was palpable. One could extend one’s arms outside the cars plying on the central Dhaka roads or in the diplomatic enclaves of Gulshan and Baridahara and touch it.

Dhaka, the town teeming with a multitude of human beings also had some of the worst, and appalling caseloads of the street children- a significant proportion of who had been disfigured by two competing, rival gangs. Begging, especially among the street children was a well-documented gang controlled criminal activity. This at once encapsulated the problem of plenty (of population) among the paucity of the governance, service delivery and social assistance.

The term ‘social protection’ piqued our fancy and rapidly gained currency among us.  Besides the promise of short-circuiting the existing models of poverty reduction through improved service delivery, higher growth and development, which had proved to be pretty ineffective and inefficient given the levels of corruption and poor capacity, placing resources directly in the hands of the deserving households, this also promised a reprieve from our failed strategies. A much needed one. There was this a small attraction of reading up and then flaunting in the social gatherings at the diplomatic clubs in Gulshan and Baridhara. Something new to talk about and debate over its possible relevance for Bangladesh.

For the concept to be of any consequence in the policy parleys of Bangladesh’s capital, there were several pre-conditions. The government needed to be on board and get convinced about the idea of social protection.

For WFP, given its strong relationship with poverty reduction (and food security) I included this in my policy interest[1]. though by no means my first (both chronologically) or thematically), the relationship with social safety net was immediate. WFP was implementing the country’s and world’s largest food-based social safety net. It had a strong and self-evident mandate and stake.  WFP but very quickly joined and some would contest, to be outpaced by, the good old-World Bank and their Human Development brigade (where social protection has come to be housed).

In the traditional GDP, monetary terms Bangladesh indeed was and is one of the poorest countries in the world. But the country is immensely rich in culture, heritage and the warmth and the love of its people. Social norms among the poor was still one of sophistication, based on conscience and the fear of a higher being. Families taught d transferred norms of appropriate behaviours, consisting of respect for elders, honesty, charity and sexual faithfulness to one partner (despite it being a predominant MUSLIM country, polygamy was rare and frowned upon. In essence the country was functioning despite the poor governance, massive poverty because the families and communities based their livelihood strategies on several elements of a sustainable life.

Crime remained low and largely opportunistic and one felt safe o the roads. The latter feature goes largely unappreciated till one arrives in an in-conflict country as in Afghanistan, Somalia or in countries with rampant and unregulated street crime as I Tanzania and Kenya where snatching and robbery were almost he norm. An exposition of how societies of similar economic make up differed in societal ones as measured by the feeling of safety, and the general level of law and order is perhaps one of the least researched topic in social sciences and most under speculated by international development practitioners. This is a surprising lacuna considering we are probably one of the most curious of the generations and extremely well placed and well equipped to answer our questions. Our systematic ignoring of study of religion and culture and the inability to weave in knowledge from multidiscipline inti our understanding of the nations is the most likely cause behind this rather blighted  analysis and appreciation of a nation and its people. Given the importance   of the economists to shaping the global developmental policies and other important fields like diplomacy and international relations, this is a most serious shortcoming and something that should mot longer be treated as a mere recommendation. An analysis that does not weave in an exposition of the social and family norm should not be accepted with caveats but should simply be consigned to the bin. As to how the various methods and various analysis are combined at the starting point is an understanding of how the various dimensions interact and impact outcomes at macro, meso and micro levels. This subject requires an elaboration, beyond the scope of this chapter. There is a whole chapter dedicated to this issue.

Culturally, Dhaka has remained vibrant, producing and sustaining several artists, painters and musicians. Bangladeshis are indeed proud of their cultural heritage, comfortable embracing their pre-1971 heritage including the pre-1947 (colonial) heritage of the fabled and much-loved Tagore. Bengalis love and cherish their songs, their paintings, their dances and their music. This is an important part of their identity and the national pride. This strong tradition of self-pride and a feeling of cultural superiority, which could be probably interpreted by some as arrogance, has formed the bedrock of the several innovating thinking and practices, contributing to a global image of the ‘inventive, smart, intellectual Bangladeshi’ on the top of the hopelessly poor and disaster stricken one.

Bangladesh has produced global thinkers and practitioners who have given the world micro credit-the Grameen Bank[2]- an innovation that has reached shores of the USA and several other OECD countries, allowing them to include their (relatively) poor to partake better in their plenty and prosperity. Brac is yet another of the exports of Bangladesh, the only southern NGO to have gone global, working in several countries in Asia, Europe and Asia. Grameen Bank and Brac spearheaded the growth of one of the strongest NGO culture that allowed them to escape the vicissitudes of the political upheavals by ensuring availability of some basic education, health and livelihood services. In 2006 UNDP’s Human Development Report, Bangladesh featured as the puzzle whose human development indicators had defied the economic essentials.[3] Today in 2016/17 its HDI at 0.579 ( 139/188) is one of the best in South Asia with its life expectancy and gender gap better than even India.[4].  While acknowledging this amazing contribution of civil society to national development, it is worth taking note that the role of the NGOs has remained largely confined implementation (and some research) rather than advocacy. The rather stifled (and increasingly stiffening) political environment has stunted the advocacy role considerably, a rather surprising outcome for the much discursive and even explosive Bengali nature as evident from their not too distant neighbours in West Bengal in India.

Returning to the central theme of the context for introduction of social protection in Bangladesh, in 2004, there were several national development experts well versed in what country’s poor needed and what was ailing the poverty reduction agenda. Along with the government, it is to that inventive and adept development crowd, that the idea of social protection started being introduced in 2004.

There was an easy hook to the concept. One may also call it lucky. In the world of policy influencing and advocacy sometimes things come together fortuitously, some out of deliberate effort and some through pure chance with co-incidence crafting a perfectly opportune moment for shaping a potential policy or the national thinking. The latter is important to the policy process by just as much as a precursor is critical to the actual product or event. Policies are made, shaped or changed first in the thinking of the key influential thinkers of the nation. The United Nations provides a great platform for reaching out to these movers and shakers. This many would recognise as top-heavy nature of policy making. And many would frown against this. However as noted in chapter 1, policy formation is not a mono -recipe beast. In happens in multiple ways, dependent on the context. Some contexts are more authoritarian and some more inclusive and representative. But almost always one needs a few people in the government to finally buy into the proposed change and drive the adaptation. The stakeholders of the change need to map out the landscape and decide the most cost and time effective strategies. There is no need to instil a revolution (or a massive mass mobilisation when al that one needs to do is convince and inform a   well-intentioned minister of social welfare of the Economy. Yes, context is the king and a clear understudying of the various dimensions of the context can be supremely aided by entering into deep meaningful conversation with the national development experts as much a full-blown immersion in secondary literature.

In early 2004, the terms which were being paraded around and which in some ways were closest to the idea of social protection were social safety nets, poverty reduction and more interestingly food security. The idea of food security, in essence if not in its entirety, was the most well understood within the government. Here a clarification is in order. Government refers to the relevant parts of the government-the ministries and agencies responsible for food policies, ensuring that people do not starve and progressively improve their nutritional status

This also includes the ministry of finance-the ministry often being the most clued in to the social as well as economic policy making perhaps by the virtue of it being staffed with some of the smartest and sharpest of the government officials. That a ministry of finance understands food security will not be a matter of surprise to a student of history, who has had some exposure to history of famines. It is this ministry which opens the coffers or decides otherwise when faced with mass starvation and deaths. Finance ministers are often at the forefront of driving the basics of the food security policies with focus understandably on the availability and (increasingly) access much more than ‘utilisation’ or the nutrition[5].

For Bangladesh, which, soon after its birth, was gripped by famines, food security was sacred. The country maintained a food reserve of 600,000 MT, much to the chagrin of some of UN agencies, again a reminder of the fundamental fact that often there is no perfect congruency between the pet solutions and the pet peeves of the UN and the host government. In fact, quite often there are sharp divergences of positions. Governments are driven more to think politically and in short terms, as they say, but also government are less enthusiastic about takings risks at a large scale.  Though there are no doubt exceptions, as there will always will be. It is impossible to write if not in generalisations.  It’s the role of the development agencies then to step in to hedge these risks or to demonstrate the scalability and the feasibility of some of these pet, ‘risky’, new solutions that they are keen for the governments roll out. Here our record is patchy but steadily on the mend, hence the emphasis on innovation in our respective country strategies.[6]

Food security is something that we all understood though not necessarily were able to promote in its entirety. Social protection provided a new lever for promoting food security. The access. dimension of food security provided an important, strategic and useful hook for social protection. And once understood and articulated among the relevant UN and other development partners, the idea of social protection was ready to be introduced.

DFID as part of its newly acquired ambition of influencing various multilaterals including WB, had just launched an innovative partnership with Bangladesh WFP. Within an overall vision to re-orient WFP to a developmental path from its current predominantly reactive relief/emergency oriented one, DFID funded three senior advisory posts within WFP Bangladesh. The programme or the DFID-WFP Partnership Agreement, as it came to be christened, lasted for over three and half years and turned out to be transformative just not for WFP Bangladesh but for WFP globally[7] though that’s a different story and needs to be told separately. This I claim with hindsight and when it comes to assessing impact, often the only sight which works is the dorsal one. The partnership disturbed the status quo at WFP, challenged the government to address nutrition rather than just (immediate, short term) food security and launched the concept of social protection, which fundamentally aims to alter and redefine the state-citizen contract by making the assistance complementary (and hence of adequate size) and predictable.

There were three distinct though interconnected arms to this project: policy, disaster preparedness and knowledge management. The portfolio of food security and social protection fell in the ambit of policy.

When the DFID PA commenced mid-2004, it met with the usual institutional resistance to change and to new ideas as well as to new advisers, who were all selected from an express non-WFP pool of candidates (a DFID requirement/condition) with an underlying assumption that only outsiders could challenge the status quo and trigger the necessary changes. The project was slow to start and took a long while to define its niche. Finally, the policy arm started to grapple with serious and national interests like food security, Vulnerable Group Development Programme[8] and finally social protection. The invaluable contribution of ‘Food security’ was its success in injecting the development and growth discourse with the most important concept of ‘economic access’[9]. Conceptually traceable to the, ‘Freedom and Famine’ postulation of Amartya Sen, which was only stating what had long been obvious that availability at a national level does not equate with availability at household / individual level if the hh /induvial lacks the purchasing power, In lieu of this financial capacity, the government needs to intervene and a government that is responsive ( as in a democracy with a free media is government that ensures such an access in in case of market failure or in times of large scale disasters ( as drought). The dimension of ‘economic access’ expostulates that it is not enough for food to be available in the markets. It was also important that the households had the necessary financial wherewithal to buy food. Social protection stepped in to claim that it ensured that access. Though social protection is indeed much wider than just food security, it is again the availability of basic food and income (to buy that basic food) that the government understood in its barest bones. It realised that families needed income to buy food or food had to be distributed free. It was also not difficult to appreciate that they also needed some cash for other basic needs like clothes, education and health in the least. After all Bangladesh did indeed have some in kind and some cash-based programmes targeted at the poor, vulnerable, orphans and widows[10].

In early 2005, the World Bank Bangladesh had commissioned a stocktaking of the social safety nets in Bangladesh-very much a staple WB exercise, serving a very useful purpose of collating the coverage and the outlays on various social safety nets and social welfare programmes in one document. The largest of these social safety net programmes VGD, covering 700,000 ultra-poor households, or about 4 million population was being implemented by Ministry of Women Affairs and WFP. It was largely a food-based programme with IGA and microcredit thrown in as graduation elements. The IGA training had progressively expanded to include other elements like reproductive health, nutrition and HIV-AIDS awareness.

The programme along with several other interventions was widely perceived to be plagued with mistargeting and leakages. The Bank was one of the fiercest critiques of food aid in Bangladesh. DFID was a strong sympathiser and was keen for the issue of food of to be splayed out on the dissection tray. WFP, the food aid agency of the United Nations, held its breath in deep trepidation. But only for some time. Non-action was not an option. Among the various measures, WFP had already commissioned a leakage study and was working hard with the government to close the loopholes. But food aid was problematic not just on account of leakages. It was also proving to be costly and was seen to be depressing the market, dampening producers’ incentives. DFID supported advisory capacity was soon to grapple with the issue head on and instituted a major research on relative efficacy of food and cash in enhancing livelihoods of the extreme/ultra-poor[11]. That research helped WFP in several ways but most importantly in demonstrating to the WB and other development partners that the organisation was confident enough to ask a question that may have shook it to its very founding principles. WFP Bangladesh fully supported by its Rome Policy Division in many ways was leading the way for the global organisation. Details of this global transformation of the mission of UN’s Food Aid agency is indeed an important and interesting sidebar.

The main story is that of introduction of social protection in Bangladesh.

The WB report had very embarrassingly established that despite a multiplicity of social safety net programmes in Bangladesh[12], a very small percentage of the poorest had any effective coverage. In 2005, out of a population of 147 million, with over 30%[13] below the poverty line, which was indeed a very poor marker, less than five million had access to any social safety net and certainly almost none had access to any predictable, reliable, and sufficient support (in size and duration). The rate of poverty reduction was poor[14], disasters increasing in frequency and severity though the economic growth had been steady. The idea of inclusive growth and equity, which so much came to inspire the UN speech/spiel in the next decade were still to become a leitmotif.

Social Protection was introduced against this backdrop of the development and poverty challenges. The introduction turned out to be strategic and timely and perhaps not all by sheer coincidence.

WFP approached PPRC, the Power Participation Research Centre, one of the finest NGOs and research agencies of Bangladesh headed by the very influential and powerful thinker and researcher Hossain Zillur Rahman[15].  Mr. Rahaman is one of the most important Bangladeshi. His commitment to truth, fairness and justice is matchless. He lent voice to the poor in the national research and policy formulation by designing and launching and implementing, year after year poverty assessment based on the self-perception and assessment of the poor communities and individuals. This was a powerful addition to the methodology as well as to the nature and mode of national dialogue of measuring and addressing poverty.

Mr Rehman made a =n epochal and highly significant contribution to the sustaining democracy in Bangladesh. When a re take government, t stepped in 2008 to rescue the country from the internecine Bandhs, hartals and the political wrangling between Awami League and BNP, with the not so express support of the military, Mr. Rehman was inducted (and he agreed I am told after considerable introspection /reflection) as the industry/ commerce and the education minister. He implemented a tranche of long awaited reforms and finally was also instrumental in negotiating and mediating between the political parties / the civilian arms and the military for the return of the military to the bunkers and conduct of peaceful elections.

The proposal was clear and specific; partnership and support in organizing the first social protection conference of Bangladesh. WB which was also been in parleys with PPRC over host of developmental issues, helped not in the least by the fact that the portfolio was headed by a Bangladesh-American[16], learning about this WFP offer, approached WFP to join forces and the two met PPRC jointly to conclude that a national social protection workshop would be jointly organized by these three agencies. Very soon thanks to the excellent rapport of Mr. Hossain with the General Economy Directorate (GED) of Bangladesh, the government was on board, closing the circle with the most important stakeholders that were needed to be part of this discussion. The GED was headed by a visionary and outstanding civil servant of Bangladesh, Dr Ghiyasuddin Mesba[17]. An economist by training, he had worked with Ministry of Finance and Economy and was a champion of pro-poor policies and programming. He was profoundly respected among the UN quarters as well as within the local civil society including Brac, and Grameen Bank. GED was responsible for drafting of the first PRSP[18] of Bangladesh for which they had commissioned PPRC. Thus, the joining of GED ensured that there was a clear express link with the ongoing national development policy thinking. The idea of social protection now had a strong possibility of being mainstreamed, albeit much sooner than anticipated. This was a fortuitous development rather than a clear forethought on part of WFP. The WB may have seen this coming but these links which proved to be the most enduring and strategic contribution of the conference had not been immediately clear or proactively explored or sought after by WFP.

The conference which WFP had conceived as a rather national affair, soon, thanks to the zeal and resources of WB, became international, who typical to their modus operandi in such opportune circumstances, flew in a battery of international experts from Washington and the scene for a high-level conference was set. The conference lasted for two days and ended with the decision to create a place holder policy statement in the developing PRSP. (see the box below)[19]

‘Risk, Vulnerability and Social Protection

While safety nets have been an integral part of Bangladesh's poverty reduction strategy, changing risk profiles and stronger mitigation demands make the case for a holistic re-thinking on safety nets in particular and social protection in general a compelling one. Social protection includes safety nets, various forms of social insurance, labour market policies as well as process of selfhelp existing or emerging within society. Policy challenges include sharper profiling of risks, old and new, careful balancing of needs and expectations, streamlining implementation, and, exploring net-and-ladder options in programme design’

Thus, in terms of attaining its policy objectives it was successful, laying the ground for further policy making and laying out the key contours of a social protection agenda and policy for the Bangladesh.

The developments are after that were reportedly slow though steady with other UN agencies especially UNDP stepping in to provide a UN level leadership. In 2011, the country was preparing its social protection strategy. It had taken about six years for the policy process to mature from the opening deliberation of 2005, though in the meantime, there had been several programmatic evolutions and expansions. The policy was a more of a final act to cap endeavours like the introduction of an employment guarantee scheme and free health vouchers as well expansion of scholarship and food assistance programmes.

In 2011, as I visited Dhaka to present on child sensitive social protection, I found Bangladesh grappling with issues of coverage targeting, graduation, and financing. The ministry of finance was central to these discussions. There was a pronounced emphasis on disaster mitigation which again was extremely relevant for Bangladesh.

Social Protection currently in Bangladesh in 2016:

By the latest account the country is finalising the plans for reform of its social protection system. A paper available on the Planning Ministry[20], details scope of this reform, which by all account appears to be extremely ambitious and far-reaching. Should Bangladesh actually go down this route, it will prove to be one of the first developing countries to have systematised a social protection system and implemented it to the letter T.

At the heart of the vision/plan is the reform of the existing system driven by the mantra of consolidation and optimisation, promising to do away the bane of social protection programming obtained in countries like Bangladesh i.e. uncoordinated multiple programmes transferring inadequate, paltry benefits. In other words, poorly funded and poorly implemented programmes.

It also seems to have taken on the challenge of institutional arrangements head on- envisaging to make the soon to be constructed Ministry of Social Development as the nodal ministry for implementing all the necessary social protection schemes/programmes. The ministry will also set up a register of the eligible persons and households as well as to implement a results-based M&E and a robust grievance appeal system. The plan is clearly guided by the latest and the best global practices in social protection.

Whether this gets implemented or is whittled or otherwise scuttled will only be evident with time, but the vision and the policy process has certainly attained its maturity with the adoption of such a vision.

Recapping lessons

Though lessons have been strewn all over the last passages, a few are presented below by way of concluding.

Policy influencing requires a driver or a person who goes after a clear, specific policy goal. That person then becomes the driving force behind agglomerating other forces and resources and generation of an enabling environment. Provided of course the next steps are correctly identified and implanted.

The next steps are generally looking for an anchor point to kick start the national policy thinking. In initial days, this national policy thinking is not truly national in that sense. It just implies it is being discussed with some select players, influencers, decision makers and practitioners at the national level. That is often enough to spur a thought and propel an idea on to the national policy stage.

At this stage, it is important for various UN agencies and WB to join forces. It helps the agenda tremendously. WB typically brings in substantially more resources than the UN but the UN provides more programmatic, practical, in field experience and the psychological ease of operation, especially as their key senior, policy staff are often based in the country and have a stronger and more effective and reliable access to the government. Also useful are the partnership with local offices of the INGOs, research firms and other national civil society entities. It is almost always a boost to the agenda. Often this does not require any marathon efforts but couple of simple coordination, idea/fact sharing meetings to bring them up to date on these policy opportunities and an honest openness to receiving their inputs. A simple emailing list of the relevant persons from the key UN and civil society members is a very effective mechanism for this cooperation. Often policy shaping and influence is carried out on the back of such simple tools and techniques. Though mega in reach and impact, it is simple things that often carry the day for a UN policy advocate.

The next key lesson is about knowledge, but more so about how knowledge gets used. Knowledge is power but here a more an enabling factor to access the influencers. One should refrain from flaunting off knowledge at all costs. It is important to establish a partnership where the task of producing and sharing knowledge is not seen and undertaken as a favour or as a demonstration of superior intellectual prowess but as part of one’s basic, fundamental duty, which one is frankly very well rewarded. (so, one should better be humble here).

The next lesson is regarding the choice of alliances and champions. This is perhaps the single most important factor. These allies should be drawn from both the government and the civil society. It is important to establish a broad range of alliance based on mutual, respectful and genuine concern for the interest of the country and the poorest and the most marginalised. Very few people will be unwilling to support a person who has the best interest of their people in her heart. This sounds too simplistic but as mentioned earlier, some of the most effective approaches and strategies are indeed the simplest and the most direct ones.

 The policy influencing is an unglamorous, tedious, extremely slow-moving task. One has to commit oneself to the long haul. The result, which is generally mega and national in scale impacting potentially lives of millions of people is worth all the wait and the perseverance. But in this arena, it is only slow and steady that wins the race. There are simply no short cuts here. 

The other key lessons are about what could have been done differently.

In order to answer this question, one needs to revisit the policy environment and the realistic policy space available to the UN and the WB. Typically, WB is indeed one of the policy heavy weights in a country and often the UN plays supportive, though extremely important role in the areas of poverty reduction and social protection. This has not changed much since 2005.

So clearly, even to the most important of the policy influencers or shapers there was no policy space available outright. It had to be carved put. The introductory workshop was able to hit all the right targets from that angle. However, this was not sustained by a targeted policy influencing and policy making effort on part of WFP. The agenda was definitely pushed subsequently by UNDP which seemed to take on leadership role and brought along WB and other UN partners.

PPRC continued to support the research and the policy dialogue around this agenda and gradually social protection gained currency, as I can reconstruct from the developments in the country.

Policy influencing should be seen as a baton race or a marathon rather than a sprint. As long as momentum is maintained and the engagement of the right actors ensured, the competition for the leadership position is something not worthy of a UN agency’s credo, ethos and resources.

Last but not the least, it is important to be reflective while being active or operational and engaged. This implies an extremely rare capacity to be self-probing and self-critical and always questioning the means and the intermediate ends. In many ways, this could be helped by the latest tool of Theory of Change. A systematic theory of change developed for any policy goal will help unearth several of the hidden assumptions, opportunities and identify strategies for converting them into winning actions.

 

[1] Check DFID PA document

[2]

[3] UNDP 2005

[4] 2016 HDI

[5] Define food security.

[6] Write something about how almost the CPAPS and CPDs and UNDAF’s aim for innovation

[7] Any evaluation of DFID PA?

[8] VGD

[9] Economic access to food

[10] WB’s Bangladesh SSN assessment/stocktaking

[11] Reference Food and Cash study

[12] Details of the SSN report

[13] BGD poverty levels in 2005 and define the poverty line

[14] Rate of poverty reduction

[15] Zillur Rehman-more

[16]

[17] Ghiyasuddin Mesba

[18] Defne PRSP

[19] https://www.preventionweb.net/files/9305_cr05410.pdf

[20]

---