WDR 2004 for improvement of services for the poorwould have more conviction if the authors had called fora holistic approach to empowering the poor – recognising,for example, that the poor need political empowerment asmuch as economic empowerment. Calling for decentralisation<strong>and</strong> strong budgetary reforms <strong>and</strong> control by centralgovernment places the WDR 2004’s recommendationsin line with the World Bank’s usual approach, which underminesthe governments by first starving them of funds bymeans of budgetary reforms <strong>and</strong> shying from true empowermentof the poor by not supporting the rights-basedapproach to development that would enable the citizensto hold their governments (<strong>and</strong> the international donors,in the case of the MDGs) accountable for public serviceprovisions. <strong>The</strong> proposal put forward by the WDR 2004could potentially weaken the citizens’ claims on the state<strong>and</strong> further weaken government responsibility to thepeople <strong>and</strong> thus undermine the empowerment of thepoor in relations to their governments <strong>and</strong> the serviceproviders.ConclusionProviding services for the poor effectively includes manyaspects of human development. <strong>The</strong> Bank’s team has completeda fairly comprehensive report describing the manykinds of services <strong>and</strong> the multiple options for governments.<strong>The</strong> illustration of the power relationship amongclients, governments <strong>and</strong> service providers is clear, but thereport’s discussion of empowerment is incomplete. Itdoes not address the social <strong>and</strong> political ways that thepoor can be empowered. It does not differentiate amongthe different groups of poor. And most of all, it does notprovide any analysis of how the most disadvantagedgroups – such as the girl-child – can benefit from the proposedchanges.In seeking to empower the poor, the WDR 2004 makes theeconomic argument that the poor will have power in relationto their service providers once basic services areprivatized; that is, by using their purchasing power. However,the report did not provide other dimensions of empowerment– the social <strong>and</strong> political. <strong>The</strong> report’s weakness,in a sense, is not what it says but what it does not say.By eschewing the political rights of the poor, the Bank ishiding under the implicit assumption that other aspects ofcitizens’ rights will follow economic rights.Accountability for providing services to the poor is notadequately addressed. Using the economic approach toempower citizens is incomplete <strong>and</strong> can lead to a falsesense of development. By definition, the poor are poorbecause they do not have economic resources; to use amarket approach to provide services only exacerbates theproblem. World Vision proposes that the Bank work withgovernments to discuss how a rights-based approach canbe incorporated into basic services such as education,health, <strong>and</strong> water provision. We propose that by using theCRC to empower children to participate fully in school<strong>and</strong> for teacher training, the Bank can strengthen its educationprogramme, giving it a better chance to meet theneeds of marginalised groups, such as girls.In order to meet its MDGs commitment, the Bank <strong>and</strong> itsmember countries must seek to address how governmentscan be strengthened in an era of decentralisation. Itwill take more than the contributions of IFIs. <strong>Government</strong>s,citizens, private companies <strong>and</strong> CSOs all have rolesto play. Just as there are many stakeholders involved indevelopment, there is more than one dimension to empoweringthe poor. Putting the poor in charge means thatgovernments <strong>and</strong> authority figures have to be willing toprovide the political space, the technical expertise <strong>and</strong> financialsupport to enable the poor to be an effectivedriver. Moving together as a global community with equalpolitical <strong>and</strong> social power can provide opportunity for thepoor to succeed economically – creating change for amore profitable <strong>and</strong> equitable world.Notes1For more details on the various kinds of Bank engagementswith CSOs, see “Issues <strong>and</strong> Options for ImprovingEngagement Between the World Bank <strong>and</strong> CivilSociety Organizations” (World Bank, 2002).2<strong>The</strong> United Nations has set a target of 0.7 per cent ofGNP by developed countries for Overseas DevelopmentAssistance (ODA).3For more discussion of how Bank can help countriesmeet human rights obligations, see “Doing the RightsThing: <strong>The</strong> World Bank <strong>and</strong> Human Rights of PeopleLiving in Poverty” (World Vision, September 2003).4Brendan Martin is the director of Public World, a nonprofitconsultancy based in London, <strong>and</strong> also the facilitatorfor the World Bank’s e-dialogue on the WorldDevelopment Report in June <strong>and</strong> July 2003.86 <strong>The</strong> <strong>Girl</strong>-<strong>Child</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Government</strong> <strong>Service</strong> <strong>Provision</strong>
5<strong>The</strong> World Bank Annual Report 2003, vol. 1, Year in Review.6Alan Beattie, “World Bank Chiefs Reject Proposal toQuit Oil <strong>and</strong> Coal Finance,” Financial Times (February3, 2004).7Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (New York: AnchorBooks, 2000).8<strong>The</strong> United States experienced this in 2000–2004, whensocial expenditures such as education were cut in orderto increase military expenditure.9Joseph Stiglitz, “IMF Variant of Market Economy Is aMythical Version, That’s Why It Failed,” <strong>The</strong> Indian Express(January 15, 2004), 7.<strong>The</strong> <strong>Girl</strong>-<strong>Child</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Government</strong> <strong>Service</strong> <strong>Provision</strong> 87
Change language