Mobilisation of the Poor – a means to Poverty Reduction? - Sida

stimulated to reflect on it in a systematic way through an external catalyst with the necessary skills,
attitudes and wisdom.
Second, this leads to a process of probing on the part of local poor people and groups in
collaboration with the external catalyst. This probing is similar to the now-familiar process of
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) but lacks its technological sophistication. One key difference in
CAP probing is that it is undertaken explicitly from the point of view of the rural poor to help them
overcome their problems.
Third, CAP sought to organise the poor, initially in small groups, as a distinctive layer in rural
society. In this respect CAP differed from all the other existing rural mobilization programmes,
such as the Department of Rural Development’s Rural Development Societies and the Sarvodaya
movement’s Sarvodaya Shramadana Samithi, as the latter organisations sought to unite the entire
village community for the purposes of rural development.
Fourth, this process – once introduced by an external agent – was expected to be internalised and
progress towards a chain of collective action. This might take the form of either mutual help (e.g.
building of group funds, labour sharing) or campaigns to renegotiate relationships with the powerful
layers of society. Some advocates of CAP tended to see the latter type of collective action as more
progressive and more beneficial to the poor.
Finally, this conscientisation/social mobilisation process did not involve any direct handouts, but
was conceived rather as a means to promote self-reliance.
This seemingly radical approach to empowerment gave way during the 1990s to a more sedate
group-building process where savings and lending from savings were often the core activity. This in
turn undermined some aspects of the empowerment process initially introduced by CAP, but
mobilising the poor so to act together to promote their common interests remained one of the main
aspects of the programme. In light of liberalisation policies and the current emphasis on market-led
growth, CAP-type interventions are increasingly seen as a means to mainstream the poor and
enhance their integration and comparative advantages within global, national and regional
markets, rather than as a means to organise them to confront the dominant classes of society.
In terms of empowerment, the impact of CAP needs to be considered from several angles:
1. The conscientisation of the poor;
2. Improving the bargaining power of small producers vis-à-vis middlemen;
3. Empowerment of women;
4. Empowerment of marginalised social groups in general.
Impact of CAP on conscientisation and related perceptions of the poor
As a conscientisation process, one of the primary objectives of CAP was to make people aware of
their condition and to facilitate collective action towards overcoming their common problems. In
the field visits it was evident that CAP participants had no difficulties in declaring themselves as
poor and discussing the reasons for their poverty. The more articulate CAP members (leaders of
small groups in particular) tended to explain their condition in socio-economic terms. In the
Household Survey 80.4 per cent of current CAP members identified themselves as poor. 1 Asked
1 We are unable to compare the responses of non-CAP members due to certain inconsistencies in the questions asked of
CAP members and others. These questions were part of a wider interest in understanding the perception of poverty
among the programme participants. This is based on the assumption that being aware of a condition is a pre-requisite for
taking action against it.
30
MOBILISATION OF THE POOR – A MEANS TO POVERTY REDUCTION – Sida EVALUATION 02/08