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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In summary, the evidence reviewed in this chapter reveals that the key CAP achievements with regard to empowerment are raising awareness of and creating a sense of unity and mutual concern among the poor in general and women in poor rural households in particular. The programme’s achievements in enhancing the bargaining power of the poor are limited to some selected instances where CAP helped collectively mobilise small producers. As regards poverty reduction, the key positive outcomes are the institutionalisation of group savings as a means to promote livelihood security, the diversification of potential avenues of borrowing for consumption and production purposes, and the creation of a social network (social capital) within which mutual support is readily available, particularly at times of distress. However, there is a host of findings that indicate that the impact of CAP in respect of empowerment or poverty alleviation should not be overstated. Limited perceived impact in regard to social justice objectives, social division of labour within the household, and reduction of domestic violence, the continued importance of moneylenders and retail traders as sources of credit even among CAP households, and the limited success in employment generation are among the factors that point to a low impact of CAP. Bearing in mind that these are difficult goals to achieve given the complex structural nature of the problems involved, it would be unrealistic to expect that one single programme or one single approach could address them all, however comprehensive that programme or approach may be. The high participation of women in CAP activities at the grassroots level does indicate that some social change has been brought about by CAP. Through CAP women have identified and developed a social space that builds on the traditional openings for them in sectors such as seettu and, at the same time, increases their involvement in the “public sphere”, from which they have been more or less excluded, particularly in rural society. This may be seen as a significant and notable change from the angle of empowerment of women. On the other hand, the inadequate presence of women in key decision-making positions in the higher echelons of the CAP organisational structure reveal that change has been limited and slow. On the whole, there are several positive lessons that can be drawn from CAP experience with regard to the potential of the social mobilisation approach as a means to safeguard the poor and enhance their comparative advantages within a framework of market-led growth. We will return to this theme in the next chapter. 40 MOBILISATION OF THE POOR – A MEANS TO POVERTY REDUCTION – Sida EVALUATION 02/08
5 Conclusion – Is there a Future for CAP? As discussed in the previous chapters, the Change Agent Programme has survived many fluctuations in circumstances during its 23-year lifespan. Obviously donor support has been an important factor in its continuity but cannot fully explain the resilience of the programme. Many other donor-supported programmes were less successful in terms of both impact and durability. CAP has reached a critical juncture following both the government’s handover of the responsibility for the programme to the new Prajasakti Organisations (managed by local CAP workers) and the drying up of external donor support for the programme. Is this the end of the road for CAP, or is it the beginning of a new era, with CAP as a community-managed programme? In answering this question, a distinction needs to be made between the programme and the methodology. If the programme continues to depend purely on microfinance for the survival and continued application of its methodologies, then barring any major infusion of funds from outside, the future of the programme looks bleak. However, even if the sustainability of the CAP programme is in doubt, purged of persistent ideological hang-ups, the CAP methodology has considerable potential for further development and effective application in a range of new situations in Sri Lanka. It is difficult to pinpoint specific features of CAP’s methodology for social mobilisation of the poor, as CAP has influenced virtually every other government-initiated social mobilisation programmes in the country, from IRDPs to the Samurdhi Programme and was in turn influenced by them. In the course of its development CAP evolved as a pure social mobilisation programme in the sense that raising the awareness and collective mobilisation of the poor was its primary target. In contrast, other programmes have approached social mobilisation as a means to achieve other goals. For instance, in IRDPs as well as in community-based water supply and sanitation programmes, social mobilisation was seen as a means to ensure community participation in the construction and successful maintenance of infrastructural facilities developed by the respective programmes. Similarly in the Janasaviya and Samurdhi programmes social mobilisation was used to ensure the better use of income transfers to the poor. In its effort to promote self reliance among the poor CAP resisted reliance on any such handouts, and instead sought to promote mutual understanding and mutual help as the primary strategy for relieving poverty. Another feature of CAP methodology has been its reliance on the catalytic intervention of a mobiliser and the initiation of a group process as the means to stimulate awareness, highlight common interests, and develop cooperative action. This feature of CAP was largely misappropriated by the Janasaviya and Samurdhi programmes in their efforts to buttress largescale, target-driven poverty alleviation programmes that were centrally implemented and largely politically motivated, with both staff and beneficiaries often recruited along party lines. Their imperative and commandeered process was aptly reported by one observer as “herding people into small groups” (Gunatilaka 1996). Influenced by these high-profile national poverty alleviation programmes since 1990, CAP itself became increasingly target-driven, largely sacrificing its organic model of slow but steady social mobilisation. As already noted, CAP’s original model of conscientisation of the poor was itself limited in that it aimed at convincing the poor of the exploitative role of middlemen. It must be noted here, however, that throughout its 23-year lifespan CAP has remained one of the few development-oriented government programmes that did not become a tool of, or vehicle for, short-term party politics. MOBILISATION OF THE POOR – A MEANS TO POVERTY REDUCTION – Sida EVALUATION 02/08 41
Page 1: Sida Evaluation 02/08 Mobilisation
Page 4 and 5: This report is part of Sida Evaluat
Page 7 and 8: Acknowledgements This evaluation wa
Page 9 and 10: Executive Summary This evaluation a
Page 11 and 12: 1 Introduction This chapter deals w
Page 13 and 14: Softestad, Wanasinghe and Ernfors r
Page 15 and 16: CAP’s achievements are assessed b
Page 17 and 18: emaining five households were chose
Page 19 and 20: Social mobilisation approach as it
Page 21 and 22: 1990). While this too may be seen a
Page 23 and 24: Long-term trends in CAP Despite “
Page 25 and 26: The national federation, which is s
Page 27 and 28: of saving as a routine practice amo
Page 29 and 30: Case 1: Nagoda Sahabagitwa Sanvarda
Page 31 and 32: Case 4: Example of a Successful Sam
Page 33 and 34: Case 6: Disintegration of the CAP G
Page 35 and 36: 4 Impact of the Change Agent Progra
Page 37 and 38: why they considered themselves poor
Page 39 and 40: attention. In most areas where the
Page 41 and 42: Perceptions of impact of CAP on wom
Page 43 and 44: In conclusion, CAP remains an impor
Page 45: cent) reported borrowing from Praja
Page 49 and 50: 1. As of 2001 the programme had lar
Page 51 and 52: must be noted that the CAP methodol
Page 53 and 54: Sustainability In a country where d
Page 55 and 56: well decide to take up other jobs.
Page 57 and 58: Towards enhancing future prospects
Page 59 and 60: 3. Better integration with existing
Page 61 and 62: Dianis, A.P. (1998) ‘Rural Povert
Page 63 and 64: Ratnaweera, D. de. S. (1991) Evalua
Page 65 and 66: Annex 1 Statistical Tables Table 1.
Page 67 and 68: Table 6. Progress of the Change Age
Page 69 and 70: Table 10. Cross tabulation of house
Page 71 and 72: Table 16. Percentage distribution o
Page 73 and 74: 1.11 Religion Buddhist Hindu Islam
Page 75 and 76: 3.4. The way drinking water is obta
Page 77 and 78: 4.3 Any relations to the organized
Page 79 and 80: 5.21 What does s/he understand by t
Page 81 and 82: 7. Responses of those who never joi
Page 83 and 84: mobilisation”. Nevertheless, the
Page 85 and 86: Effectiveness In empowering the poo
Page 87 and 88: quantitative methods will be used i
Page 89 and 90: published and distributed as a publ
Page 92: SWEDISH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT C

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?