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

Relevance
In keeping with the TOR for this evaluation we examine below the relevance of the CAP approach
for the needs of the target population, GoSL policies and programmes, and Sida’s Action
Programmes.
Relevance of CAP approach to the situation of target population
CAP’s emphasis on self-reliance as a key to escaping poverty remains highly relevant in a polity
where competitive populism by the two major political parties has encouraged the growth of a
substantial welfare state along with a high level of dependency among the poor. At present, most
Sri Lankans look on the government as the main provider of opportunities, goods, and services and
many observers note that government policies have worked against a spirit of self-reliance, blunted
self-motivation, and stifled innovation and independence (Silva et al. 1996, Silva 1998, Silva et al.
1999, World Bank 1996). Therefore, a development approach such as CAP, that attempts to wean
the poor from excessive reliance on the state and motivate them to take charge of their own
development path, is unique among all other government and the majority of NGO programmes
that aim to reduce poverty.
At one level CAP merely involves a catalytic intervention by an external agent with a view to
raising the awareness of people in poverty about their situation and about possible means to
overcome it in which the poor themselves are expected to participate collectively. Although this
social probing need not lead to one explanation of poverty and one single way of addressing it (if
that is the case there is no need for any specific probing as such), in its formative period, in part
because of the predominant intellectual paradigms at the time, the CAP approach became
identified with a production relations approach in which poverty came to be understood primarily
in terms of the unequal bargaining power of small producers compared to the economic
intermediaries immediately above them. This image of poverty was a limited one, even when
applied to the village situation in rural Sri Lanka at the time. It certainly is no longer applicable to
rural Sri Lanka after nearly 25 years of economic liberalisation programmes, devastation, and
socio-economic disruption caused by the ongoing armed conflict and by the growing openness and
marked tendency on the part of most Sri Lankans, including the poor themselves, to evade
ideological minefields.
In response to the changes noted, CAP itself became less dogmatic over the years. Awarenessraising
and group-building efforts have continued, although partly in a mechanical fashion, with the
building of group funds among the poor, supplemented by interventions designed to promote
income-generating activities increasingly identified and pursued as the main path to escape poverty.
The limitations of this approach as a poverty alleviation strategy are well documented and well
known by now (Lakshman 1994, Silva and Gunatilaka 2000, Gunatilaka 2000, Gunatilaka and
Salih 1999, Gunatilaka et al. 1997) and we need not review them in the present report. What needs
to be emphasised here is that the social probing – which is supposed to be carried out by the poor
in consultation with their change agents – must be broadened to include these ongoing concerns,
some of which stem from the globalisation processes in which they are currently embedded, so that
they can work towards a more comprehensive approach that is at the same time more responsive to
the specifics of local situations.
Without a CAP-type intervention the poor will have to fend for themselves as individuals, expecting
either trickle-down benefits from a high-growth scenario or to escape poverty through their own
efforts, assisted of course by any safety nets or income transfers currently in place. It does not
provide for agency or capacity of the poor to collectively influence the shape of things to come. It
44
MOBILISATION OF THE POOR – A MEANS TO POVERTY REDUCTION – Sida EVALUATION 02/08