Previous| Next | Content| Main |Home
Social Science Research, Poverty and Public Policy: Rethinking Tanzania’s Poverty Reduction Initiatives
Adalgot A. Komba*
Abstract: The relationship between social science research, poverty and public policy is complex, fragile and, perhaps, least appreciated. The paper sets out to analyse the role of social science research in the “war on poverty.” The paper addresses four main issues. Firstly, how poverty is being conceptualised. It has been argued that concerted efforts are needed to provide better conceptual framework of the problem. Secondly, it is also argued that researching poverty also calls for an appropriate methodological framework. That is, how one goes about investigating the problem will be reflected in the recommendations on how to solve it.
The discussion on the analytical framework describes some inherent pitfalls in organising and presenting results of social science research. It is argued that in a complex and dynamic concept such as poverty, the analysis is the function of the values, assumptions, and ideological biases researchers bring to their trade. The paper also deals with the interface between social science research enterprise and public policy. It is noted, among other things, that more efforts are needed for social science research to become an effective tool in social problem solving.
1.0 Introduction
Not a single day passes by without one reading or hearing something related to “poverty.” Personal collection of cuttings from local newspapers on the subject matter over the past three years amounts to hundreds of pieces. The headings may be different but the message is more or less the same: that poverty is a social menace and that something needs to be done about it.1 Of course, recognising that the problem exists is only part of the equation. Knowing what to do and how to go about solving the problem is the other half, and for all practical purposes, the most difficult one.
In Tanzania, as in many other Third World countries, we have been struggling to address the problem. Indeed, forty years ago the leadership in a newly independent country recognised that “poverty”, “ignorance” and “diseases” were the three national enemies to be conquered at all costs. Since then many resources have been directed to fighting the “war” against these enemies, with some mixed results. Thus, forty years later the situation is far from over as the enemies have demonstrated survival capabilities never thought of before.
The past decade has witnessed renewed interest in poverty as reflected in a number of national and international initiatives.2 The 1990 World Bank report on the state of poverty helped to attract worldwide attention to the conditions of the poor in developing countries. In Africa, after a decade of implementing IMF/World Bank-sponsored structural adjustment programmes (SAPs), it became clear that increasing poverty was an unintended consequence of such policies.3 It is no wonder that the 1990s witnessed the mobilisation of both human and financial resources to fight poverty with many poor countries putting in place strategies designed to address the problem.4 The score card is out and the news is not encouraging.
In its report “Attacking Poverty”, the World Bank paints a gloomy picture of the conditions of the poor in the world (World Bank 2001). It is being acknowledged that the efforts of the past decade have made a little dent on the ambitious goal of “eradicating poverty.” The impoverished populations of the world are no better off today than they were ten or twenty years ago. Of course, one can presume that the situation could have been much worse without the efforts of the past decade to address the problem. All in all, the situation raises questions that are of interest to all those involved in the “war against poverty.” These include policy makers, the international donor community, the people in poverty, and social science researchers.
In this paper, a modest attempt is made to articulate the role of social science research in poverty reduction. It is premised on the fact that social science research provides us with the framework for understanding the nature of the problem we are dealing with and in designing appropriate solutions to it. In a typical war metaphor, one’s chance of winning a war not only increases with improved intelligence on the enemy’s fighting capabilities but also with detailed knowledge of the battlefield. This includes knowing the hills and valleys, rivers to cross, where and how to cross them, possible observation posts, etc. In this context, the social science research enterprise maps out the social, political, economic and cultural landscape of the poverty problem thus allowing for design of well thought out strategies to fight it.
The paper highlights some pertinent issues that researchers need to take into consideration if they want their work to contribute to a better understanding of the nature and causes of poverty and in so doing provide some guidance to those in the frontline of the war against poverty. As subsequent discussion will demonstrate social science research has an important role to play in the ongoing efforts to reduce poverty. However, the effectiveness of social science research depends very much on the ability to forge close links between researchers, on one hand, and policy makers and people in poverty, on the other.
Indeed, the experience elsewhere has clearly demonstrated that research on poverty is fraught with conceptual and methodological difficulties that have tended to limit the usefulness of research in guiding public policies. Of course, the difficulties can partly be attributed to the complexity of poverty problem that calls for varying approaches. But it can also be true that social science researchers are partly to blame for their failure to master the skills needed to influence public policies. Subsequent discussion will identify some missing links in our efforts to address the poverty problem and contribute to poverty reduction.
2.0 Conceptualising Poverty
Poverty is not a completely new concept and never has been. Each and every society has its share of rich and poor people, the haves and the have-nots. Indeed, Jesus Christ has been quoted as saying: “The poor you will always have with you.” Some responsible governments have tried to bridge the gap between the two groups with some mixed results. For example, nearly forty years ago the United States of America launched its ambitious “War on Poverty”.5 It goes without saying that renewed public attention to poverty issues calls for better understanding of the concept for which social science research must play a leading role.
The emerging consensus from poverty studies is that the concept is not only complex but also dynamic both in time and space. This has tended to complicate efforts to deal with the problem at all levels – local, national and international. The role of social sciences (economics, political science, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc.) has been to provide systematic understanding of the concept. More specifically, social science researchers have been grappling with some basic questions: What is poverty? What causes poverty? Who are the poor? Where do they live? Can poverty be eradicated? These and many more questions have provided guidance to social science research over the past four decades and will continue doing so in the future.
As will be made clear shortly, the experience elsewhere has shown that answers to these questions are critical to winning the war on poverty in the sense that the way poverty problem is conceptualised will determine the kinds of policy responses to its solution. For example, if one defines poverty as simply lack or inadequate income then a solution can be income maintenance or income generation activities. If one defines poverty in terms of lack of gainful employment, then the solution can be job creation. Or, if one defines poverty in terms of culture, “culture of poverty”, then the best approach can be the change of social values for which governments are ill-equipped to deal with (Starling 1993, 193). One writer sums up the situation in the following words: “The language one uses in conceptualising poverty is important because it conveys images which can shape attitudes towards poor people and which can shape poor people’s own attitudes and self-image”(Lister 1991).
In the words of John Kingdon, there are great political stakes in problem definition especially involving distribution of benefits whereby some people are helped, while others are hurt depending on how problems are defined (Kingdon 1984, 115). Fortunately, after many years of observing, investigating and probing, social science researchers have come up with definitions of poverty that though still problematic have proven quite handy in conceptualising the problem. It is not the intention here to provide a detailed account of the academic debate about how poverty is defined, a task better accomplished elsewhere.6 However, for our purpose, it suffices to note some features of such an important concept.
Broadly defined, poverty is taken to mean the inability to attain a minimum standard of living measured in terms of levels of income that allows an individual to have a minimum standard of living on sustained basis. This inability is measured in both absolute and relative terms. Thus, on the one hand, absolute poverty describes the position of an individual or household in relation to a poverty line whose real value is fixed overtime. On the other hand, relative poverty is a comparative term in the sense that position of an individual or household is compared with the average income in the country (Likwelile 1998). Thus, fixing poverty line is critical in determining the levels of poverty just described and social science research has contributed to the task.
In what is being referred to as “dimensions of poverty”, poverty has been linked to a number of issues or factors. Social science researchers have been able to establish relationships, both positive and negative, between poverty conditions and environment, technology, culture and gender, to name but a few (Bagachwa 1994). Research has shown that some economic activities of the poor lead to environmental degradation that in turn reinforces poverty conditions (Mascarenhas 1998 & 2000; Jambiya et al. 1997). To others the condition of the people in poverty is being exacerbated by lack of access to appropriate technologies that could empower them to master their working environment (Mutagwaba et al. 1997). Still others are arguing that the “culture of poverty” engenders the sense of helplessness so detrimental to poverty eradication efforts (Omari 1994).
Are the difficulties in conceptualising poverty reflected in the limited successes in addressing the problem through public policy? Or, is it possible that no amount of probing can reveal the true nature of the problem given its complexity and dynamism? What are the implications for social science research? Do we need more theoretical pieces of work, fundamental or basic research, to fill in the existing knowledge gaps about poverty? Or, should more resources be devoted to undertaking applied social science research to solve an otherwise poorly understood problem? These are some of the questions that social science researchers must grapple with if the research enterprise is to emerge as indispensable problem-solving tool.
Unfortunately, there are no ready-made answers to these questions, important and relevant as they are to our line of work. There is no doubt that concerted efforts are needed to develop a theoretical basis for dealing with poverty lest we address the wrong problem. The experience elsewhere has clearly demonstrated that developing theory to the problem is as important as attempting to solve it. In other words, the theory we bring to understand a problem determines what options or alternatives are available to its solution. The distinction between basic and applied research is a misnomer since the two are mutually reinforcing.
3.0 Methodological Framework
Like any other social science research, research on poverty calls for a better grounding in the methodological framework. In view of the complexity of the concept just described research in this area has been the subject of interest among social scientists of differing background, training and experience. However, the consensus is that answers to questions posed above depend on the choice of the research method. In other words, our understanding of the nature, and perhaps, causes of poverty and strategies for eradicating it is, to a large extent, the function of the methodological framework. In this section, therefore, we provide an overview of approaches in common use, their strengths and weaknesses and, more important, provide suggestions of what we consider an appropriate methodological framework for dealing with the problem.
There is no doubt that the social sciences are well endowed with methods for studying social problems the choice of which is the function of a number of considerations. These include the nature of the problem being investigated, the timeframe, and availability of financial and human resources. More often, the timeframe is short and resources are scarce leading to sub-optimal choices, that is, the tendency is to choose the method commensurate with pressure of time and resources in hand. Of course, this not to suggest that the social science researcher should only investigate social problems when time and resources permit. What is being suggested here is that the effectiveness of social science research is constrained by the choice of the research method.
Without going into much detail about research methods in social sciences, for which readers are referred elsewhere,7 one can identify four main approaches to studying poverty reduction: case studies, cross-sectional surveys, panel or longitudinal studies and social experiments. Even though the approaches are not mutually exclusive each represents a different perspective to our understanding of social problems and how to cope with them. In addition, each approach places different demands upon time, financial resources and human capabilities. The last two, that is, longitudinal studies and social experimentation, are perhaps the most demanding in their design and execution but at the same time can be the most rewarding.
A survey of poverty studies undertaken over the past ten years or so reveals that case studies and cross-sectional surveys have been in common use. More important, most studies have tended to be exploratory in nature designed to establish a relationship, and not causality, between poverty and many other factors. The popularity of these methods is a reflection of a number of considerations, but we will mention a few of them here. Firstly, since most studies are of short duration, lasting between one and two years, the two methods are well adapted to such a short time frame. Secondly, the methods are relatively not resource-intensive, that is, with limited amount of resources a social science researcher can have something to show even when operating within the constraints of a small budget.
The third, and perhaps, more important point, is that it is possible that most social science researchers have a short attention span. In other words, their interest on any particular issue, be it poverty or any other subject for that matter, lasts as long as the research grant and they would very much like to have the job done in the shortest time possible and move on to other areas or issues. The damage done to the research enterprise can be most devastating especially to those complex social problems such as poverty where, as we note below, understanding and problem solving requires accumulation of knowledge over a long period of time.
Of course, the intention here is not to put the blame on those researchers who are constrained to adopting these methods in their work. There is no doubt that the methods serve very useful purposes but at the same time there are inherent limitations in the sense that they are based upon observations made at one point in time. For example, it has been established that in most surveys there is a tendency for people to underreport their real earnings, knowingly or unknowingly. Cross-sectional studies, however cleverly done, tell us very little about whether or not today’s poor people are the same as those of ten years back or will be the same ten years later. Indeed, if we are in agreement that poverty is a dynamic concept and that people move in and out of poverty, then these methods provide little solace in simply identifying the poor, knowing who they are and where they live, important as this information is to policy making.
Panel or longitudinal studies, on their part, address some of the concerns just raised by allowing for repeated observations of the subject(s) over a long period of time, say five, ten or even more years. Thus, accumulated observations generate what is referred to as time series data that maps out the changing conditions of the situation. With this design, it is possible, for example, to tell with much confidence whether or not the gains or benefits resulting from public interventions are either short-lived or long lasting.
In addition, it is also possible to establish patterns and changing trends for different groups of people based on gender, between men and women; age, between young and old; and location, between urban and rural populations. Unfortunately, building such databases is expensive and time-consuming and beyond the capacity of the sole researcher or the small research team. In most cases, it requires institutional setting such as large survey organisations, universities, or government agencies. However, such efforts have proven useful to understanding poverty dynamics and are therefore worth attempting.8
What is more interesting and, perhaps, most challenging method in poverty studies is the use of social experiments. In their efforts to acquire status or recognition equal to that enjoyed by their colleagues in natural sciences, that is, to be “objective” and “scientific” in their explanations of social phenomena, social scientists have embarked on social experimentation.9 In physical sciences a natural phenomenon can be recreated in a controlled atmosphere of the laboratory thus providing convincing evidence of its existence (Kuhn 1970). The “scientific” method demands that any person following the procedure and under the same conditions should be able to come up with more or less the same set of results (Hoover 1984).
Unfortunately, social scientists deal with human behaviour that has proven extremely difficult to control and manage. In the words of Barry Clark, their laboratory is the human society with its complex interaction of innumerable and often unmeasurableimmeasurable variables (Clark 1985, xi). Nevertheless, the difficulties of modelling social phenomena have not deterred efforts by social scientists to propose and conduct social experiments in understanding social problems such as poverty.10 However, the approach puts much demand on the time and resources while its outcome is difficult to predict. In addition, it raises numerous moral and ethical issues including privacy, confidentiality, informed consent and deception (Beauchamp et al. 1982).
All in all, the choice of which method to use is critical to gain better understanding of such a complex concept and whether or not it will be possible for the social science research enterprise to come up with credible and practical solutions to the problem. So far, short-term needs and resource constraints have tended to dictate our choice of research methods. Thus, it is high time that Tanzanian researchers consider taking a long-term view of the situation and this should be reflected in the resource mobilisation and the establishment of strategic linkages with key stakeholders – policy makers and the poor themselves, preferably through participatory approach.11
4.0 Analytical Framework
It is not uncommon for social scientists, when called upon to address social problems, to pronounce widely divergent views, assessments and policy prescriptions.12 Given a similar quantity and quality of information, they are capable of reaching completely opposing sides on the issue. This can partly be explained by complexity of most social problems that have defied human capacity to comprehend. But it is also true that analysing social problems is more than collecting, organising, and disseminating information in the form understandable to users, be it other researchers or policy makers. It goes without saying, therefore, that how one goes about the business of attaching meaning to words, facts and numbers is as important as the task of collecting and organising them. In other words, analytical framework matters in social science research (Bobrow and Dryzek 1987).
Indeed, much of the controversy surrounding research on poverty is based on the meaning researchers attach to words, facts and numbers. Thus, elaborate graphs and charts made possible by use of sophisticated, number-crunching machines called computers definitely send powerful messages to those looking at them. But by themselves they are meaningless unless one interprets them or attaches meaning to them. Once that is done then a completely new problem arises, one of assumptions, values and ideological biases. Put it differently, analysis of social problems is not value-free since researchers bring into social science research their share of values and/or biases.13 Of course, this is not to suggest that some objectivity is impossible to achieve in the social sciences. Instead, utmost care needs to be exercised in analysing complex social problems such as poverty.
As far as poverty reduction is concerned developing an appropriate analytical framework is likely to contribute to the effectiveness of policy analysis. In fact, some of the difficulties of social science research discussed in this paper can be traced back to the analytical frameworks that are out of step with developments in both conceptual and methodological frameworks. Thus, while much progress has been achieved in the area of problem identification and definition, and to some extent, research methods, little progress has been made in developing an appropriate framework for analysing mountains of data generated by poverty studies. Therefore, we need to go beyond description of situations that has dominated policy-oriented studies on poverty reduction or alleviation.
What is at stake is the extent to which our analyses of poverty and poverty reduction can be translated into an agenda for public action as elaborated in the next section. In a field as complex as poverty, improved analysis should inform stakeholders the most efficient and cost-effective ways of dealing with poverty problem. The onus lies with social science researchers who must come up with credible alternative to “muddling through” or “trial and error” witnessed among policy makers. This is the area requiring a great deal of support from within the research community and from the outside, including education and training institutions.14
The few researches reviewed for this paper shows that being case studies and exploratory in nature the analysis has tended to be descriptive and the accompanying policy recommendations leave much to be desired.15 While the approach serves useful purpose in general understanding of the problem it provides little when it comes to knowing what works and what does not in policy interventions. The latter requires significant departure from the existing practice of social accounting and the adoption of analytical framework that would allow analysts to determine the impact of social interventions on poverty reduction. As we note above, this requires capacity building in the area of social science research that goes beyond the task of preparing fundable research proposals.
5.0 Public Policy Implications
The available evidence suggests that public policies have a lot to do with the existing state of poverty in Tanzania and elsewhere (Mtatifikolo 1994; World Bank 1990). On the one hand, inappropriate or bad policies pursued by governments are being blamed for creating and sustaining poverty conditions. On the other hand, solving the problem, be it poverty reduction, alleviation or eradication, calls for, among other things, willingness and ability to design and implement the right kind of public policies. It is no wonder that of late governments have come under pressure to put in place public policies to address the problem on the understanding that such intervention is the right thing to do. However, to any student of public policy, one important question arises: in this interface between poverty and public policy, what is the role of social science research enterprise?
So far, we have noted that one of the basic functions of social science research is the opportunity to provide systematic understanding of the social problems. Thus, for problems of complexity such as poverty successful problem solving depends very much on how knowledge on the problem is created, organised and utilised by stakeholders. In other words, social science researchers through their “scientific methods” are capable of generating such knowledge that in turn has proven quite useful in social problem solving.
The experience has demonstrated that despite its useful role and place in policy-making process, social science research can prove to be very problematic indeed. The utilisation of the results of research, scientific or not, is not a straightforward matter as most people would want to believe. More often, some important or even landmark policy decisions, including those involving poverty reduction, are reached without meaningful input from social science research. Instead, social scientists in their other role as “consultants” are called upon to provide impact assessment or evaluation of the policies when the damage is already done. On the other hand, libraries and government offices are filled with unread research reports that were intended to provide inputs to decision-making processes.
There is no doubt that the situation calls for some rethinking about the role of social science research in the design and implementation of public policies, including poverty reduction. However, it must be pointed out that the involved parties, that is, researchers and policy makers, must take share of the blame for turning social science research into an ineffective decision-making tool. Faced with enormous pressure from the public to get things done, or at least seem to be doing something, the political and bureaucratic elite shows little patience to wait for results of investigations by social scientists to know the true nature of the problem. More often than not, time and resources do not provide opportunity for “experts” to come up with well thought out solutions especially for complex problems such as poverty that may call for long-term studies or even social experimentation where deemed necessary.
On their part social science researchers are faced with a twin dilemma. On the one hand, they must meet the rigour of their respective disciplines for their work to be taken seriously by peer groups. On the other hand, in order for their work to be of any use to decision-makers and others, including policy activists and lobbyists, it must not only be timely but also be relevant, practical and cost-effective. In addition, it must be presented in the form that can be easily understood by intended users including “street-level bureaucrats.”16 By any standard, this is a tall order to meet. It is no wonder that social science researchers are being accused, sometimes rightly so, for not being realistic and of speaking from the comfort of their “ivory towers.” They find comfort in talking to each other and past the policy makers (Staats 1980). The performance of the few who have managed to switch sides to become the modern-day version of Plato’s “philosopher king” leaves much to be desired.17
Thus, bridging the existing gap between social science research and public policy requires a multi-pronged approach. One way is for researchers to become familiar with the intricacies of the policy-making process. The prevailing attitude among researchers that “facts will speak for themselves” is misleading and does not help in rectifying the situation. The truth of the matter is that facts do not speak for themselves; instead they need to be interpreted if they are to be of any use (Rosenthal 1980). At the same time, however, policy-makers do not wander around looking for advice from whatever sources out there. In this regard, one is reminded of Machiavelli’s contention that “The prince ought always to take counsel but only when he wishes, not when others wish.”18
Of course, we are living in a world quite different from the one of Machiavelli nearly five hundred years ago. Ours is a more complex world in all aspects of social life and policy makers are not expected to be “jacks of all trades” or “experts” in all areas of importance. But it is also true that their effectiveness as leaders depends on their willingness to learn and accept counsel by “experts”. More important, they should be appreciative of the role of social science research in informing the policy-making process and it should be reflected in the amount of resources devoted to sustaining the research enterprise.19
The experience elsewhere has shown that it is possible to at least narrow the communication gap that exists between social scientists and policy community (Weiss 1978; Rivlin 1971). One proposal is for increased interaction between the two camps so that they become aware of the contributions each can make or is making in social problem-solving. Of course, this should go beyond cross-invitations to workshops, seminars or similar gatherings.20 But this is not without a catch as the old saying goes: “you can take the camel to the watering hole but cannot force it to drink.” On the one hand, policy-makers are not obliged to accept the results of social science research if they think that doing so would compromise what they value most or will result into a loss of hard-earned political capital, especially in this era of multi-party politics we proudly call “democracy.” On their part, social science researchers need not compromise their “objectivity” in order to meet the exigencies of the political and bureaucratic elite or in exchange for position in the political party or the government of the day.21
However, it will be doing social science research enterprise a great service if researchers could be much more accommodating in their thinking given their role and place in social problem-solving. They must be aware of the potential for social science research in helping society understand some of the critical links between scientific knowledge and policy action with carefully designed and executed research. For this to happen, however, requires researchers to pay attention to utilisation of their results/findings. The current practice of looking at findings as ends in themselves is giving social science research a bad name and rightly so. Of course, this should not be construed as downplaying research that generates knowledge for knowledge sake. What we are trying to imply here is that social science research should add value to society’s pool of knowledge while at the same time promoting its utilization in social problem-solving.
6.0 Concluding Remarks
In this paper, we have attempted to show that poverty is the most pressing social problem in Tanzania and many other African countries. Efforts of the past four decades to solve the problem, though commendable, have been met with limited successes. Poverty conditions have worsened over the past few years despite concerted efforts aimed at its eradication or alleviation. There is no doubt that the situation calls for, among other things, rethinking about both the problem and strategies for dealing with it. In this connection, it has been argued that social science research has an important role to play. The situation presents both challenges and opportunities to social scientists and policy-makers alike.
One area in which social science research contribution is much needed is in the development of a conceptual framework of the poverty problem. It has been argued that as a social concept poverty can mean different things to different people depending on their background, social values and ideological biases. However, carefully designed and executed social science research provides us with opportunity for better understanding of an admittedly complex and dynamic social phenomenon. In turn, a well-developed conceptual framework provides the basis for sustained and more targeted “war on poverty.” In other words, concerted efforts are needed to provide a better understanding of the problem.
We have also noted that the effectiveness of social science research is the function of a methodological framework adopted in investigating the problem. Four main approaches to poverty research have been identified: case studies, cross-sectional surveys, panel or longitudinal studies, and social experiments. Each has both its strengths and weaknesses and deciding which one to use must take into consideration the timeframe and the available human and financial resources. However, given the dynamic nature of the concept it has been suggested that research should be guided by a long-term view of the problem so as to capture changes over time, resources permitting.
Analytically, solving the poverty problem calls for establishment of appropriate analytical framework. It has been noted that the analysis of policy-oriented researches on poverty must take into account some inherent biases. Much of the policy recommendations on how to alleviate or eradicate poverty conditions are couched in values and ideological biases of researchers. The experience has shown that far from being “objective” researchers are known to let such biases influence their analyses and conclusions. Therefore, it is hoped that with appropriate analytical framework it will be possible to avoid some analytical pitfalls that have tended to limit usefulness of social science research.
Furthermore, discussion on the interface between social science research and public policy has provided insights into the functioning of the two systems. We have noted that a communication gap exists between them that influences the contribution of social science research to social problem-solving, poverty reduction in particular. Thus, it has been suggested that social science researchers must strive to “market” their wares, that is, ensuring the outcome of their work serves as inputs in informing the policy-making process. On their part, policy-makers must be appreciative of the role social science research plays not only in understanding social problems but also in helping to solve them.
Finally, one must be aware of limitations of both social science research and public policy in addressing poverty and related problems. That despite the potential that exists it must be made clear that social science research is not a panacea to the poverty problem. The past is characterised by false hopes, broken promises, and missed opportunities. The current state of poverty presents both challenges and opportunities to social science researchers and policy-makers. The successes of poverty reduction strategies and/or policies depend on how they team up to face the challenges and exploit opportunities that avail themselves, short of which the “war on poverty” will go into history as yet another missed opportunity.
Notes
The most recent ones read: “Terror attack will worsen poverty” and “Economic growth is important in poverty alleviation” (Financial Times 21-27 Nov. 2001); “Engineers meet to discuss poverty” (The Guardian 19 Nov. 2001); “Why small-scale miners languish in poverty” (Business Times 16 Nov. 2001); and “UN agencies and poverty reduction” (The Guardian 27 Nov. 2001).
Indeed, every October 17th is observed as the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, reflecting the international solidarity in the “war against poverty’.
UNICEF’s call for adjustment with human face helped to highlight the plight of the poor and other disadvantaged groups (women, children and the aged) in adjusting African countries.
HIPC initiative and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers are part of the concerted efforts to address the poverty problem.
Its outcome became the subject of heated public debate during the 1970s and 1980s, and continues to dominate American social welfare policies today (See Dobelstein 1990; Moynihan 1970; Cochran et al. 1990).
Perhaps Charles Lindblom’s “The science of muddling through” (Lindblom 1959) better characterises the ongoing effort to arrive at a better definition of poverty. The concept has been defined differently by different people. For Tanzanian cases see Bagachwa (1994).
Different disciplines of social sciences approach social problems differently. For example, economists have perfected the art of statistical modelling of human behaviour while in psychology social experiments are common (see Johnson and Joslyn 1991; O’Sullivan and Rassel 1989; Mitchell and Jolley 1988).
One would think institutions such as REPOA, University of Dar es Salaam, Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF) or Bureau of Statistics should embark on such long-term venture within the context of Tanzania’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper.
This is a relatively new area and much of the work is in the field of psychology. Some of the pioneering writings includes: Campbell and Stanley (1966); Ebert and Kamrass (1974); Cook and Campbell (1979).
The best known experimental research is the one undertaken at the Bell Laboratories at Hawthorne, popularly referred to as Hawthorne effects involving changes in the working environment. A combination of incentives or disincentives, rewards or penalties is used to induce changes in behaviour. The case in point is the Negative Income Tax in the USA (Friedman 1984, 86).
Advocates of “participatory approach” have been attracting a lot of attention lately. The thrust of their argument is that efforts aimed at poverty reduction can accomplish little if the poor themselves are not involved in the process. Participation, therefore, entails empowering the poor in identifying and defining problems, undertaking needs assessment and, more important, in suggesting solutions to the problems. So far, there is scarce evidence to suggest that the findings are more revealing or policy recommendations more result-oriented when participatory technique is employed. Perhaps, this is one area where social experimentation is called for.
Of course, while agreements or disagreements are staples of social sciences and need to be encouraged for healthy intellectual discourse, they raise some questions to untrained observers including the policy-makers. The latter are often wary of making decisions in things that may only be true lest they come under criticism for adopting policies they should not have adopted in the first place, the spirit of ‘learning-by-doing’ notwithstanding. See Palumbo (1998) and Lindblom (1990).
The case in point is the work of American sociologist Charles Murray, whose analysis of poverty conditions in American society has generated much controversy in both academic and policy circles. The trust of the argument in his book, The Bell Curve, is that people are poor because they are not smart enough – have low I.Q. – to move up the social ladder (DeParle 1994). See also Rivlin (1973), on how values and biases are shaping up analyses in social sciences.
It is nearly ten years since REPOA, the local ‘think tank’ on poverty issues, has started its work. There is no doubt that much has been accomplished during the period, but it is also true that much remains to be done in terms of capacity building in the area of policy-oriented research and analysis (Komba 1999).
However, it must be pointed out that the author had access to ‘policy briefs’ downloaded from REPOA’s website. More evaluation work is needed in this area.
The term coined by the American political scientist Michael Lipsky (1980), to describe those individuals who on a day-to-day basis have direct contact with citizens and are engaged in interpretation and/or implementation of government laws, rules, and regulations in addition to delivering important services (Palumbo 1988, 95).
Lacking innate instincts needed to survive in the murky waters of politics some have been forced to relinquish their positions because of unsubstantiated allegations of corruption. Those who have attempted to speak “truth to the power” have either been left in the cold or turned themselves into professional “carpet-baggers”, that is, remain in positions, however low in status, so long as there are some financial gains.
In The Prince, written in 1513, quoted in Benveniste (1972, 3).
The case in point is the implementation of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) where one would expect commitment to support social science research as part and parcel of implementation strategy. Given the long-term nature of the strategy perhaps panel or longitudinal studies or social experiments rather than short-term consultancies or evaluations would be the most ideal.
Of late, this is emerging as growth industry in social science research at the risk of being ridiculed for turning acute social problems into petty projects of a few individual researchers or “experts”. The “talk shops” serve very limited purposes when it comes to bridging the knowledge gap among stakeholders.
Here one is reminded of writings of Niccolo Machiavelli’s (1469-1527) The Prince and Francis Bacon’s (1561-1626) New Atlantis, who after falling out of favour from the governments they served wrote nice things to win back their positions (Parsons 1995, 41-45).
References
Abt, C. C., 1980. The theory gap in social policy research. In Problems of American policy research, edited by C. C. Abt. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Books.
Bagachwa, M. S. D., ed. 1994. Poverty alleviation in Tanzania: Recent research issues. Dar es Salaam: DUP.
Beauchamp, T. L. et al., eds. 1982. Ethical issues in social science research. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Benveniste, G. 1972. The politics of expertise. San Francisco: Boyd & Fraser/Glendessary Publishing Company.
Bobrow, D. B., and J. S. Dryzek. 1987. Policy analysis by design. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Business Times. 2001. Why small-scale miners languish in poverty. (16 November).
Campbell, D. T., and J. C. Stanley. 1966. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Clark, B. 1985. Comparative political economy. 2nd ed. London: Praeger Publishers.
Cochran, C. E., et al. 1990. American public policy: An introduction. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Cook, T. D., and D. T. Campbell. 1979. Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
DeParle, J. 1994. Daring research or ‘social science pornography’? The New York Times Magazine. (9 October).
Dobelstein, A. W. 1990. Social welfare, policy and analysis. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.
Ebert, J. G., and M. Kamrass, eds. 1974. Social experiments and social program evaluation. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.
Financial Times. 2001. “Terror attack will worsen poverty,” “Economic growth is important in poverty alleviation”. (21-27 October).
Fowler, F. J. 1993. Survey research method. 2nd ed. SAGE Publications.
Friedman, L. S. 1984. Microeconomic policy analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
The Guardian. 2001. Engineers meet to discuss poverty. (19 November).
_____. 2001. UN agencies and poverty reduction. (27 November).
Hoover, K. R. 1984. The elements of social scientific thinking. 3rd ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Jambiya, G., et al. 1997. Poverty and the environment: The case of informal sand-mining, quarrying and lime-making activities in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. REPOA Research Report, no. 91: 1.
Johnson, J. B., and R. A. Joslyn. 1991. Political science research methods. 2nd ed. Washington, DC.: CQ Press.
Kingdon, J. W. 1984. Agendas, alternatives, and policies.Harper Collins Publishers.
Komba, A. A. 1999. Teaching and researching public policy in contemporary African university and implications for democratic governance. University of Dar es Salaam.
Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Likwelile, S. B. 1998. Understanding the basics of poverty targeting and safety nets provisions: Tanzania as an illustrative case.
Lindblom, C. E. 1959. The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 14: 79-88.
_____. 1990. Inquiry and change, the troubled attempt to understand and shape society. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lipsky, M. 1980. Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russel Sage.
Lister, R. 1991. Concepts of poverty. Social Studies Review 6, no. 5: 1992-5.
Majchrzak, A. 1984. Methods for public policy research. SAGE Publications.
Mascarenhas, A. 1994. Environmental issues and poverty alleviation in Tanzania. In Poverty alleviation in Tanzania: Recent research issues, edited by M. S. D. Bagachwa. Dar es Salaam: DUP.
______. 2000. Poverty, environment and livelihood along the gradients of the Usambaras in Tanzania. REPOA Research Report, no. 2.
Mitchell, M., and J. Jolley. 1988. Research design explained. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Moynihan, D. P. 1970. Maximum feasible misunderstanding: Community action in the war on poverty. New York: The Free Press.
Mtatifikolo, F. 1994. Implications for public policies on poverty and poverty alleviation. In Poverty alleviation in Tanzania: Recent research issues, edited by M. S. D. Bagachwa. Dar es Salaam: DUP.
Mutagwaba, W., et al. 1997. The impact of technology on poverty alleviation: The case of artisanal mining in Tanzania. REPOA Research Report, no. 97: 1
Omari, C. K. 1994. Social and cultural factors influencing poverty in Tanzania. In Poverty alleviation in Tanzania: Recent research issues, edited by M. S. D. Bagachwa. Dar es Salaam: DUP.
O’Sullivan, E., and G. R. Rassel. 1989. Research methods for public administrators. New York: Longman.
Palumbo, D. J., 1988. Public policy in America: Government in action. Washington D.C.: Harcourt Brace Jovonovich.
Parsons, W. 1995. Public policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Brookfield: Edward Elgar.
Rivlin, A. M. 1971. Systematic thinking for social action. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
_____. 1973. Forensic social science. Harvard Educational Review 3, no. 1: 61-75.
Rosenthal, S. R. 1980. The science/fiction of research utilisation. In Problems of American policy research, edited by C. C. Abt. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Books.
Staats, E. B. 1980. Why isn’t policy research utilised more by decision makers? Or Why do researchers talk only to each other?). In Problems of American policy research, edited by C. C. Abt. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Books.
Starling, G. 1993. Managing the public sector. 4th ed. California, Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
Weiss, C. H. 1978. Improving the linkage between social research and public policy. In Knowledge and policy: The uncertain connection, edited by Lawrence Lynn. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
World Bank. 1990. World Development Report, 1990. Oxford University Press.
_____. 2001. World Development Report, 2000/2001. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
* The author is a Lecturer at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), University of Dar es Salaam. The paper was first presented at the OSSREA Tanzania National Chapter's 4th National Workshop held in Dar es Salaam, from 12-13 February 2002.