GDI at DSA 2016
Next week, many of us from the Global Development Institute will be at the Development Studies Association Conference hosted by the Oxford Department of International Development (ODID) at the University of Oxford. Make sure to stop by the GDI stand in the North Schools (Examination Schools) but if you’re panel hopping and want to see as much of GDI as possible, here’s a daily run down of where to find us:
Monday 12 September
14:00-15:00
The politics of leadership and elite interactions in bureaucratic reforms: Why relational leadership matters for sustainable organisational change presented by Kelechi Ekuma in Room 10 (Examination Schools)
Understanding an emerging vulnerable group in Chile: out of poverty but in risk of being in poverty again presented by Amanda Telias in Room 12 (Examination Schools)
Changing the politics of the state towards more inclusive cities: experiences from two cities in India presented by Diana Mitlin in Lecture Room B (Queens College). For more on this topic, see the Global Urban Research Centre website.
Is Partisan Alignment Electorally Rewarding? Evidence from Village Council Elections in India presented by Subhasish Dey and Kunal Sen in Room 15 (Examination Schools)
19:00-19:30
Join founding editors of the series, Andrew Fischer (Institute of Social Studies, The Hague), Giles Mohan (Open University), and GDI’s Uma Kothari, in North Schools (Examination Schools) to celebrate the launch of the OUP-DSA book series on Critical Frontiers of Theory, Research and Practice in International Development Studies
Tuesday 13 September
9:00-10:30
Beyond the ‘new’ new institutionalism: debating the real comparative politics of development panel in Room 14 (Examination Schools) convened by Sam Hickey and Kunal Sen, chaired by David Hulme and joined by discussant James Robinson. This session will explore how politics shapes economic/social development through a focus on the findings of the Effective States and Inclusive Development (ESID) research centre, including the Going beyond ‘politics matters’: New insights into how politics and power shapes development paper presented by Sam Hickey and Kunal Sen.
Digital politics, institutional logics and development presented by Richard Heeks in East Schools (Examination Schools). To download a PDF of the paper, click here and for even more, visit the Centre for Development Informatics website.
Rising powers and the emergence of the global development era: a geographical perspective presented by Rory Horner in Room 6 (Examination Schools). For more on the Rising Powers and Interdependent Futures, click here to visit the network’s website.
The role and responsibility of foreign aid in recipient political settlements presented by Pablo Yanguas in Room 15 (Examination Schools)
Losing and Remaking Home following Conflict and Displacement presented by Luis Eduardo Perez Murcia in Room 9 (Examination Schools). Click here to view an interactive website that explores this research.
14:00-15:30
Public representations of refugees and the power of a warm welcome presented by Uma Kothari in Summer Common Room (Magdalen College) – for more, watch Uma’s lecture on the question: is water safer than land?
‘The Infiltrator’ versus ‘the Refugee’: exploring new forms of solidarity and their limitations within the Israeli asylum regime and beyond presented by Tanja Müller in Summer Common Room (Magdalen College). For more on this research, visit Tanja’s blog and the project website here.
Facing conflict barriers in the implementation of Colombian inclusive business: a peace-building approach presented by Angelica Fernandez in Room 15 (Examination Schools)
Measuring the role of governance in environmental upgrading: the case of Kenyan horticulture farmers presented by Aarti Krishnan in Room 7 (Examination Schools). Aarti has also blogged about the PhD fieldwork experience.
Towards a Sustainable Resource Governance Regime in Ghana: An Investigation into the Political Dynamics of Institutional Development and Performance presented by Ishmael Ayanoore in Memorial Room (Queens College)
Is there space for bottom-up approaches in education within development policies? presented by Jaime Echavarri in Room 11 (Examination Schools)
16:00-17:30
Are contextual factors responsible for the effects poverty eradication and human development policies? presented by Daniele Malerba in Room 14 (Examination Schools)
How does corporate social responsibility affect national politics? The case of mining in Ghana, Peru and Zambia presented by Tomas Frederiksen in Room 7 (Examination Schools), and for more information, click here.
Wednesday 14 September
9:00-10:30
Global decisions and local realities: the politics and policies of upgrading and their implications in agricultural global production networks presented by Judith Krauss and Aarti Krishnan in Room 15 (Examination Schools). For intersection of chocolate and global production networks, read about Judith’s research here.
11:00-12:30
CSR standards in China: Social upgrading and industrial policy goals in GPNs presented by Corinna Braun-Munzinger in Room 15 (Examination Schools).
14:15-16:15
Plenary panel on Brexit and International Development: What is the UK’s future role? Chaired by David Hulme (DSA President), the panel will also include: Alice Evans (Lecturer in Human Geography, University of Cambridge), Nick Dearden (Director, Global Justice Now), Duncan Green (Senior Strategic Advisor, Oxfam GB) and Simon Maxwell (Past President of DSA and former Director ODI). The session will examine the implications of the UK’s decision to leave the EU andwhat the Development Studies community could do to ensure that Brexit does not weaken the positive contribution that the UK can make to the achievement of development goals in the future (directly and in collaboration with other nations). All participants in this closing session are encouraged to think in advance about:
(i) What will be the major impacts of the UK leaving the EU?
(ii) What can researchers, teachers, policy analysts and activists do to help ensure the UK can contribute to social progress across the world?
Does social protection also make economic sense? The case of Uganda
Daniele Malerba is a PhD researcher at the Global Development Institute
A large share of the population in Uganda is still economically vulnerable, despite a remarkable reduction in poverty in recent decades. The proportion of the population living with incomes below the widely used international poverty line of USD 1.90 a day decreased sharply from nearly 90% at the end on the 1980s to around 33% in 2012 (World Bank, 2016). Nonetheless, a large share of Ugandans still lives on low incomes, and is very vulnerable to falling into poverty. More importantly, this high vulnerability is not matched by adequate access to social security, direct income support, formal pensions or social care services.
In light of this situation, there is scope and a need to use social protection in Uganda to reduce poverty and vulnerability. 
The country took an important first step with the creation of the Expanding Social Protection Program (ESP) that established a national social protection system as a core element in the national planning and budgeting process. The ESP was approved by the Cabinet in 2010 on a pilot basis and initially funded by donors (DFID, Irish Aid and UNICEF) as part of the National Development Plan. Its core objective is to reduce vulnerability and enhance productivity, with the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development responsible for its implementation. The ESP’s flagship program is SAGE – Social Assistance Grants for Empowerment, which consists of two types of social transfers, both delivering a bi-monthly cash transfer of UGX 50,000. The first one is the Senior Citizen Grant (SCG), an old age social pension for people over 65 years. The second program is Vulnerable Family Grant (VFG), a cash transfer targeted to labour constrained and vulnerable households.[1]
The good news is that a recent evaluation of SAGE indicated that the program has had positive effects on household welfare. Beneficiary households reported higher consumption expenditures, particularly with respect to food, which led to a decrease of food insecurity and hunger. Households also used part of the transfers for health and education related expenditures and investments in productive assets (Merttens et al., 2016). Despite increasing political will and positive initial results that echo international evidence for the adoption of social protection programmes, funding remains low, with the current spending in Uganda at only 0.78% of GDP. This reflects different priorities and problems related to limited fiscal space.
What can be done to argue for increasing public spending on social protection? It is important not to rely solely on existing evidence that such spending will reduce vulnerability, but to also demonstrate that non-contributory social protection is more than just an expenditure; governments should also consider it a strategic investment for economic growth and/through human capital development.
Social protection, especially in the form of cash transfers, alleviates household financial constraints and thus increases investments in both human and physical capital and assets. This should in turn mean higher earnings and higher income. Therefore, social protection is more than a line of expenditure: the returns are potentially significant and should be taken into account in the evaluation of these programs, as some research has already done (Mideros et al., 2012). Moreover, these returns are a complementary, but not substitutive, function to the main role of social protection, further enhancing the programme’s ability to reduce poverty and vulnerability.
To address these issues in the context of Uganda, a team of researchers from Makerere University (Kampala), MGSoG/UNU-Merit (Maastricht University), the Global Development Institute (The University of Manchester) and the Expanding Social Protection Programme, Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (Kampala) is researching the estimation of these economic (monetary) returns of social protection. This research, funded by NWO-WOTRO, will hopefully shed light on the strategic importance of social protection within the Ugandan economy, as well evaluating the returns of different social protection programmes, economic mobility and effects on the local economy. The team aims to do this by using both primary (national household surveys) and secondary data (data collected through short surveys and in depth interviews).
The research project was officially launched in October 2015 in Kampala, and will end in 2017, resulting in a report and several papers for publication and dissemination. A second visit took place during summer 2016 to present preliminary data and collect additional data. Watch this space for further updates on the project and get in touch if you have any questions.
[1] The VFG program will be discontinued in the future and the SCG will be rolled out in additional districts using a slightly modified targeting mechanism
References
Barrientos, A. (2013). Social assistance in developing countries. Cambridge University Press.
Mideros, A., Gassmann, F., & Mohnen, P. (2016). Estimation of rates of return on social protection: ex ante microsimulation of social transfers in Cambodia. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 8(1), 67-86.
Merttens et al. (2016). Evaluation of The Uganda Social Assistance Grants for Empowerment (SAGE) Programme – Impact after two years of programme operations 2012-2014 Final report. Oxford Policy Management.
World Development Indicators, World Bank
.
Looking good and making a fast buck? Why rich countries help the poor.
WATCH | Sam Hickey asks what do you get from a political settlements perspective?
Professor Samuel Hickey recently spoke at the University of Edinburgh Political Settlements Research Programme Summer School, on the comparative insights into the politics of development in Africa.
We’re looking for a lecturer in Information and Communication Technology for Development
The Global Development Institute is looking for a permanent lecturer in Information and Communication Technology for Development. We are looking to appoint an outstanding individual who willmake a central and strategic contribution to, and enhancement of, our research and teaching programmes in the information systems/ICTs and development domain. You will also have a definable area of research and teaching interests that will complement those already present within the Development Informatics Group and the wider context of GDI; and direct experience of digital systems in developing/emerging economies through development of or research into such systems is essential for this post.
Applications close 29th September 2016
The Africa Agenda 2063 and the SDGs: the African Union barks, but will it find its bite?
Fortunate Machingura, former PhD student at the Global Development Institute
This blog has been republished from the Overseas Development Institute and was written by Fortunate Machingura, a GDI alumna who completed her PhD in Development Policy and Management earlier this year. Fortunate is now a Research Fellow for the Development Progress project at ODI.
The African Union (AU) is often described as a ‘toothless bulldog’ withcredibility and legitimacy deficits. But its recent work may be indicative of a changing status. Through the Africa Agenda 2063(AA2063) – a framework reflecting African solutions to its problems – the AU appears to challenge western hegemony on global development and, in the process, has laid down two significant markers of change.
Firstly, at a joint conference with UNECA in Addis Ababa in April 2016, the AU embraced an integrated approach to the implementation and tracking of the AA2063 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Building on the common African position on the post-2015 development agenda , the conference agreed on a single periodic progress report on both agendas, and to step up efforts to combat corruption. Secondly, the AU is trying to tackle the fragmentation of its states through a continent-wide approach that centralises decision-making and speeds up development progress.
This new approach represents an emerging narrative of African solidarity and political tenacity, which has the potential to lead to greater freedom of movement, reduced trade barriers and coordinated efforts to tackle problems of social, economic and political capital. For example, coordination between oil-rich countries (e.g. Ghana and Nigeria) and the African ores (e.g. the Democratic Republic of Congo, Botswana, South Africa, Tanzania) could provide unprecedented economic opportunities due to the huge labour market coupled with a youthful population.
For these developments to be realised, however, it is imperative that there are mechanisms that recognise these new patterns of political connection and solidarity among African states and global partners. While the recent Côte d’Ivoire high-level political forum on SDGs and the April 2016 New York high-level forum on Africa are examples of recent efforts to strengthen solidarity with Africa and beyond, more is needed to translate these high-level political forums into real actions that help the most impoverished communities.
While these platforms were progressive, they must also be recognized as taking place during a political conjuncture in Africa, fraught with multiple-transitions and troubling antinomies. These include transitions between postcolonial periods and development periods, taking place in an era of renewed conflict as seen in Burundi, Sudan,Somalia, Libya or Egypt or Zimbabwe, and a clear transition from the history of authoritarian political settlements typical of most African countries characterised by limited leadership accountability; to a systematic accountability mechanism for every African country. There is obvious tension here. On one hand the AU is trying to pool sovereignty at the regional level through different high-level political mechanisms, while on the other hand it is contesting accountability at the national level and yet lacks the power to institutionalise checks and balances.
The multi-stakeholder Africa Regional Dialogue, convened by ODIand KIPPRA in April 2016, identified some risks of combining both agendas. Foremost is whether the SDGs and the associated accountability frameworks can help to foster the broader development of national-level accountability. Some African countries may legitimately resist the agreed results framework, citing diversity and complexity of country contexts. It is possible that imposing a regionally agreed framework on countries might be viewed as highly intrusive, and thus open to challenges and resistance. This is not just conjecture – the resistance of some African States (e.g. Uganda,Zimbabwe, Nigeria) to observe the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) populations despite agreeing to the AU’s 2014resolution 275 on the on the protection against violence and rights violations on the basis of real or imputed sexual orientation or gender identity is a prime example.
At the moment consensus is lacking on how SDG implementation can succeed in environments of disparate governance, especially given the history of failure of most states to aid participatory politics in Africa. The addition of the AA2063 agenda into the global conversation on SDGs offers renewed hope that the AU may have found its political voice. It is yet to be seen, however, whether this newfound voice can gain traction with the AU’s own constitutive bodies and members in a manner that allows the Union not just to bark, but also to bite.
Climate change documentary premiers at Manchester Museum
Last night we teamed up with the Manchester Museum, to premier the documentary ‘The Lived Experience of Climate Change: A Story of One Piece of Land in Dhaka’.
The event was part of the Museum’s Climate Control season, which seeks to not just educate people about climate change, but really engage them in the issues surrounding it. The documentary is a fantastic example of how Dr Joanne Jordan did just that around her research findings on the links between climate change and land tenure in the slums of Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Rather than simply writing up her results in a journal article and perhaps distilling it into a short briefing, Joanne worked with the University of Dhaka to develop her insights into an interactive performance. This was based on a local ‘pot gan’ format and was used to spark engagement and further discussions with the communities living in the slum and with other researchers and policy makers.
Appropriately, the premier was held in the stunning Living World’s galley at the Manchester Museum, adding even more to the drama of the evening.
Working with the talented Bangladeshi filmmaker Ehsan Kabir took a significant investment of time, but it has enabled Joanne to bring the insights of her research to a much broader audience.
Demonstrating the messy complexities of how poverty, migration, gender dynamics and community conflicts interact with day to day impacts of flooding and climate change though drama gives an incredibly rich insight into the experiences of people living in Dhaka’s slums.
Early next year, we’re hoping to present the film in partnership with Bangladeshi organisations in East London … so watch this space!
Staff Spotlight: Dr Joanne Jordan
What is the current focus of your research?
My research tries to understand the connections between climate change, vulnerability and complex notions of risk. For the past nine years, I’ve been working on those issues in the context of Bangladesh, currently in Dhaka and previously in more rural settings. All of my research since my PhD has looked at local priorities and realities of climate change, trying to understand how communities perceive climate change, what impact climate change has, how that impact varies between different vulnerable groups within the community, and finally, what are the various response strategies they have developed.
More broadly, I’m trying to answer why people act the way they act. Why do they make particular decisions? So a lot of my work involves having in-depth conversations and using a storytelling approach to try to understand motivations. From there, I’m interested in why the impact and responses are so different – the differential can give us a huge insight into why some people and groups are more vulnerable than others.
Why did you decide to do research at the local level?
I’m passionate about communities! Meeting people in the field is what I enjoy the most. When I’m thinking about a theoretical issue, I can think of a participant who illustrated that issue with their story and it’s not just number 55 in my interview sheet – it’s someone with a name, someone I’ve shared a cup of tea with. The personal connection translates to teaching as well: it helps students understand the theories better because they have something more human to relate to.
Why is it important to study climate change at the local level?
If you look at any given international or national intervention, whether it’s going to be accepted, modified or completely rejected by the locals depends on its fit within their understandings of climate change and their everyday realities. So to create effective climate resilience strategies, it’s crucial to really understand how the community works, which requires a lot of fieldwork and examining gender histories as well as cultural and power dynamics. And this applies to all interventions at the local level, not just those seeking to address climate change.
What frustrates you as a researcher?
Being asked, “do the urban poor in Bangladesh understand what climate change is?” It always shocks me: it implies that they (and urban poor in other developing countries) may not know what climate change is, and that climate change or development experts somehow know better. The slum dwellers I work with in Dhaka may not use the same scientific terminology, but of course they know what climate change is. More broadly, the question frustrates me because it implies that the people suffering from climate change in developing countries have to learn something, when in fact they have so much to teach us, the researchers and experts, about climate change and resilience in their local context. I sometimes feel there has been too much focus on the flow of knowledge from experts into communities and not from communities to experts. One is not more important than the other, and there is a need to consider: how can we better integrate these different forms of knowledge?
What do you like about working as a researcher at GDI?
GDI has given me great flexibility to conduct fieldwork. I’ve been able to go to Bangladesh for three or four months in a year and be in a community every day from 6am to 6pm or even longer. That has given me crucial space to challenge any pre-existing notions or opinions, to immerse myself in the community and be open and reflective, which is key in allowing others to teach you something. Even experts can become entrenched.
How does your work address global inequalities which is one of the University of Manchester’s five research beacons?
Currently, mainstream work on reducing inequality doesn’t take into account the different risks that people face as a result of climate change, so the interventions that are aimed at reducing inequality are likely to be less effective. And inequality affects how people respond to climate change – my research looks at how those responses differ and why, and that can point to what kinds of interventions will help even out the playing field. The majority of those affected by climate change are already poor and are likely to become poorer as a result of climate change.
What research project(s) have been highlights for you?
The Pot Gan, which is not a research project itself, but a traditional Bangladeshi folk performance that I developed in cooperation with the University of Dhaka to explore the findings of my latest research on climate change and land tenure.
It came about because you can have an impact as a researcher if you analyse data, publish papers, disseminate your work and teach students, but I always wanted to go a step further. The Pot Gan is my attempt to give something back to the community I studied rather than parachute in, get my data and run back.
What research is the Pot Gan based on?
My ongoing work on urban climate change resilience and vulnerability. Most of the research is forthcoming, but broadly looks at how climate change and its impact influence land tenure and how land tenure may influence the impact of climate change.
It’s fascinating to me how climate change is so closely linked to other risks the urban poor face: imagine you are renting a house in a slum in Dhaka for £20 per month. The landlord decides to undertake a really positive intervention: upgrading the house to make it more resistant to climate change, namely flooding. Your rent may go up to £25-30. That might only sound like a few pints in the pub for us, but in Dhaka it may mean that the renter can no longer afford to live in that house and has to move to other housing that is even more prone to flooding. Or they endure the rent increase, but that exacerbates a different vulnerability by raising the economic pressures they are under. The intervention was positive and lowered one risk, but the renter either hasn’t escaped it at all, or has found another risk is increased.
If I went to visit Dhaka, what’s the one thing I should do or see?
My best days in Dhaka have always involved getting up at sunrise armed with my camera and wandering around the streets in Old Dhaka: the most captivating thing about Dhaka is simply watching life unfold in front of you. You don’t have to look hard! Everyone should definitely go on a walking tour with the Urban Study Group; they are a nonprofit organisation campaigning for the conservation of architectural heritage in Old Dhaka. I’d also take you to a restaurant in the slum I work in; I think it makes the best singara in all of Dhaka and a few streets down you can get the most amazing fresh coconut water! In the evening I’d recommend Jatra Biroti for some live folk music and amazing vegetarian food.
Alumni profile: Juan M. Villa
Juan, originally from Colombia, completed his PhD in Development Policy and Management at GDI last year and is now living and working as an economist in Washington DC. He has also provided consultancy on a number of international poverty and economics projects, for organisations including the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations University and UNICEF.
What was it like to study in Manchester?
As an economist, my best memories orbit around the exploration of an amazing city that has changed the world. Being able to recreate the roots of the industrial revolution at the Museum of Science and Industry, visit the Cheetham Library where Karl Marx would discuss the first relationships between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. The great achievements of Richard Cobden in the field of free trade were very inspiring. The University of Manchester has also witnessed a broad global progress, being the birthplace of the first programmed computer, the workplace of Alan Turing and home of graphene.
Why did you choose to study at GDI?
I met Professor Armando Barrientos who was working on topics related to my research preferences. He encouraged me to come to GDI (then Brooks World Poverty Institute) to start my PhD research on the exit conditions of participants in antipoverty transfer programmes. All this combined with the fact that GDI is a world class research centre with wide recognition in academic fields and multilateral agencies made it an easy choice. And I was grateful to receive the Bouldin Scholarship for my doctoral studies, funded by University of Manchester alumnus John Bouldin and his wife Elizabeth.
How did you pick your research topic?
I was working on the evaluation of antipoverty transfer programmes in Colombia. Despite my strong empirical focus, I had an academic interest in conceptualising what I was looking at in the field and to test other hypotheses to help antipoverty programmes achieve better results.
It’s only been a year but what have you done since graduating?
Just before my viva I found a research position in Washington DC at the Inter-American Development Bank, which is the most important development agency in Latin America and the Caribbean. I am now a research fellow in the labour markets and social security division.
Has your University of Manchester qualification helped you in your professional life?
Yes. During my PhD I was able to understand the global and specific contexts of antipoverty policies in developing countries. This ability has strongly helped me in the design and implementation of antipoverty transfer programmes in Latin-America, the Caribbean and some African countries.
Do you have any tips or advice for current students, particularly those who are about to graduate, for life after Manchester?
For those pursuing PhDs: your research does not end with your viva or after graduation. I still have GDI in my heart and I keep doing research with my PhD supervisor. I’ve also contributed to the GDI Working Paper Series and was appointed as an Honorary Research Fellow of the GDI.
Do you want to know how poor people really manage their money?
Professor David Hulme, Executive Director, Global Development Institute
Back in 1999 the Institute for Development Policy and Management started working with Stuart Rutherford (now an Honorary Research Fellow at the Global Development Institute) on a research project to deepen our understanding of the ‘poor and their money’.
I had learned a lot from my work with Paul Mosley on ‘Finance Against Poverty’ but I had realised that one wave or two wave surveys did not capture the sophistication of poor and low-income people’s financial lives. It was evident that the dominant narrative of the 1990s –‘poor people need micro-credit’ – was flawed. It was also clear that most research on microfinance (especially by economists) failed to cover informal financial services which, even in microfinance-saturated Bangladesh, were the larger part of poor people’s financial activities.
What to do came to me on a late night train taking me home to Wilmslow after a day in London – DIARIES! Well, actually not strictly ‘diaries’ but fortnightly reports from skilled research assistants over a 12 month period, to record all the financial services (formal and informal) that 50 households in Bangladesh and 50 households in India used. Stuart and I recruited Orlanda Ruthven and, with a Department for International Development research grant, started the work that culminated in the microfinance bestseller book ‘Portfolios of the Poor’.
This revealed that poor and low income people weave together dynamic portfolios of formal and informal financial services (just like you and I) to meet their changing needs and circumstances. It showed that poor/low income people needed flexible financial products and that savings services are as important as loans. Take a read of the book – it’s excellent.
Being a ‘bad academic’ I moved on to researching other issues. But Stuart, who claims to be a ‘non-academic’, stuck to the poor and their money. With colleagues he has deepened and refined the ‘diaries’ methodology so that data is collected on a daily basis.
- Details of the up to date methodology for the Hrishi diaries for CGAP
- The latest report on their findings (Interim Report V2)
- The Hrishipara Daily Diaries website
This is an extraordinary resource – a blow-by-blow account of the daily financial lives of 50 poor/low income households in Bangladesh. It covers their trials and tribulations (coping with deaths in the family and court cases) and successes (successful microenterprise initiatives and weddings). It covers the way they use microfinance institutions (MFIs) and their rich, informal financial lives. If you have not got 12 months to sit down in a village in Bangladesh and talk with low income/poor people then these latest diaries are an amazing shortcut to uncovering the insights that high quality fieldwork provides… and they are also an enjoyable read. Do not miss them.