Transcript Linking Social Policy Analysis and Action:

Presentation on
Nepal Gender and
Social Exclusion
Assessment (GSEA)
Getting Social
Exclusion on
the Policy
Radar Screen
Macro Social
Analysis Conference
May 16-19
Today’s Presentation on the Gender
and Social Exclusion Assessment:
• Less on the “what” of
the GSEA – which is
summarized in
handout.
• More on the “how” – 9
elements of the GSEA
policy process.
• But first a few quick
slides on the context.
Corporate Context of GSEA Process:
• Collaborative effort between DFID
and World Bank – corporate support
for collaboration.
• CAP and CAS developed in tandem –
inclusion agenda embedded in both.
• Strong commitment from WB Country
Director who had already forged
small but strong group of champions
in government for home grown
economic reform.
Politicial Context of GSEA Process:
• Small Country – donor dependent.
• Fledgling democracy – heavy
overhang of feudal institutions.
• Maoist insurgency – recruiting the
excluded.
• Political uncertainty as king uses
insurgency as an excuse to take
more and more power and sideline
democracy.
Current Political Context: April 2006
People’s Movement
• More sophisticated
understanding of
“democracy”
• Democracy now
qualified as:
– “TOTAL
DEMOCRACY”
– “INCLUSIVE
DEMOCRACY”
Elements of the GSEA Policy Process
1. Framing the issue: “rules of the game”
2. Influencing the PRSP
3. Establishing the link between poverty &
exclusion: “Data Stories”
4. What you measure is what you get: focus
on M&E
5. Combining policy research and operations -Using a range of instruments
6. Building alliances
7. Understanding the “implementation gap”
8. Opportunism, flexibility and patience.
1.1 Framing the Issue
–
GSEA focuses on institutions as the
“rules of the game”.
–
Caste, ethnic identity and gender
presented as three interlocking social
institutions that bias the rules against
certain social groups and therefore need
to be “reformed”.
–
Special focus on informal institutions
which covers the cultural norms,
behaviors and values usually left out of
the analysis.
1.2 Social Exclusion as an outcome
of the prevailing “rules of the game”.
–
–
–
Hindu caste system and concepts of ritual
impurity used to justify low status of
women, Dalits and IPs or Janajatis.
No integrated analysis of impact of Nepal’s
institutional framework and its past public
policy choices on excluded groups.
Almost no analysis of links between social
exclusion and poverty.
2. Influencing the PRSP
• Despite lack of good data, in late 2002,
we put together a short 20 page
background note on Social Exclusion for
the National Planning Commission as we
were just beginning the research.
• Eurekha! NPC adopted the note and
made Social Inclusion the 4th Pillar of
the PRSP!
3. Establishing the link between
exclusion and poverty: “Data Stories”
•
•
Based on re-analysis of Census, and
other national level household surveys.
Also Primary Data collection and
Analysis on exclusion – the “3rd
dimension of poverty:
• “Measuring Empowerment and Social
Inclusion” Study
Caste/Ethnic Disparities
in Poverty Incidence
Data Story # 3.1:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nepal Average: 31%
Hill Dalits: 48%
Tarai Dalits:46%
Hill Janajati: 43%
Muslim: 41%
The incidence of
poverty among
Dalits as a whole is
nearly 50% higher
than the Nepal
average.
Figure 4.4: Incidence of poverty by
caste/ethnicity and
Nepal poverty line (31%), 2004
Sour ce: NLSS I I , 2004
Hill B/C+
19.0
Tarai B/C+
11.7
Tarai Middle Castes
26.5
Hill Dalit
47.6
Tarai Dalit
45.7
New ar
14.2
Hill Janajatis
42.8
Tarai Janajatis
33.0
Muslims
41.4
0
10
20
30
Percent
40
50
Data Story # 3.2:
The “Caste Penalty”
• Average per capita consumption for
Brahman/Chhetri households is 46%
higher than that of Dalit households.
• Even when background variables are
controlled, Brahman/Chhetri household
per capita consumption is still 15%
higher.
• This unexplained difference (Rs. 4,853
less annual per capita income), we call
the “caste penalty”.
Data Story # 3.3: The traditional caste
hierarchy is alive and well in village Nepal
Total MeanCEI IndexbyCaste/Ethnicity
0.50
CEI Index
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
BCN
Middle
Janajati
Dalit
All
Data story # 3.4: Caste is more
powerful than Gender in determining
Empowerment/Inclusion levels
• Regression analysis showed that
Caste and Gender explain 33% of
variation in Composite Empowerment
& Inclusion Index
– Gender explained 7%
– Caste/ethnicity alone explained 26%
Data Story # 3.5:
The Good news
• Caste and gender-based
disparities at the local
level can be reduced by
development interventions
that deliver:
– Livelihood empowerment
through access to
education, income earning
and asset accumulation
opportunities
– Mobilization
empowerment through
media exposure and
membership in groups
For example:
A Dalit who…
– has three years of
schooling (which raises
the CEI by +5.7 %)
and;
– Is a member of a
group (+5.9%)
…would have the same
level of empowerment and
inclusion as an
uneducated Brahman,
Chhetri or Newar who is
not a member of a group.
4.1 M&E: What you measure is what you get
HMG/N Poverty Monitoring & Analysis System
(PMAS) set up to monitor the PRSP:
• We pushed for gender, caste and ethnic
disaggregation – to measure progress on
the PRSP inclusion pillar.
• We introduced a simplified classification of
103 social groupings used in 2001 Census.
• Now 10 major social groups used by Central
Bureau of Statistics in all up-coming
national surveys.
4.2 M&E: DFID uses GSEA framework to
develop Livelihood and Social Inclusion
(LSI) monitoring in all projects it supports.
Three domains of change:
1. Improving access to
assets and services
for the poor and
excluded.
2. Increasing the voice
and influence of the
poor and excluded.
3. Supporting changes in
the “rules of the
game” that have
always favored the
elite.
GSEA Domains of Change
Rules of the Game
Outcomes: policies and
institutions that actively
remove barriers and enhance
incentives to increase the
access of diverse groups to
development opportunities.
Assets &
services
Outcomes: improved
livelihood status of poor
and excluded men and
women.
Voice,
influence
and agency
Outcomes: the extent to which poor
and excluded people – as part of
representative groups and coalitions successfully engage, influence and hold
accountable the institutions that affect
them.
5. The process of getting inclusion into
the country program is more important
than the ESW “product”.
•
•
•
•
•
•
The PRSC – affirmative action in civil service in
policy matrix
The Country Assistance Strategies of the
Bank, DFID and other donors such as ADB
SWAps in Health and Education
Projects in WB and DFID
Poverty Assessment
Development Policy Review
Parallel policy research and operational
work on exclusion over extended period.
WB CAS :
Insturments in support
of Inclusion Pillar
•
PRSC – affirmative action
•
•
Community School Support
Project
Poverty Alleviation Fund
•
•
•
•
Education SWAp
Higher Education
Health SWAp
RWSS II
•
•
Development Policy
Review
Poverty Assessment
•
Country Dialogue
GSEA ESW
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework
Chapter 3: Socio-cultural and Historical
Foundations of Exclusion in
Nepal
Chapter 4: Macro Statistics
Chapter 5: Primary data from Rural
Nepal
Chapter 6: An Overview of Public
Discourse and Action on
Discrimination
Chapter 7: Discriminatory Laws
Chapter 8: Gender Discrimination
Chapter 9: Caste Discrimination
Chapter 10: Ethnic Discrimination
Chapter 11: Access to Health Care
Chapter 12: Inclusive Education
Chapter 13: Group-based Approaches
Chapter 14: Affirmative Action
Chapter 15: What we have Learned and
Priorities for Action
DFID CAP
Instruments in
support of PRSP Inclusion
Pillar:
•
Rural Growth
LFP, all LSI monitoring
•
Basic Services
Health sector SWAp; Primary
Education SWAp; WATSAN
•
GoodGovernance
ESP, Affirmative Action
•
Social Inclusion
Social Exclusion Action
Programme (SEAP)
6. Building Alliances
• Responding to needs of technocrats/
reformers in government
• Interaction with NGOs, academics,
activists and stakeholder groups
• Other donors
• Internally in the World Bank and DFID
• Importance of a credible team – not
the “usual suspects”
7. Understanding the “Implementation Gap”
• Not just “weak institutional capacity”
• But also a form of elite resistance to
changes in the rules of the game that
would reduce their power and challenge
their self-identity.
• Requires long term commitment from
development partners and taping the
comparative advantage of different
actors in the process.
8.Opportunism, flexibility and patience!
• The ninja replaces the planner: “April
Revolution” a great opportunity, but who
can be sure of the outcome?
• DFID/WB partnership to continue.
• New DFID Social Exclusion Action
Program to follow up on GSEA and the
inclusion agenda for the next three years
Conclusion:
• Successful policy reform requires
institutional change not only in the formal
rules, regulations and laws -- but also in
informal procedures, norms and practices.
• And for some reforms – like social inclusion
- successful implementation requires
shifts in the taken-for-granted cognitive
structures and values ...
• …in other words,
cultural change.
Conclusion:
• Like any reform, reforms involving
these deep structural changes
cannot be “done” by outsiders.
• But it does not hurt for outsiders
to try to understand the dynamics
of the process and offer support
to local champions!