LIST OF PANELS

Following an international trend in public policy making, many governments engage in a Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) process because they expect / claim that it leads to more poverty reduction than traditional policymaking. A PRS process typically involves creating new governance structures, adopting strategic management practices, and the engagement of more stakeholders at more stages in the policy cycle (Head & Alfort, 2015). PRS’s were first implemented in developing countries by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as part of a reformed process by which developing countries could qualify for conditional loans and debt relief (Levinsohn, 2003). In 1997, Ireland was the first advanced economy to launch a PRS process, followed by the European Union (EU), the UK and so on (European Commission 2010; Collin 2007; Social Exclusion Unit 2004). PRS’s have been implemented at supra national, national and sub-national levels with the latter also including municipalities.

The emphasis on strategic practice and reforming policy-making processes around poverty exemplifies a broader paradigm shift in public governance, viewing improvements in the policy-making process as a solution to tackling wicked problems (Roberts, 2000; Head & Alford 2015). A key characteristic of a wicked problem is that it is impossible to define the problem without delineating already a course of action towards its solution (Roberts, 2000). This also holds for PRS processes, which are seen as the means to improve a policy process that subsequently leads to more poverty reduction. A better process for poverty reduction is seen as key because a broad swath of policies, made and executed by many political executives, their respective ministries and complex delivery systems, influence the prevalence and reduction of poverty.

Despite being such a widespread government practice, public policy policy scholars have understudied the role of PRS processes in anti-poverty policymaking and its potential effects on poverty reduction. This panel invites papers that compare PRS’s between jurisdictions with the aim to answer (part of) the question: “Whether, why and how PRSs can lead to more poverty reduction than policymaking without a PRS?”

This panel invites papers that compare PRS’s between jurisdictions with the aim to answer (part of) the question: “Whether, why and how PRSs can lead to more poverty reduction than policymaking without a PRS?”

The panel defines PRSs as a governance process that aims to reduce poverty by changing the way poverty reduction policy is made. Reforms often include the creation of legislation and/or new organizational structures such as an executive committee and advisory bodies. Stakeholders, including those outside the traditional government realm, become increasingly involved at more stages of the policy cycle. A key output of the process is a medium-term strategy, which states a long-term policy goal and explains how the government expects to make and measure progress towards poverty reduction over the next 5 or 10 years. There is an expectation that multiple strategy cycles are needed.

The panel invites papers comparing PRS’s (or aspects of) between least two jurisdictions. There is a preference for studying PRS’s where the choice to engage in such a process has been largely driven by local stakeholders (as opposed to being an externally imposed condition). Papers can focus on comparing aspects of PRS’s such as the governance process (including stakeholder participation and dynamics between groups and over time), the politics, resulting priorities, budgets and policy outcomes (poverty reduction and/or indicators associated with it). Case studies can include PRS’s in developed and developing countries, involving either quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods. 

See the description of the panel for an explanation of the broader context of PRS’s.