Download Public policy study : An Anthropological Overview

Anthropological enquiry into the study of public policy
Ranjan Saha Partha
Abstract
This paper is an attempt to discuss public policy debate in social
sciences. By presenting different models of public policy, I
examine how these models are based on exclusionary construction
of majority of the people. I have critically discussed the existing
literatures on public policy paying special attention to discourse
analysis. This approach helps us to unveil the politics of public
policy that questions the authority and power/ knowledge of
development discourse. I argue that a critical anthropological
approach is necessary to understand the politics of public policies
that would create a space for the majority of people.
1. Introduction:
Public policy has become an increasingly central concept and instrument in the
organization of contemporary societies. Both academics and development practitioners
have been involved in conceptualizing public policy from different disciplinary
standpoints. These include: political science, sociology, international relations,
development studies, women studies as well as national government planning body.
Numerous publications and debates are going on regarding the nature and role of public
policy taking it as an ideological construct in order to implement it. I will not dwell onto
discuss the wide range of debates in this paper. Rather I would try to investigate how
public policy has become as a discourse, not only in other social science disciplines
which I have just mentioned, but also in anthropology which has flourished after 80’s.
Considering this, I will make an argument how and why anthropologists have
increasingly becoming interested in bringing public policy issue into forefront, which
once had intentionally been neglected.
Policy is not merely a planning, rather it is, as some argue, a ‘technology of power’
through which a programmes, plans, or even a government is governed (Escobar, 1995,
Ferguson; Apthrope,1986; Sutton,1999). The central aim of this paper is to understand
the ways in which these advocates, have unveiled the politics of policy by providing
ethnographic evidence. My intention in this paper is not to bring all those issues but point
out some of the salient features they have raised and this understanding will help us to
make an appreciation of public policy in general and poverty policy in particular (Shore
and Wright,1997).
This paper is divided into seven sections. After introduction, section second deals with
the notion of public policy prevalent in social science literatures. I will present a brief
overview of existing conceptualization of public policy with an special emphasis on

Lecturer, Department of Anthropology, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka. E-mail:
[email protected].
political science and sociology. I have brought out major models followed in
understanding public policy. I have also tried to identify pitfalls of these models arguing
that these are inadequate in unpacking the politics of policy. In the third section I discuss
anthropological approaches to the study of public policy. This section highlights recent
literatures of anthropology of development that emphasizes how public policy has
become as a discourse. This analysis continues to discuss in third and fourth sections on
policy as discourse and policy as practice respectively. In the fifth section I present
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) as an example of public policy in the context
on Bangladesh. I argue that Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) is an instrument of
public policy that manipulates `Third World’ countries in the name of poverty reduction.
This paper concludes with an emphasis on anthropological approaches, paying special
attention to the people for whom policies will be designed.
2. Models of public policy in social science literature
Social science discipline such as political science, sociology, international relation has
long been dealing with public policy debate. According to political science and
sociology, policy making is a rational linear process by which programmes or projects are
governed. On the other hands, much of the International Relations literature looks at the
issue of maintaining coherence and cooperation between groups in policy making in the
absence of an organizing global authority, such as a global government. The concept of
International regimes explains how norms, rules and procedures are developed to provide
ways in which nation states can cooperate. Analysis of the nature of interest groups and
tools, which attempt to model how they interact also, provide some useful insights into
policy process.
A number of models have been developed to explain the process of policy making in
social science literature. Combining social science literature on describing policy making
issues, Sutton (1999) has divided this policy debates into two broad categories.
Firstly, there is a tendency in sociology and political science to look at the concept of
development narratives which emphasizes complex development situations. Roe (1991),
prominent advocate of development narratives, describes that policy makers make a story
of development in order to justify future of actions to be taken. In general, development
narratives1 explain the politics of policy makers in guiding their decision making.
Secondly, within the political science literature there is also a tendency to take into
account the importance of interest groups, power and authority (Sutton, 1999).
Interestingly, Sutton has put anthropological approach into this category, equating
development discourse analysis with anthropology. Because anthropology is not
homogenous, it has a number of contested and debated approaches to the study of policy
(Grillo, 1989; Shore and Wright, 1997). In the following, I will discuss the thematic
issues brought out by the sociologists and political scientists in conceptualising public
policy.
According to Sutton, there are different models of policy process exist. These are: the
incrementalist model, the mixed scanning model, policy as arguments, policy as social as
social experiment and policy as interactive learning. For example, the incrementalist
model deals with identifying problems in order to solve them. In this model changes will
occur gradually through bringing problems into forefront and then to solve them. This
model is philanthropic in its nature, giving over emphasis on reformation and retaining
the policy in its original form. In line with this, the Mixed Scanning Model also explains
policy analysis, taking a broad view of possible options and identifying those aspects
which need to be examined. Another important model has been developed by Juma and
Clarke (1995). According to them, policy is developed through debates between state and
societal actors. Language of policy making has become an instrument in reviewing the
policy in this model. The argument is that participants present their justifications to
formulate and design the policy. The reviewers examined this critically according to their
ideology. This means that contending views arise centered around the justifications and
claims of policy presenters.
Sutton has also identified two other policy making models namely, policy as social
experiment and policy as interactive learning. The first model is concerned with
experimenting social change, seeing it as a continuous process. Following natural science
method, this model formulates hypothesis in order to test it in a particular context. On the
other hand, the advocates of ‘policy as an interactive learning model’ emphasize actors’
perspectives. This approach is more interested in bringing different individuals, agencies
and social groups into together to share policy ideas in order to take future actions.
One of the most powerful critiques of policy models is called development narratives.
This approach is not only used by political scientists or sociologists but also by
anthropologists as well. Development narrative tells us about a programme or project’s
life span. They have a story which has both inception phase and implantation phase.
These phases have a beginning, middle and end, emanating from specific events.
Development narratives justify policy actions through proposing new ideas which create
space for interventions. According to Roe, narratives developed their own ‘cultural
paradigm’ by which certain types of development programmes and their implementation
are spelt out.
A number of elaborations can be made from the above models.
Firstly, most of the models are functional in nature. In formulating policy, they
emphasize the causal relationships between problem and solution. These models are atheoretical and do not question the inherent cause related to specific socio-political
conditions. In addition, these models are interested in identifying problems and mistakes
that need to be corrected.
Secondly, most of the models such as Incrementalist Model or Mixed Scanning Model
are top down. They do not question the implicit power relations between policy makers
and `beneficiaries for whom policy is planned. In a similar vein, ‘policy as a arguments
approach’ emphasizes on power holders who have authority to review the policy making
claims and justifications.
In general these models are based on exclusionary construction. This means that policy
making is an absolute domain of some experts and local people or beneficiaries are
supposed to be passive recipients. One may argue that for whom policy is being
formulated? Where are the people who have been supposed to be benefited from the
policy? In answering these questions, I will discuss recent debates on policy making as
discourse from an anthropological standpoint.
3. Anthropology and Public Policy
This section examines how public policy is being studied in anthropology. Policy debates
have not been given significant attention by anthropologists for a long time. Though it
was not as such in the name of policy, a number of anthropologists have dealt the issue in
different ways. If policy is generally meant by a guideline to be used for actions,
anthropologists have long before used it. It was in 1922, about 85 years ago, when
Malinowski had described the notion of myth in Trobriand island, which directs the
islanders to take it as a guideline in their everyday lives. In fact, myth plays an important
role in directing the lives of the Trobrianders2.
It was not in until early 90s, policy has increasingly become an analytic issue of
anthropologists (Shore and wright, 1997; Grillo, 1989). Before that anthropologists used
to take positions against policy making analysis (Whitehead, 1990). The reason behind
this was that it is not anthropologist’s duty to give guidelines on behalf of people. Taking
an ideological stand, these anthropologists argue that anthropology should not suggest
what ought to be. Rather what actually happens in a specific time and space should be the
concern of anthropologists. This argument is akin to the recent debate on representation
that implies how people were and still being portrayed in a teleological way.
However, anthropologists’ silence about policy making was largely shaped by their
commitment to the discipline of anthropology, which emphasizes to take proactive roles
in grasping ongoing situation. Because, as these advocates argue, giving directions imply
power rations that dictates, moulds and shapes one’s activity. Another reason to maintain
distance in formulating policy would be to think that it is an absolute arena of economists
or policy makers. Being an anthropologist, it would have been safer to keep aside in
engaging with planning or policy making.
But over the periods, anthropology as a discipline has been shifted and changed a lot.
Because of the influence of post modern approach to academia, anthropology also
response to it in a significant way. The traditional anthropological areas or issues have
been changed as well. The writings of Edward Said (1978), Michel Foucault (1972),
Lyotard (1979), have brought anthropology into literary turn that emphasizes discourse
analysis.
A number of anthropologists have responded to policy debates taking discourse analysis
as an analytic tool (Shore and wright, 1997; Gasper and Apthorpe, 1996; Gardner and
Lewis, 1996). The main argument of these anthropologists is that policy has become an
integral part of human lives that need to be studied. Policy plays an organizing principles
in contemporary societies shaping the way we live, act and think. The book called
‘Anthropology of policy: critical perspectives on governance and power’ edited by Cris
Shore and Susan wright, appeared in 1997, is considered as land mark in the study of
anthropology of policy. Following Said (1978) and Foucault (1980), this book argues that
policies create new space by categorizing individuals as `subject’ `citizen’, `professional’,
`national’, `criminal’ and deviant’. A number of authors of this book write about ‘policy:
a new field of anthropology’, ‘policy as language and power’, ‘policy as cultural agent’
and ‘policy as political technology: a new form of governmentality and subjectivity’.
Taking queue from Foucault, the authors argue that policy influences the way individuals
construct themselves as subjects. Consequently, policies act both on and through people
as rational agents. Foucault’s notion of ‘technologies of self’ has been used as an
analytic tool to understand the governance of rules and regulations embedded in policy. I
discuss this analytic tool in section four and five.
4. Public policy as discourse
Foucault was talking about the subjectivity of individuals, who have historically been
turned into objects. The examples Foucault provided us with prisons, schools, barracks
and clinics. Foucault uses the term `discipline’ explaining the type of power that has had
an enormous impact on shaping, manipulating and controlling individuals. Foucault’s
insights encourage us to take similar inquiry into understanding policy as a tool to
govern. An important theme in the Anthropological debate considers ‘policy process as a
discourse'3.
Gasper and Apthorpe (1986) highlight the use of range of such devices in `policy-speak' :
good/bad binaries to mark out normative positions, metaphors and allusions, noun rather
than verbs, normative rather than descriptive terms or key words and slogans to parade
and bolster `grand strategies'. Part of these strategies justify some indicators like
‘participation’ and ‘empowerment’ that lies behind modernity project. In a polemic way,
Gasper and Apthrope (1996) contend that `indicators are sought as vindicators, not just
descriptive. As a result, the indicators have become the objects of contemporary poverty
policy, creating space for interventions.
In a similar vein, Apthorpe (1986) argues that development policy and policy analysis
together introduce neo-liberal system of government and new forms of power. Some
advocates have applied discourse analysis in their work in understanding policy in
different realms. They argue that public policy is increasingly being codified, publicized
and referred to workers and managers as the guidelines that legitimate and even motivate
their behavior. These realms range from universities and schools to public agencies and
large corporations. As Arthur Koestler (1967) argues that public policy is the ghost of
the machine- the force which breathes life and purpose into the machinery of government
and animates the otherwise dead hand of bureaucracy. This capacity to stimulate and
channel activity derives largely from the objectification of policy. Like Victorian
photography or the `Panopticon' prison, the objectified person `is seen but does not see,
he is object of information, never a subject in communication' (Foucault, 1997).
5. Public policy discourse as practice
Foucault talks about discourse, its sign, gestures and symbols by which power is
exercised. Statements or words must not be codified in language. Rather they have to put
into practice through which discourse is meaningfully understood. As Foucault says it is
plays of power that dictates and manipulates individuals. Similarly, policy
implementation is the sphere in which particular interests is expressed. In public policy,
the styles of implementation depicts different interest and strategies. In other words the
study of practices through implementations involve analyzing the ways that people
operate in their everyday life. However, when we study a particular project or
intervention we realize that each project has a locus of an often complex set of social
relations. This is the social setting in which `expert knowledge influences the form and
content of representations. Apthrope elaborates this by commenting that ``discursive
practice’’ can be taken as an example of the capture an exercise of power by some sort of
people, arguments and organizations against others through specific happenings, in
particular arenas, over various periods of time’’ (1986:377).
Apthorpe enables us to deconstruct policy discourse not in at intellectual level but at
practice level. In what follows, I take Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) as an
exemplar of public policy that has now being implemented in the Third World societies
including Bangladesh. My aim is to examine some issues of PRSP in the analysis of the
exclusionary construction of poverty. Let us see what PRSP is about and its concomitant
consequences in the understanding of public policy conceptualisation by global
discourse.
5. Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP)
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) is being considered as an important dimension
of poverty policy discourse since 1999. The requirement that countries produce PRSPs is
part of an increasing involvement of international agencies in the detailed spending plans
of national governments. This has occurred as issues of debt relief and moved from
project based aid have become more important: ``The PRSP is simultaneously the vehicle
through which governments are expected to elaborate their nationally owned povertyreduction policies, through which the IMF and the World Bank identify satisfactory
policy environments and through donors are expected to again their assistance for poverty
reduction’’ (UNCTAD, 2002). The key features of PRSP are:
1. Country ownership- they should be devised by national governments and must
involve wide national consultation,
2. PRSPs funding is linked to pro-poor outcomes- concessional assistance and debt
relief are provided only after a satisfactory joint staff assessment of the PRSP and
its endorsement by the executive boards of the WB and IMF,
3. Transparency in the use of government resources, better public expenditure
management and good accounting systems. Alignment between donors around
PRS, multi-donor funding mechanisms in support imply not only shared
instruments of international aid but shared conceptual framework.
The concept of PRSP arises from a series of discussions, workshops, seminars and some
other consultative processes in which nation states, donors and sectors were involved. It
was based upon development framework, re-casting neo-liberal appropriations of
`participation' and associated language of ownership', partnership', and `empowerment'.
Apparently ‘developing’ countries’ task is to devising their own economic reform
programmes, where PRSP provides a framework to match national poverty reduction
objectives with those of donors and creditors (Northover, 2000). As part of the process of
developing national ownership, governments are mandated to undertake wide process of
consultation in the formulation of the PRSP. Following the spirit of PRSP, Bangladesh
government has taken initiative to formulate, design and produced accordingly. It is
assumed that PRSP is an alternative version of poverty to be articulated in order to
alleviate poverty.
In 1999 the World Bank and IMF propagated for PRSP in granting loan to the highly
indebted countries. Bangladesh submitted a temporary PRSP is to the World Bank and
IMF in 2003. Bangladesh agreed to compose PRSP by December 2004. According to
World Bank and IMF the main target of PRSP to increase the economic growth as well as
alleviate poverty of a country. Hence, an elaborate consultation with the stakeholders at
national level was prescribed. The Bangladesh Development Forum has undertaken the
decision for the completion of PRSP. The Economic Relation Development (ERD)
formed a taskforce, headed by the secretary of the ministry of finance. Among others, the
responsibility of preparing the draft of PRSP was given to two professional consultants.
In order to do PRSP, four matrixes have been developed: 1. the stability of macroeconomy, 2. reform in governance, 3. development of human resource, and 4. social
security.
6. Some remarks on PRSP
As is in world wide debate on PRSP, academia of Bangladesh have become critical to
PRSP. Because of the limited space of this paper I will restrict my analysis to bring out
some of the critical features relevant to public policy.
1. PRSP is too bureaucratic: The documents of PRSP are influenced by the WB
and IMF. From this point of view, the documents of IPRSP prepared by
bureaucratic taskforce and `corporate NGO's who work with one sided views to
meet the demands of the donors by passing the opinion of the landless poor
people.
2.
Participation a rhetoric: Nonetheless, in some consulting meetings, the
‘participation’ of the poor people in PRSP has been minimal. For example BRAC
ensures the ‘participation’ of poor people in its divisional meeting of consultation.
The most noticeable point was that poor people did not actively participate in the
meeting, they just responded to the meetings with their physical presence. (CPD:
PRSP Review, 2002).
3. Women are seen as passive: In PRSP women are presented as helpless and
indirect stakeholders. But their significant role in production is not mentioned in
the description of economic growth. A network is necessary for the unity and
security of the women and it is essential to make their skills in taking part in the
social and political process. But this sort of activity is not undertaken in PRSP.
The above criticisms have been brought out by economists who work for Bangladesh
Institute of Development Studies, BRAC and Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD). To my
consideration, these critics are based on an institutional economics model and emphasizes
functional approach. This approach is devoted to unveil the pitfalls of PRSP e.g. what
PRSP misses, what it has not been able to cover, or what it has phased bureaucratic
hurdles and the like. What is missed from such an analysis is that how people,
irrespective of age, class, gender and ethnicity, do perceive poverty have not been
considered.
PRSP claims that it is about the people’s perception of poverty but it did not go so far.
For example, the issue of perception of poverty has been understood through collecting
information on households head’s opinion. This leads us to a methodological error that is
based on earlier work of Rethinking Poverty carried out by BIDS (Rahman,1990).
Some of my observations can be pointed out in this regard: Firstly; Household Head
Measurement approach does not provide information about individuals who live within
the household. Different individuals have different access to resources in terms of
consumption, allocation and distribution. Authority, power and cultural ideology play a
pivotal role in making differences among individuals. Both anthropologists and feminists
enable us to see how household is an arena of politics (Whitehead, 1981; Harris, 1981;
Chain, 1980). This argument is related to the second argument.
Secondly; PRSP has followed `Recall Method’ to collect data on calorie in take which is
assumed to be the principle indicator of measuring poverty. Recall method tells us about
a nutritional status of household members e.g. in one week how much calorie is
consumed. This method is severely flawed due to the fact that one week data is not
sufficient to measure nutrition. In addition, household members may consume foods from
other sources which might have not been included in recall method4.
Thirdly; the technique of survey data is also problematic. Survey questionnaires can only
provide formal data on calorie intake. An anthropological long term observation is
needed to grasp the nutritional practices within the households.
The observations indicate that PRSP did not take into consideration the individual data at
the household level. My argument is that calorie intake cannot be the criteria for
measuring poverty alone.
7. Concluding Remarks:
Throughout the paper, I have argued that public policy is a systematic plan to govern. To
grasp this argument, I have discussed the existing models of public policy dominant in
social science literatures. I have tried to bring out some limitations of these models by
pointing towards an understanding of anthropological approaches to the study of public
policy. Though, there are a number of approaches do exist in anthropology itself, I have
chosen discourse analysis as it is an useful and powerful analytic tool to understand
public policy. In the last section of this paper I have discussed Foucauldian approach
used by a number of anthropologists who have argued that public policy is teleological
and inextricably linked with global discourse. As an exemplar of public policy, I have
presented PRSP and its intended goal to the context of Bangladesh. I have argued that
PRSP is in last instance a tool of international discourse by which poverty is measured in
order to justify intervention. I am more concerned with grasping public policy from
anthropological point of view. The following two points are suffice to synthesize my
arguments discussed through out the paper.
Firstly, anthropological approach to policy study takes a critical stance. The
anthropologists do not take policy as a given phenomenon. They are less interested in
evaluating or monitoring policy. Rather their analysis is devoted to unveil the politics of
policy considering it as discourse. The way in which policy is formulated has critically
been scrutinized by these anthropologists. Unlike the sociologists and political scientists
outlined above, these anthropologists do not view policy making is ‘in need of
development’. Rather they encourage us to see the politics of making and unmaking of
policy in the ‘Third World’ on sectoral issues such as health, environment, education, and
development (e.g. Escobar, 1995; Ferguson, 1990; Sachs, 1992; Grillo, 1997).
Secondly, anthropological techniques and methods are significantly different from other
social sciences. As a discipline, anthropology teaches us to take a holistic approach in
understanding the interrelationships between different acts, events and agencies, be it
individuals or institutions. Anthropology is against the isolationist view of looking policy
into one dimension. From an anthropological point of view policy should be
contextualized, tracing the links between different sites, agents and levels within the
complex policy process. Put simply, policy has to be understood in terms of the ways in
which it is formulated and implemented. In mapping out this process, we have to trace
the sites following different trajectories. These sites range from ‘global’ to ‘local’; World
Bank to micro level.
Acknowledgement:
The inspiration I have got to write this paper from my teacher and colleague professor Dr. Zahir
Ahmed of dept. of anthropology JU. His insights and thought provoking ideas enable me to
articulate the arguments of the paper. I am grateful for his supports. I have also developed my
interest while offering Public policy: gender, poverty and health course at MSS. My students have
actively participated in the debate of poverty policy and provided with insightful comments that
have enriched the paper. Thanks go to my students.
Footnote
1. Development narrative approach has been applied by Roe in understanding African
development policy, what he terms ‘post script of Africa’. Melissalies and Fairhead has
also used this approach in their study of `Misreading the African landscape’ . in
Bangladesh context Ahmed (2006) have used this approach in understanding the politics
of Center for Policy Dialogue (CPD).
2. Malinowski describes Mythology of the `kula’. According to Malinowski, Mythology is
related to both geographical and socio-cultural aspects. Gumagabu song and legends are
significant to direct their way of life. On the other hand, the Kudayuri myth is related to
how to fly canoe or kularing guides Trobrianders as a form of economic exchange. (See
pp 267-290, Chap-xii)
3. A discourse is an ensemble of ideas. A number of concept and categories are created in
order to provide meanings. According to Foucault, discourse shapes certain problems,
distinguishing some aspects of a situation and disqualifying/subjugating others.
4. This issue has been raised in the presentation of PRSP draft at ADB, Dhaka office, in
April,2006
Bibliography
Ahmed, Z. (2006) Development as discourse, discourse as practice in Journal of social
studies, Dhaka.
Apthorpe,R(1986) `Development
Development. vol-6, pp377-389
policy
discourse’
Public
administration
and
Apthorpe,R. and Gasper, D (eds)(1996) Arguing Development Policy: Frames and
Discourses. Introduction: Discourse Analysis and Policy Discourse. London: Frank Cass
Escobar, A (1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third
World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ferguson, J. (1990) The anti-politics Machine: Development Depoliticisation, and
Bereaucratic Power in Lesotho. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Foucault, M. (1980) ``Truth and Power.” In Power/ Knowledge Selected Interviews and
others writings, 1972-1977. Edt. By Colin Gordon, pp.209-33. New York: Pantheon.
Gardner,K. and Lewis,D.(1996)
Challenge. London: Pluto Press.
Anthropology,
Development
and
Post-modern
Grillo, R.(ed) (1989). Social Anthropology and the Politics of Language. London:
Routledge.
Grillo, R and Stirrat, R.L. (eds) () Discourses of Development: Anthropological
perspectives. Oxford: Oxford International Publications.
Hall, S. (1997) ``The Work of Representative ; in his edited Representation: Cultural
Representation and signifying practices. London: Sage Publications in association with
the open University
Harris, O. (1994) Households as Natural Unit. In Of Marriage and the Market, ed.
K.Young, Wolkowitz and R. McCullg. London: Routledge.
Lyotard,J. (1984) The post modern Condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: The
University of Minnesota press.
Juma, C. and Clark, N (1995) `Policy Research in sub- Saharan Africa: An Emploration’.
Public administration and Development, Vol 15, pp 121-137
Koestler, Arthur (1967) The Ghost of the Machine, London: Hutchinson.
Malinowski, B. (1922) Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native
Enterprise and adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea, New York:
Dutton.
Northover, H., (2000) PRS: Poverty reduction or poverty relations strategy?,
www.cafod.org.uk
Roe, E. (1991) `Development Narratives, or Making the Best of Blueprint Development’
World Development. Vol-19, No-4
Roe, E. (1994) Narrative Policy Analysis, Theory and Practice, Durham; London: Duke
University press.
Sachs, W. ed. (1992) The Development Dictionary: A Guide to knowledge as power.
London: Zed Books.
Said, E. (1978) Orientalism. Penguine Books, London
Shore,c. and wright, S (eds) (1997) Anthropology of Policy, Critical Perspectives on
Governance and Power. Introdiction: pp3-34. London: Routledge.
Sutton, R. (1999) The Policy Process: An Overview, Overseas Development Institute,
Portland House, Stag Place, London.
Whitehead, A.(2003) Failing women, sustaining poverty: Gender in Poverty Reduction
Strategy Papers, Report for the Gender and Development Network, GAD, UK.
Whitehead, A. (1994) `I’m hungry, mum’, The Politics of Domestic Budgeting, In Of
Marriage and the Market, ed. K.Young, Wolkowitz and R. McCullg. London: Routledge
UNCTAD, (2000) Escaping the Poverty Trap: The Least Developed Countries Report
2000 (UNCTAD, New York)
CPD: PRSP Review ( 2002). PRSP Exercise in Bangladesh: A CPD Review of the
Preparation Process