Opm report Template version 5

4.3Research

There is a need for DFID to conduct research into four key areas of PASP performance to inform programming redesign debates and choices as outlined in the proposed advocacy and narrative reframing set out in section 5.2.1.2 above. The key areas are:

Asset quality;

Graduation performance;

PMT; and

‘Inclusive PASP’ and non-infrastructural assets.

This research is proposed as a way of influencing policy with a focus on issues where current design choices may not be performing optimally. It represents an opportunity to gather evidence and promote debate on key programme design issues, which would otherwise not be open to discussion or review, including PMT and the graduation component of the PASP. It is anticipated that the research process and resulting evidence will inform debate and future programme design.

4.3.1Asset quality

DFID should review PASP asset functionality, in collaboration with the World Bank and INAS, in order to assess the quality of current performance in relation to anticipated benefits and the extent to which PASP supports autonomous adaptation strategies. This would be in support of the World Bank Development Policy Operation (DPO) III targets

4.3.2Graduation performance

By design, PASP is expected to offer beneficiaries complementary activities like training, support to livelihoods and income-generating activities, and access to micro-finance, among others, such that after three years PASP beneficiaries graduate from the programme and out of poverty. This component is currently being designed and is likely to be piloted in 2016 or 2017. The development of the graduation component also responds to the recently approved ENSSB II, which puts substantial emphasis on the role of PASP in promoting such activities.

However, as mentioned earlier (see Box 1 in particular), the extent to which these complementary activities can contribute to graduating people out of poverty in a sustainable way and can be delivered within the programme is open to question. In the words of Ashley and Hill (2014):

‘Graduation is a complex issue, since at its heart lies the requirement to support poor people’s livelihoods such that they are no longer poor and vulnerable – a key development challenge that remains elusive. Global experience suggests that social protection alone is unlikely to enable such change that graduation becomes possible for the majority of recipients.

Our view is that the internalisation of graduation-enhancing activities into social protection programmes is a response to market failure. The market that has failed in this case is the one which creates employment or income-generating opportunities to labour-endowed households with limited resources in rural areas. Such markets can usually be enhanced for entrepreneurial households with access to resources and an investment-oriented perspective, or to those near growth hubs, but it is more difficult to extend the market downwards to poor and vulnerable people who may lack many of the basic pre-requisites to move towards a resilient livelihood. The question then is whether such internalisation into social protection is the most appropriate way of addressing that market failure.
In the current context, we would suggest to DFID that it is not. The current context is characterised by the following:

An inadequately protective set of basic social services programmes, where both coverage and transfer value are lower than need

A PASP which is struggling to get off the ground and reach effective implementation, which has one component funded by a World Bank loan which is unable to reach effectiveness due to its effectiveness conditions not being met.’

Ashley and Hills (2014) thus suggested that DFID should not invest resources in this area and should instead focus on supporting social assistance schemes. However, while their critique, based as it is on the realities of the Mozambican economy and rural labour market and the capacities of INAS, is still valid, two years later the programming situation has moved on. INAS is already designing the graduation component, the World Bank is providing technical assistance, and there is a perceived imperative to move ahead with piloting this component. It is, therefore, now relevant for DFID to engage in this ongoing activity in terms of promoting critical thinking, providing evidence and trying to shift the discourse onto realism and feasibility in the Mozambican context and given the significant resource and capacity constraints identified above.

The role of DFID here would be to support an empirical review of graduation experiences to date within PASP and international experience in graduation and complementary service provision within PWPs in order to inform policy debate and introduce greater realism into PASP goals. The focus of the research would be on:

the graduation performance of PASP to date; and

international experience in complementary services provision in relation to PWPs, focusing on South Africa, Ethiopia and Rwanda.

This research would be used to promote critical thinking and influence policy and programme design and would contribute to the reframing of PASP as part of the resilience agenda rather than as based on a graduation narrative.

4.3.3PMT

DFID should support action research into the early phases of PMT implementation to document its social and economic benefits and costs, shedding light on the performance of the PMT approach in relation to the existing system. This could be used to inform ongoing PMT refinement, as outlined in section 5.2.1.2 above, and the usage of PMT in the ongoing roll-out.

4.3.4The ‘Inclusive PASP’ and non-infrastructural assets

The adoption of the innovative ‘Inclusive PASP’ component is an attempt to include the provision of non-infrastructural assets within the PASP by using PASP labour for alternative socially useful purposes, without the onerous technical requirements implied by physical infrastructure creation.

This innovation is to be welcomed, and should be documented and reviewed. It should further be linked to research into the regional experience of innovations in non-infrastructure service provision through PWPs, notably work on providing ‘social’ assets in Rwanda, South Africa and Zimbabwe (and possibly also Argentina) in order to enable the programme to learn from international experience and develop appropriate, feasible and affordable ‘social’ components.