poverty and Progressive Social

International Review of

Administrative Sciences

78(4) 733–756

! The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0020852312455553

ras.sagepub.com

InternationalReview ofAdministrativeSciencesArticle

Anti-poverty and progressive socialchange in Brazil: lessons for otheremerging economies

Moses N KiggunduCarleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

This article examines Brazil’s experiences with anti-poverty and progressive social

change, and spells out possible lessons for emerging economies with similar challenges.

It draws on the Bolsa Familia conditional cash transfers (CCT) and the continuous cash

benefits programmes and discusses important aspects of programme leadership, man-

agement and coordination. After a brief discussion of poverty, it presents a framework

synthesizing key success factors for effective and sustaining programme implementation.

Brazil does not offer a ‘blueprint’ for other countries to copy; only lessons from experi-

ence. Therefore the article concludes by discussing key ongoing challenges and suggests

areas for future research, focusing on comparative studies across countries.

Points for practitioners

Progress has been made against global poverty, notably in countries experiencing sus-

tained economic growth like Brazil. In spite of these remarkable efforts, challenges

remain especially for countries which focus only on macroeconomic growth but not

equity or inclusive development. Growth without equity does not eradicate poverty.

Accordingly, emerging economies are being urged to pursue multipronged strategies:

crafting innovative public policies, reshaping institutions for macroeconomic manage-

ment, reaching out and engaging target communities, democratization, legislated and

constitutionally mandated progressive social change. This article provides practical les-

sons from experience from Brazil, which practitioners from other emerging economies

can adapt to their own circumstances for the effective and sustaining implementation of

anti-poverty and progressive social change. It also provides a holistic framework for

better understanding the institutional context, leadership, management, inter-govern-

ment and cross-sectoral coordination and private sector participation. Finally, it iden-

tifies some of the key ongoing challenges in Brazil, and suggests areas for applied

comparative research.

Corresponding author:

Moses N Kiggundu, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON

K1S 5B6, Canada

Email: [email protected]

at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 22, 2014ras.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ras.sagepub.com/

Keywords

anti-poverty, Bolsa Familia, Brazil, conditional cash transfers, coordination, decentraliza-

tion, emerging economies, inequality, poverty, programme management, progressive

social change

Introduction

Addressing the United Nations International School (UNIS) on pledges to meetthe Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and in line with the United Nations’‘End of Poverty Now’ campaign, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon statedon 16 October 2009 that poverty is the biggest global challenge because ‘more than1 billion people are still in extreme poverty and over 70 million children cannot goto school’ (see www.endpoverty2015.org).1 In 1970, Myrdal published TheChallenge of World Poverty: A World Anti-poverty Program in Outline and exposedthe weaknesses of the then Western countries’ trade and aid policies towardsdeveloping countries. He observed that while aid may be strategically and contin-gently necessary, it is not sufficient to lift millions out of poverty. Developingcountries needed to do more in terms of political, economic and social reformand change. About the same time, Pearson and other World BankCommissioners published Partners in Development (1969), calling for more multi-lateral foreign aid to developing countries. Today, almost half a century later, thedebate still rages on with no end in sight.

The world is sharply divided among those who believe in foreign aid, charity andthe Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as the solution to global poverty (e.g.Sachs, 2005), those who believe in the market and private enterprise (e.g. Hubbardand Duggan, 2009; Prahalad, 2006), and those who prefer to isolate themselvesfrom the global economy and global society (e.g. North Korea). Although the‘good cop–bad cop’ approach to this debate is tempting and attention grabbing,experience, especially from the more successful countries in South-East Asia, showsthat the truth is much more nuanced (e.g. Landes, 1999; Narayan et al., 2009;Rodrik, 2007; Smith, 2005); what works is much more contextualized, boundedby time, geography and culture; oftentimes moderated by natural or chance events(e.g. location, war, charisma, natural disasters, world events). Still what countriesdo or do not do – governments, businesses, civil society and ordinary citizens –together with the international community, makes a difference. It is with this back-ground that this article looks at Brazil and its potential lessons from experience forother countries. It is important to note, however, that this is not a comprehensivereview or evaluation of Brazil’s anti-poverty policies and programmes – several ofthese already exist in the literature (e.g. Bastagli, 2008; Hall, 2006; Lindert et al.,2007). Rather, the objective is to draw out lessons from experience, potentiallyapplicable to other emerging economies.

734 International Review of Administrative Sciences 78(4)



The state of poverty in Brazil

According to the World Bank’s Growth Commission Report (2008), Brazil is oneof only 13 ‘success story’ economies in the world to have achieved high sustainedgrowth in the post-war period of at least 7 percent annual GDP growth continu-ously for at least 15 years (1950–80 for Brazil). Brazil is the sixth biggest economyin the world with an estimated total GDP of $2.5 trillion (2011), and one of themost attractive economies for foreign investment. Yet, Brazil is also one of themost unequal nations in the world. Brazil’s inequality is comparable to some of thepoorest countries in Africa and Asia. With a national Gini index of 0.61 – a measureof income inequality – the country’s richest 1 percent of the population – less thantwo million people – have 13 percent of household income, while about 50 percentof the population – over 90 million people – share only 13 percent of householdincome. (Comparable Gini indices for other countries are: China, 0.47; India,0.368; Indonesia, 0.343 and South America and the Caribbean, 0.615.) About 22percent of the population – about 42 million people – are below the national pov-erty line (Beghin, 2008). According to data provided by the country’s Institute ofApplied Economic Research (www.ipear.gov.br), about 11.5 percent of the popu-lation – over 20 million people – are categorized as very poor. Brazil has largerural–urban income inequalities and unequal access to land, housing, infrastruc-ture, water and other social and economic services and opportunities such as edu-cation, health, employment, credit, extension services, Internet, etc.

Brazil is a large and diverse country with a federal system of 27 states and 5564municipalities, all of which experience poverty, extreme poverty and inequalities.For example, the State of Rio de Janeiro presents high percentages of poverty andmisery – 22 percent and 6 percent, respectively. It displays a strong pattern ofincome inequality, registering the highest gap among the most developed statesin Brazil. With a Gini index of 0.61 in 2000, Rio Janeiro showed indices greaterthan those of Sao Paulo (0.59) and Santa Catarina (0.56) (The State of Rio deJaneiro Strategic Plan, 2007–2010, State Government of Rio de Janeiro). Thesenumbers, however, must be understood in the context of how poverty is definedand measured in Brazil and globally (see Table 1).

It is important to note that although poverty and inequality are both repug-nant, they are conceptually and empirically different. For example, usingWorld Bank data in a study of 130 developing countries, Ferreira andRavallion (2008) found strong positive relationships between economicgrowth rates and poverty reduction. This means that high rates of sustainedeconomic growth can lift people out of poverty. The study, however, alsofound no significant relationships between economic growth and changes ininequality. This means that by itself alone, economic growth does not neces-sarily lead to reductions in economic inequality. Inequality is a factor inmoderating the relationships between economic growth rates and povertyreduction. In the short run, it is more prudent to tackle poverty first.Experiences from Brazil and other emerging economies (e.g. China, India)

Kiggundu 735



Table 1. The debate about poverty and inequality in Brazil and globally

The debate:

There is no consensus as to whether or not global poverty and inequality are increasing, decreas-

ing, levelling off, and at what rates. World Bank numbers (e.g. Chen and Ravaillion, 2001) have

been criticized for both underestimating and overestimating global poverty. Bhalla (2002) and

Sala-i-Martin (2002) argue that the number of people living in extreme poverty has actually fallen

more sharply than World Bank numbers seem to suggest. Bhalla argues that the first Millennium

Development Goal (MDG1) of reducing poverty by one-half of the 1990 ‘1$ a day’ poverty rate

by 2015 was achieved in 2000. Other researchers (e.g. Reddy and Pogge, 2002) concluded

that the rate of decline of poverty and inequality have been overestimated by the World Bank.

Much of this debate hinges on what and how is being measured. Global poverty estimates vary

according to the type of data sources used (e.g. national accounts; household surveys), the

variables measured (e.g. income, consumption, transfers) price adjustments used over time and

space (e.g. purchasing power parity, ppp), the unit of analysis used (e.g. men or women, household,

care giver), and how missing and zero data points are treated in the analysis.

These debates are even more relevant in countries like Brazil, which until recently lacked accurate

statistics and the institutional capacity to collect, store, analyse and make available in useable form

socioeconomic data on a sustaining basis.

Definition and measures:

1. The World Bank (2011b) defines poverty as whether households or individuals have enough

resources or ability to meet their needs. It focuses on three aspects of well-being; poverty,

inequality and vulnerability. Inequality is defined as the distribution of income, consumption or

other attributes across the population. Vulnerability is the probability or risk today of being

in poverty or falling deeper into poverty in the future. The focus is mainly on income and

consumption, not other aspects of well-being such as education, health and ownership of

assets.

2. In Brazil, poverty measures are based on the annual household survey called Pesquise Nacional

por Amostra doDomicilios (PAD; www.ibge.gov.br/home/estastica/popularo), which provides

household, not individual, income. PAD uses a nationally representative random sample of

households based on three selection procedures of municipalities, census sectors and house-

holds. Although attempts are made to provide a representative sample by estimating popula-

tion weights, some remote municipalities, with low population densities such as Ace and the

Amazons representing about 2.1 percent of the total Brazilian population, are excluded.

Drawing on the FGT (Foster, Greer, and Thorsbecke) class of poverty measures, researchers

such as Bourguignon and Chakravarty (2003) and Salardi (2008) have developed methodologic-

ally better reformulations, which decompose poverty within and between homogeneous

groups, using differentiated poverty lines. This is particularly important for a country such as

Brazil with huge regional disparities, whose population is differentiated not only by differences

in income but also in terms of social and demographic variables such as ethnicity, religion, family

structure and urban–rural divides. This contributes to better understanding of the relationship

between poverty and inequality. For example, Salardi (2008: 4) observes that by looking at

absolute poverty lines within and between groups, it becomes clear how inequality affects the

level of poverty between groups. Many other emerging economies such as China, Egypt, India,

Indonesia, Nigeria and South Africa share similar demographic characteristics with Brazil.

While Brazil attempts to provide multidimensional measures of poverty similar to the

World Bank by focusing on poverty, inequality and vulnerability, it does not provide compre-

hensive information on all measures of poverty and well-being as defined by the UNDP or the

Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD (Maxwell, 1999).




suggest that sequencing is important for lifting millions out of poverty; fightingpoverty first, then inequality. Societies coming out of poverty seem to havehigh tolerance for inequality (Whyte, 2010).

Table 1 summarizes the debate about the conceptual definition and meas-urements of poverty and inequality in Brazil and globally. The concepts ofpoverty and inequality are complex and multidimensional; they mean andmanifest themselves differently in different settings. This is particularly thecase for large and diverse emerging economies such as Brazil undergoing fun-damental political and socioeconomic transformations at different rates acrossthe population. This explains why different organizations and jurisdictions usedifferent definitions, methods and mix of variables to measure and track theeffects of poverty and inequality. For example, Brazil’s Bolsa Familia andMexico’s Oportunidades both focus on human development by includinghealth and education, the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)includes measures related to gender (development, empowerment), and theDevelopment Assistance Committee of the OECD (Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development) includes child mortality to reflectchanges in Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In spite of these concep-tual and methodological challenges, measures of poverty and inequality provideuseful indicators of human development and well-being within and betweencountries and over time.

With such a gloomy situation of poverty and inequality, it would appear thatBrazil has nothing positive to share with the rest of the world when it comes tofighting poverty and advancing social justice. Yet Brazil has a history offighting poverty and inequality, advancing democratic political reform, progressivesocioeconomic development and, over the years, accumulated lessons from experi-ence, which when carefully studied can prove potentially useable for other coun-tries with similar challenges (Kinzo and Dunkerley, 2003; Skidmore, 2007). TheWorld Bank’s World Development Report on tackling poverty rightly states in itsopening sentence that ‘poverty amid plenty is the world’s greatest challenge’(World Bank, 2001: v). Therefore, experiences gained in one country are instructivein others.

This article is based on the belief that sustained achievement of the MillenniumDevelopment Goals will depend not only on increasing resources but also onrenewed commitment to adapt and accelerate implementation of successfulapproaches both within and across countries. This is consistent with severalongoing initiatives by the international community to find solutions to global pov-erty. For example, the Shanghai Conference and Agenda on Poverty Reduction(26–27 May 2004), drawing on case studies from different countries, provided aunique opportunity to learn from the rich and diverse experiences on growthand poverty reduction – both successes and failures – and to explore ways inwhich ingredients of success at the project, country and global levels can be builtupon and adapted to scale up progress on poverty reduction in all parts of theworld.

Kiggundu 737



Why focus on Brazil?

Why focus on Brazil if other countries have anti-poverty and progressive socialchange programmes? For example, in a relatively short period of time, China haslifted almost 400 million citizens out of poverty. South Africa has halved themurder rate, virtually eliminated malnutrition for under-fives, increased schoolenrolment for 7–15-year-olds to almost 100 percent, set up the world’s biggestantiretroviral treatment programmes for HIV/AIDs, and is addressing intergenera-tional transfer of poverty and inequality (The Economist, 5 June 2010; Samson,2009). Others such as Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand andZambia are aggressively pursuing anti-poverty policies and inclusive development(The International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth, www.ipc-undp.org). LikeBrazil, many of these countries are in the midst of one of humanity’s greatesttransformations and, within the realities of their unique contexts, they havemuch to learn from one another.

Brazil is a good country to study and from which to draw out lessons fromexperience for others to learn from for a variety of reasons. The country has one ofthe world’s largest public conditional cash transfers to the poor, diffused in differ-ent states, municipalities and reaching an estimated 44 million people or 24 percentof the national population (Bastagli, 2008). The country’s anti-poverty and pro-gressive social policies, programmes and experiments have attracted attentionnationally, in South America and globally. International (e.g. the World Bank,UNESCO, UNDP and FAO) and faith-based organizations continue to providematerial and moral support, including international recognition and awards(Sugiyama, 2007). They are encouraging other countries (e.g. Ghana,Mozambique) to take advantage of Brazil’s experiences.

Brazil shares many of the characteristics and challenges facing other emer-ging economies including uneasy combinations of high levels of economicgrowth, deep poverty and extreme inequalities, and growing risks to economyand society associated with climate change (Brainard et al., 2009; World Bank,2009). Many emerging economies are big in size (population and geography),diverse economically, socially, geographically and demographically (by race,colour, creed, ethnicity, ideology, etc.). They have decentralized federal systemsof governments and are democratizing and undertaking other forms of politicaland institutional reforms, often after long periods of dictatorship and humanrights abuses. Brazil has maintained a prolonged period of relative peace bothwithin its borders and with its neighbours. Countries are better able to sustainfocused attention on anti-poverty and progressive change when they are experi-encing internal harmony and peace with others (Myrdal, 1970). This is par-ticularly relevant for conflict, post-conflict and fragile countries (e.g.Afghanistan, Burma, Ethiopia, Colombia, DRC, Iraq, Liberia, Nigeria,Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Sudan, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe) and thosegoing through popular political transformations (e.g. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia,Yemen).




The country is credited with pursuing growth policies and institutional devel-opment aimed at achieving economic convergence with living standards ofadvanced industrialized economies. It is also credited with a deep appreciation ofthe fact that the challenges of igniting growth differ significantly from those forsustaining it (Rodrik, 2007). Over time, the country has managed to mobilize anational network of individuals, groups, organizations, institutions and commu-nities from both the public and private sectors to work together to advance anti-poverty and progressive social change. The network includes public agencies atdifferent levels of government, faith-based organizations (e.g. the Roman CatholicChurch), trade unions, professional associations, universities (e.g. the Six Citizens’Universities), state-owned enterprises, NGOs and political parties. This hasallowed the country to create a national deliberative platform for dialogue andconsensus on policies relating to anti-poverty and progressive change. Brazil’santi-poverty programme is much more broadly based and embedded in institu-tions, families and communities (Saxby, 2004, 2011).

Brazil and Mexico’s Oportunidades compared

Oportunidades is the principal anti-poverty programme of the Mexican govern-ment. Originally known as Progresa, it started in 1997 only in rural areas, butwas extended to include the urban poor in 2002. It helps poor families to investin human capital by improving children’s education, health and nutrition, andgiving them the opportunity to escape intergenerational poverty. It providesCCTs as incentives to keep children in school, promote preventive health care,improve food consumption, and nutrition for infants and pregnant and lactatingwomen. Monthly CCTs are paid to the mothers in the household on condition thatchildren and adolescents attend school, infants receive micronutrient supplements,mothers attend sessions on nutrition and health practices, and all family membershave regular health check-ups. It was conceived and is managed by highly educatedand experienced federal government officials, with strong support from thePresident. There is strong coordination among the key federal government minis-tries of education, finance and social security. In 1999, its budget was only0.2 percent of Mexico’s GDP (compared to about 1 percent of GDP for Brazil).It now covers about 4 million families, over 60 percent of them rural. It benefitedfrom a well-designed evaluation study by an external independent US organization,the International Food Policy Research Institute (Gertler, 2000; Skoufias, 2005),which found that after only three years, poor rural Mexican children onOportunidades were better off than the control group. Specifically, school enrol-ment improved 20 percent for girls, 10 percent for boys, with better balanced diets,better medical attention received, and new-born children grew better with reduc-tions in child stunting. This prestigious evaluation study gave the programme cred-ibility both domestically and internationally, making it possible for President Foxto extend and modify it to include the urban poor, and introduce education grantsto high school students with a new component called ‘Youth with Opportunity’

Kiggundu 739



(Jovenes con oportunidades). Mexico’s experience points to the importance ofundertaking early, independent monitoring and evaluation so as to demonstrateresults for lessons from experience.

Although Mexico’s Oportunidades has been deemed successful, the Braziliananti-poverty programme is different and better in several respects. In terms ofsize and scope, Brazil’s programme is among the biggest in the world, and rightfrom the beginning it covered both urban and rural areas. Skoufias (2005) foundthat targeting poor families in rural areas created tensions between those who areincluded or excluded from receiving CCTs. This may be due to the fact that poorrural families tend to be more closely connected, making it socially unacceptablefor government to choose between winners and losers. In poor rural communities,it may be preferable to include all residents in the programme instead of discrimi-nating among households. This problem was not apparent in Brazil, especially inthe urban areas – highlighting differences between rural and urban anti-povertystrategies.

Brazil is mainly urban with about 80 percent of the population living in urbanareas. Although the rural population tends to be poorer, developments in agricul-ture and agribusiness, especially in the Midwest states, have modernized the coun-tryside and helped to close the rural–urban income gap. After the 2008–09 financialcrisis, the economy is growing again, unemployment is low (about 6 percent) andmillions of Brazilians are now actively participating in the economy as wage earn-ers, producers and consumers. A growing number of hard-working families aremoving out of favelas (urban slums) and joining the growing middle class in betterserviced neighbourhoods (Perlman, 2010). Bolsa Familia has been instrumental inimproving family well-being and helping children to do better in school – thusreducing intergenerational transfer of poverty. Internal migration away from thebiggest cities has helped to keep unemployment levels low, reduced concentrationof poor people in urban slums, and made it easier for social services to reach thepoor and those in most need (Andrews, 2011, personal communication). Similarchanges have not taken place in Mexico.

The Brazilian programme also differs from Mexico in the way it is managed andcoordinated. Mexico’s Oportunidades is essentially owned and managed by thefederal government. Brazil’s programme is much more decentralized, jointlyowned and implemented by the three levels of government – federal, state andlocal – civil society and the private sector. Lula da Silva, the former charismaticpresident, was perceived as more of a champion for the poor than President Fox.While the Mexican programme is horizontally decentralized and coordinatedwithin federal government ministries, in Brazil, the programmes are both horizon-tally (within federal government) and vertically decentralized and coordinated withstate, municipal and non-government stakeholders. In Brazil, more so than inMexico, urban citizens are much more actively involved in anti-poverty activism.For example, the 2005 Carnival in Rio de Janeiro was used as a platform forpromoting awareness among the citizens of the MDGs in partnership betweenthe UNDP and the local Portela samba schools (Thomas, 2006: 40).




Grassroots support helps to protect the long-term financing of anti-povertyprogrammes and avoid policy reversal, especially when governments change orbudgets are cut. Mexico appears to depend more on remittances than publicallyfunded conditional cash transfers, while in Brazil it is the other way round.Mexico’s remittance inflows were US$22.6 billion compared to only US$4.3 billionfor Brazil (World Bank, 2011a). We do not know the relative importance of remit-tances and conditional cash transfers for reducing poverty and inequality. Wespeculate, however, that large and growing remittance inflows may reduce pressureon governments to use public finances such as CCTs to address poverty andinequalities. President Dilma Rousseff has introduced a multibillion dollar plancalled Plano Brazil sem Miseria (Brazil without Misery) to complement BFP bytargeting 16 million citizens living in extreme poverty, promising to eliminateextreme poverty in four years. However, continuing incidents of corruption leadingto resignations of ministers and senior public servants, growing budgetary pres-sures, and a strong currency reducing exports and threatening jobs, all detract fromneeded anti-poverty and progressive social change (The Economist, 20–26 August2011: 36–37).

Methods

This article is part of the author’s ongoing work on improving South–Southcooperation by drawing out lessons from experience across countries, sectors orglobally significant cross-cutting issues such as poverty and inequality. It is basedon the belief that countries of the South are better able to effectively address theirdevelopment challenges by learning and drawing lessons from experience amongthemselves. The article draws on the growing literature on poverty reduction pro-grammes in emerging economies with a focus on Brazil. It is based on a ratherlimited and focused review of the literature, unpublished institutional reports andstudies, visits to Brazil, and ongoing contacts with Brazilians working on issues ofpoverty, inequality, NGO management, and democratic development and socialjustice. Unpublished studies include doctoral theses (e.g. Bastagli, 2008; Sugiyama,2007); World Bank reports (e.g. Lindert et al., 2007); and the International PovertyCentre (Medeiros et al., 2008), whose work is supported by the UNDP. While inBrazil, the author conducted unstructured interviews and discussions with the staffof the Federal School of Public Administration, academics, graduate students andcommunity leaders. Contacts and consultations continue by email and occasionallyface-to-face meetings and conferences.

The article benefited from the different perspectives provided by representativesfrom government, civil society organizations and academics. For example, gov-ernment officials are knowledgeable about policy development, resource mobiliza-tion, programme management and the challenges of vertical and horizontalcoordination within ministries and across levels of government. NGO and com-munity leaders provided useful information about how the NGO and businesssectors work together to mobilize both governments (federal, state and municipal)

Kiggundu 741



and the population, especially in poor isolated, underdeveloped parts of the coun-try such as the Northeast. Senior officials with experience working in the Federalgovernment office of the Presidency, state-owned enterprises such as FURNAS,and NGOs like COEP provided useful insights on the challenges of keeping publicinstitutions such as universities and municipalities focused on issues of social justicewhen they are not directly related to revenue generating projects. In addition tosharing some of their ongoing research and unpublished work, academics whoacted as advisers, consultants and advocates provided insights on the role publicinstitutions like universities can play to strengthen anti-poverty coalitions atnational, state and community levels.

Yet this approach has several limitations. This is not an exhaustive review of theliterature or assessment of Brazil’s or any other country’s poverty reduction pro-grammes. The article is not an evaluation of Bolsa Familia or conditional cashtransfers in general (e.g. see Bastagli, 2008), nor is it a comparison of Brazilianand other countries’ poverty reduction programmes. Rather, the purpose of thearticle is to draw out lessons from experience from Brazil’s poverty reduction pro-grammes for other emerging countries to learn from, reflect and adapt to their ownnational, local, institutional or policy situations. Although the article is based onselected, targeted and limited studies and personal contacts in Brazil, at the time ofthe study these were among the most informed and authoritative sources.

Brazil’s Bolsa Familia (BFP) and Beneficio de PrestacaoContinuada

The two most prominent anti-poverty programmes in Brazil are BPC (ContinuousCash Benefits) and Bolsa Familia (Family Grant, BFP). Bolsa Familia combinesfour components, previously administered by separate ministries, ranging througheducation, health and mines and energy. The four pre-existing programmes andtheir respective ministries were: Bolsa Escola (Education), Bolsa Alimentacao(Health), Cartao Alimentacao, Fome Zero (Health), and Auxilio Gas (Mines andEnergy). This functional–sectoral differentiation resulted in several drawbacksrelating to programme management and coordination. Separate bureaucratic struc-tures resulted in high implementation costs, political interference and lack of focuson the needs of the poor. There were problems of inter-ministerial coordination, aseach ministry worked within its own hierarchy, protected its own mandate, power,influence and resources. By bringing all the components together under a singleBolsa Familia programme, integration helped reduce costs, standardize proceduresand outcomes, and improve targeting (reducing undercoverage and leakage), scal-ing up and coordination. In 2004, the creation of a new ‘super’ Ministry of SocialDevelopment and Fight against Hunger (MSD), and the transfer of managementand executive responsibilities from the President’s Office to the new ministry,brought together and improved coordination under one structure for all anti-pov-erty and social programmes (Hall, 2006). Zero Hunger, an earlier component ofBolsa Familia, integrated about 50 policies and programmes ranging from direct




financial aid to small farmers to low-cost restaurants all aimed at feeding thepoorest and alleviating extreme poverty.

Brazil’s anti-poverty programme is both centralized and decentralized. WhileBolsa Familia is funded by the Federal Government, it is implemented at the muni-cipal level. Each municipality is required to set up a social council (Counselhodecontrole Social), which oversees the administration of the programme. The councilis responsible for the registration of potential beneficiaries under a single registry(cadastro unico), data collection, monitoring and enforcing programme condition-alities. Members of the council are appointed by elected civic officials.While thismay cause undue influence or political interference from the mayor’s office, itenhances community participation and ownership.

Reviews of the benefits of these programmes have been quite positive. TheInternational Poverty Centre (Medeiros et al., 2008) found that the programmesare accomplishing their goals of reducing poverty and inequality, have no negativeeffects on incentives to work and contributions to the pension system, and theirimpact on the national budget is manageable. A World Bank review of BolsaFamilia commended the decentralized approach and recommended the programmeto other countries (Lindert et al., 2007). Others have been more critical, referring toBFP as ‘charity for beggars’ (Andrews, 2004; Hall, 2006: 707).

Table 2 summarizes key attributes of Brazil’s two most important anti-povertyprogrammes (Bolsa Familia and BPC, Beneficio de Prestacao Continiada). Over theyears, both programmes have been transformed and enlarged in size, coverage andcost. They are the practical manifestation of the 1988 Constitution, which estab-lished new social rights in education and health for all citizens, thus linking pro-gressive social protection with a constitutionally protected legal framework.Intergenerational transmission of poverty, inequality and marginalization are ser-ious concerns in most emerging economies. The Bolsa Familia programmeaddresses these problems by imposing conditionality on the beneficiaries suchthat benefits are conditional on continuing access to public investments in educa-tion, maternal health and child development. Children must stay in school, preg-nant women must access prenatal and postnatal medical services, and child labourforce participation is monitored.

The programme has provided the country with the opportunity to developpolicy and operational coordinating and integrating mechanisms, horizontallyacross sectors and functions such as education, health, social child protectionand development, and vertically across different levels of government. Lessonsfrom experience gained here can be instructive for other countries whose govern-ments wish to avoid the rigidities of bureaucratic silos and develop synergisticleadership, programme management and coordination. Over time, Brazil has devel-oped a ‘natural laboratory for social innovation’ in areas of anti-poverty, socialpolicy debates, development and decentralization. These cover a range ofissues including conditionality, targeting, sequencing, exit policies, centralized–decentralized programme management, coordination, incentivizing, monitoring,learning, enforcement and avoiding policy reversals.

Kiggundu 743



Open discussions of poverty, inequality and social justice by different politicalparties at different levels of government, professionals, academics, NGOs, themedia and faith-based organizations within the country have stimulated andraised the level and quality of public debate, especially relating to the Brazilianessence of the state (raison d’Etat), and greater awareness by the poor in terms of

Table 2. Summary of key facts about the two CCT programmes (BPC and BFP)

BPC

Cash transfer policies are now permanent feature of Brazilian social protection system

These programmes redress historical imbalances: 60 percent of the national labour force (about

48 million people) work in the informal sector, not covered by public or private pension schemes

Both programmes considerably expanded with demonstrated positive impacts on poverty and

inequality. The 1988 Constitution established new social rights to life, education and health. These

programmes are the practical expression of the constitutional guarantees

BFP in an income supplementation programme (assumes other sources of income); BPC does not

assume that beneficiaries may have other sources of income

BPC benefits are much higher than BFP, better able to lift families out of poverty

BFP concerned with intergenerational transmission of poverty; conditionality to promote investments

in human development: education, health, and child and maternal development; PBC does not

demand behavioural compromise

On targeting, these programmes are quite efficient and reach most targeted citizens using a much

more decentralized delivery system

No negative effects on labour force participation have been documented

Costs are reasonable, impact on national budget manageable (annual cost about 1 percent

of GDP)

BFP

One of the biggest in the world, reaching over 11 million families – over 46 million people (almost

25 percent of total population) consolidated four pre-reform programmes into one, building on

Brazil’s decades of experience with CCTs

Good targeting, positive effects on poverty/inequality indicators, decentralized implementation,

innovative performance-based management, incentives for quality, addresses principal–agent

problems

Serves as unifying force and integrating mechanism, horizontally across sectors/functions (education,

health, social development/academia, public administration) and levels of government (federal/

state/municipal/villages)

‘Natural laboratory for innovation’ in decentralized context on various issues: exit policies, transfer,

targeting, conditionality, institutional arrangements, administration, monitoring, evaluation, learn-

ing, transformation and sustaining

Stimulates and raised the scope and quality of national debates, promotes civic education and social

justice among the poor

Builds strong families, communities, promotes social harmony, creates social capital, and contributes

to national unity

Note: BPC¼Continuous Cash Benefit Programme; aka Beneficio de Prestacao Continuada; BFP¼ Bolsa Familia

Programme; CCT¼Conditional Cash Transfer. Compiled from Bastagli (2008), Lindert et al. (2007) and

Medeiros et al. (2008).




their rights and responsibilities as citizens. The high quality of public debate con-tributes to good governance, widens and enriches the national policy community,and sets the stage for more transparent and accountable public administration.Lack of open quality debate leads to state capture, poor policy options and greaterabuse of power. When the poor and marginalized are aware of their citizenshiprights and the obligations of public officials, they are more likely to hold publicagencies accountable. Civic education protects against ignorance, poverty, inequal-ity, marginalization, discrimination and injustice. It is an effective mechanism formobilizing the poor to protect their rights, educate themselves, hold governmentsto account and sustain progressive social change. According to the work done byCOEP in the north-eastern part of the country, NGOs routinely provide civiceducation to the poor regarding their constitutional rights under Bolsa Familiaand similar social programmes. Informed citizens receiving social benefits aremore likely to stay in the programme and to observe the necessary conditionalities(Saxby, 2004, 2011).

Programme management and coordination

Table 3 summarizes the features and possible lessons from experience from BolsaFamilia, in terms of programme design, institutional arrangements for policy devel-opment and implementation, results achieved to date, and some of the ongoingchallenges. One of the important lessons from experience is the need to balance theforces of centralization and integration at the federal level with the downstreamimperatives for decentralization and differentiation at the state, municipal and com-munity levels. Brazil attempts to achieve this balance by applying several consti-tutional and administrative tools, including federal legislation, mandating andregulating national standards, a strong central coordinating body, MSD, delegatedimplementation to local authorities, and the active engagement of civil society.Programme ownership, management and control is embedded and diffused acrosssociety. This contributes different capacities and competencies relevant for theprogramme’s value chain and ensures commitment, success and sustainability.Careful crafting of formal (e.g. hierarchy, standards) and informal (e.g. empower-ing citizens) management, coordination and decentralization contribute to theeffective and sustaining implementation of the programme (Rosenberg et al., 2000).

At the local level, three interrelated factors have contributed to the success ofprogressive change in Brazil: first, the 1988 progressive constitution, which intro-duced new citizens’ rights to life and entrenched progressive social change. Second,the transition to democracy; creating deliberative space for the development ofassociative and networking communities, mobilizing the poor, providing protec-tion against policy reversal and state capture because of frequent elections andbecause voting is mandatory. Third, the successful diffusion of social change result-ing from shared ideology and social networking among various political, adminis-trative, religious, civic and professional organizations. Diffusion of progressivesocial change occurs in Brazil when elected officials feel ideologically compelled

Kiggundu 745



Table 3. Bolsa Familia: summary of lessons from experience

Programme design:

Progressive growth in size and coverage (spending, geography and population)

Emphasis on nationwide standardization: levels, coverage, procedures

Bottom-up approach: first nationwide application in 2001, following state and municipal experimentation with CCT

2003, four separate CCTs run by different ministries, different target groups of poor, implemented nationwide. New

president (Lula de Silva) elected, launched Bolsa Familia as own programme (strong personal leadership at the top),

consolidation, targeted poor families, reorganized social assistance, introduced legislation mandating and regulating

national standards and practices. No income test for beneficiaries

Dual purpose: Reduce family income poverty with guaranteed minimum income (short-run), and improve human capital

outcomes in education and health to prevent intergenerational transfer of poverty/inequality.

Institutional arrangements:

MSD serves as strong central coordinating body. Ministries of education and health responsible for consolidation of

conditionality, monitoring, information, service delivery

Municipalities responsible for programme implementation: registration of beneficiaries, monitoring conditionality

compliance

Local authorities and local organizations (e.g. NGOs, universities, and corporations) participate in programme imple-

mentation and monitoring at own levels.

Management:

Federal legislation governs policy, programme design and management to ensure national standardization

Public administration and management tools used across sectors and levels (e.g. indicators of decentralized admin-

istration; terms of agreement, targeting, information collection, selection of beneficiaries, benefit payments, suspen-

sion, etc.)

Key ongoing functions: registration of claimants into the Cadastro (registry of client records); registration updating

and monitoring of conditionality, private sector participation.

Summary results:

BFP keeps poor children in school, but results differ by biography (e.g. age, gender) and family attributes (e.g. parents’

education, rural vs urban, income, employment status, etc.)

No significant impact on child labour force participation

Improved school attendance but less so for the very poor and older children.

Increased public awareness of citizenship rights/responsibilities and roles of different government agencies

Challenges:

Need for capacity building, especially at lower levels of government and across sectors

Enforcing national standards and maintaining programme integrity, accountability and transparency

Possible hazards of dependency, abuse, targeting, disincentives to work, avoiding taxes, public accountability, challenges

of reaching underserviced citizens, policy reversal

Need for continuous innovation, improvements, programme redesign, new management and ICT tools

Sustainability: constitutional requirements, institutionalization, political/public support, transformation, funding, etc.

Management and coordination: within and across ministries and agencies, with state and municipal governments, and

with private sector participators




to replicate successful programmes tried elsewhere, and when policy professionalsboth in government and in the private sector engage in relevant networks thatpromote socially progressive professional norms (Sugiyama, 2007). Here we seethe need for the convergence between the interests and beliefs (ideology) of thepolitical leaders and those of the professional class, resulting from the developmentof organized professionalism and professional norms of conduct, networking andshared values (ideology) among various segments of society. Therefore, countriesundertaking administrative reforms need to pay more attention to the developmentof professionalism and professional associations and associative communitiesamong various professions in both the public and private sectors.

Organizations from different sectors and mandates contribute differentresources, competencies, values, management and coordinating tools. They needtime (about ten years) to learn how to work effectively together and achieve syn-ergy. One of the coordinating mechanisms among these organizations is the sharedbelief that poor communities must be empowered to define their own developmentneeds, actively participate in setting priorities, mobilizing resources, implementingprogrammes, sharing lessons from experience and learning together. Corporationsin energy like FURNAS (www.furnas.com.br) and natural resources with experi-ence working in rural, isolated and poor communities are actively involved inprogressive social development as part of their corporate social responsibility(CSR), developing sustainable communities in the areas where they do or expectto do business. Faculty and students (e.g. the Six Citizen Universities) are activelyinvolved in advancing anti-poverty and progressive social change, not only asresearchers, educators and consultants, but, more importantly, as advocates andactivists. Fighting poverty and injustice is everyone’s business (see Table 3).

Under the Cabinet Office, MSD has the overall responsibility for policy andsupervision, including horizontal and vertical coordination with other ministriesand agencies, sub-national governments, civil society organizations and the privatesector. MSD as a ‘super ministry’ created organizational management challengessuch as redefining and aligning mandates, roles and responsibilities, poolingresources, coordination and standardization. It needed a strong and influentialMinister close to the President to manage the transformation. The Bolsa FamiliaSecretariat (Secretaria Nacional de Randa de Cidadania; SENARC) oversees overallprogramme management and registry.

In order to link BFP beneficiaries to other complementary services within amore comprehensive social protection framework, SENARC works very closelywith the National Secretariat for Social Assistance (Secretaria Nacional deAssistencia Social; SNAS), which deals with specific vulnerable groups such asthe elderly and disabled, the National Secretariat for Food Security, which focuseson hunger and food security for the poor, and the Secretariat for InstitutionalArticulation and Partnerships (Secretaria de Articulacao Institucional e Parcerias;SAIP), which coordinates inter-government and inter-ministerial partnerships andoutreach with NGOs relating to workers and incomes. Three federal control agen-cies, the General Controller’s Office, Federal Audit Court and the Office of Public

Kiggundu 747



Prosecutor, together are responsible for formal programme oversight and coord-inate control functions of finance, accounting, audit and enforcement. The man-agement and coordination of the programme works on the principle that what getsmeasured gets attention, what gets rewarded gets reinforced and what gets pun-ished tends to disappear.

Within this decentralized environment, state governments play a significant roleproviding technical assistance and building capacities for municipalities, especiallythose with limited resources. State governments support training of municipalemployees and help prevent abuse by providing identification and documentationfor individuals and families in the cadestro unico. Although municipalities havedirect responsibilities for programme implementation, they do not all have ade-quate resources or capabilities. Participating private sector and civil society organ-izations provide resources and checks on corruption and abuse. For example,Caixa, with country-wide coverage, provides financial services such as paymentssystems, maintenance and upgrading of the registry. Private sector participationpromotes competition, innovation and diffusion.

Tools for programme management and coordination

Various factors contribute to the challenges of managing and coordinating theprogramme. It is large, growing and comprehensive, attempting to reach previouslyunderserved citizens in remote villages or urban favelas, with limited physical andinstitutional infrastructure. The multidimensional nature of the programme withmultiple objectives and multiple sectors adds to its complexity. Various govern-ment and private sector participating organizations, each with their own mandate,leadership style, value chains, institutional arrangements, operating systems andideological biases all add to the challenges; so do distances among participatingorganizations and different types of beneficiaries.These distances may be physical(geography, infrastructure, rural–urban), economic (income, wealth, opportu-nities), socio-cultural (e.g. human development, family structure, language, ethni-city, illiteracy), or political (e.g. ideology). Differences in size and power among thedifferent municipalities contribute added challenges. For example, mayors of smal-ler municipalities with limited resources resent the power and influence of mayorsof bigger cities, municipalities and officials from the more powerful state govern-ments. While frequent elections at different levels of government help to strengthendemocratic support for the programme, they also inject a dose of uncertainty interms of differences in ideology, policies, political support, personal leadershipstyle, trust and relationships when governments change.

Over the years, through experimentation, experience and careful study, Brazil hasdeveloped various management and coordination mechanisms and application toolsto deal with these and similar implementing challenges. These tools fall under fourbroad but closely related categories: (1) Legal andConstitutional; (2) OrganizationalDesign and Management; (3) Capacity Building and Utilization; and (4) InformalMechanisms. Table 4 provides details of these tools and their applications.




Table 4. Programme management and coordination tools and their applications

Management and coordination mechanisms Applications tools

Legal & constitutional 1988 Constitution provides legal foundation:

citizens’ rights to life, responsibilities to

vote

Government legislation, policies and

procedures

Regular democratic and competitive elections

at all levels of government

Political leadership and support by way of

parties’ platforms

Organizational design and management Federal Government maintains overall pro-

gramme policy and control; applies tools

such as national guidelines, standards,

financing, administrative and political own-

ership. Programme consolidation

The Decentralized Management Index (IGD)

is used to monitor and evaluate quality of

each participating municipality

Incentives: performance-based contracts with

enforceable sanctions for inadequate

standards by way of audits and oversight

controls (e.g. Caixa)

Potential principal–agent dilemmas handled

through the formal hierarchy (federal),

informally through capacity building

NGO/private sector participation compen-

sates for government shortfalls

Ongoing programme risk/vulnerability assess-

ment and management by all actors

Capacity building and utilization Establishment of joint management agree-

ments among levels of governments: helps

municipalities to develop programme man-

agement capacities and institutional frame-

work for effective implementation: clear

roles and responsibilities, minimum stand-

ards of performance, financial incentives,

audits, monitoring and evaluation, etc.

Vertical integration by way of hierarchy

among levels of government; ICT

resources, capacities and competencies.

Mechanisms to promote learning, cross-ferti-

lization, innovation and sharing of experi-

ences across states, municipalities and

other actors

(continued)

Kiggundu 749



Effective programme management and coordination combines legal, constitu-tional and hierarchical formal mechanisms with the more informal or organic tools,strengthening programme implementation both vertically and horizontally. TheDecentralization Management Index (Indice de Gestao Descentralizada) wasdesigned by the Federal Government to monitor and evaluate the quality of imple-mentation of each municipality on four measures: (1) The share of families regis-tered with a valid registry to measure consistency and completeness of information;(2) The share of families with registries updated at least within the past two years;(3) The share of BFP children with complete information on compliance witheducation conditionalities; and (4) The share of families with complete informationon compliance with health conditionalities (see Lindert et al., 2007: 26). This andsimilar formal tools are designed to ensure national standards and to help weakermunicipalities to acquire the necessary resources, build and utilize capacities andcompetencies to achieve national standards. This fosters unity in a vast and diversecountry, characterized by inequalities at all levels of society.

Table 4. Continued

Management and coordination mechanisms Applications tools

Establishment of inter-municipal consortium:

pooling resources (finance, equipment)

together among municipalities; council of

mayors makes decisions, facilitates learning

and sharing of information and lessons of

experience among municipalities; improves

management and coordination,

standardization

Annual BFP Innovation Award (Premio) used

to promote sharing of experience, including

field visits, published case studies, work-

shops, etc.

Strengthening individuals, families, commu-

nities and inter-community relations for

more effective utilization of programme

benefits

Informal mechanisms Strong popular programme support related to

national identity, rights and responsibilities.

NGO/private sector contacts and lobbying of

all politicians and public officials ensure

support and informal coordination

Civic education, mobilizing and educating the

poor about their rights and responsibilities

as citizens




Lessons in civic education for individuals and families about their rights andresponsibilities as citizens and their programme entitlements, facilitate buildinglocal capacities to effectively access and utilize programme benefits. BFP is seenby the people not only as an anti-poverty programme, but also as a social contract,a unifying force for the country’s overall social policy reform, democratization,human rights and overall progressive social development. This provides informalbut powerful tools for social cohesion and shared values, thus helping the citizensto accept ownership and internalize programme goals and successful implementa-tion. Local leadership provides ongoing programme support and coordination byway of frequent contacts and lobbying politicians of major political parties atdifferent levels of government and senior public servants, mainly through theirprofessional associations. Access to the Internet connects and empowers poorpeople.

These findings are consistent with the literature on management in developingcountries. Within organizations, simple routine tasks are coordinated by simplecoordinating mechanisms such as hierarchy, rules and standardization, and MSDuses many of these. Complex policy or strategic management tasks are coordinatedusing correspondingly complex and informal integrating mechanisms such asshared values. Where two or more organizations are involved, integration isachieved by applying inter-organizational coordination such as the establishmentof joint management agreements among the three levels of government, mayors ofparticipating municipalities, or the private sector.The more complex coordinatingmechanisms are more difficult to manage and require advanced management cap-abilities (Kiggundu, 1989: 130–141).

A model for progressive social policy

Drawing on the analysis of the Brazilian experience and the wider literature, wehave identified four key factors which help to explain and possibly predict effectiveand sustaining anti-poverty strategies and progressive social change. These factors,shown in Table 5, are:

1. Contextualized enabling environment2. Reaching out and engaging the community3. Policy, programme design, management and coordination, and4. Institutional and constitutional entrenchment

While these drivers appear intuitive, the important lesson is not to see them inisolation. Rather, they must be seen as holistic, interdependent and mutually rein-forcing. For example, constitutionalism or macroeconomic management individu-ally do not lead to sustaining anti-poverty and progressive social change. Exclusivefocus on internal aspects of programme management and coordination withoutcareful consideration of the effects of the nature and constraints of the external

Kiggundu 751



environment would undermine the long-term success and support for the pro-gramme. Reaching poor underserviced citizens or the bottom billions is a seriouschallenge for Brazil and other emerging economies (Collier, 2007; Kiggundu, 2009;Prahalad, 2006). The challenge programme managers face is to continually alignmanagement and coordination with the changing programme context and partici-pants at different stages of implementation.

The key drivers necessitate building national and local capacities for effectivemacroeconomic management for growth with equity, political and democraticdevelopment, social cohesion, leadership, reaching out and engaging communities,policy and programme management, and institutional and constitutional entrench-ment. The national constitution defines citizens’ rights to life and responsibilities tovote and participate in the political process. Macroeconomic management isimportant because without a functioning, productive and globally competitiveeconomy, it is not possible to sustain anti-poverty and progressive social change(World Bank, 2005). Social cohesion facilitates peaceful coexistence, shared learn-ing, equality, and a non-discriminating ‘harmonious’ society based on the rule oflaw for all, development and preservation of social capital (Aga Khan, 2008;Putman, 1993).

Finally, effective, credible and ethical leaders are needed at all levels of govern-ment, society and the economy (e.g. political, administrative, business, faith-based,military, academic). This involves a good mixture of charismatic, wise, decisive,technocratic, advocacy and spiritual leadership at different stages. Leadership isneeded beyond those holding political office. Different leadership styles are neededat different stages of programme inception and implementation. At the beginning,

Table 5. Drivers of anti-poverty and progressive social change

Contextualized

enabling environment

Reaching out and

engaging the

community

Policy, programme

design and

management

Institutional and

constitutional

entrenchment

Macroeconomic

management

Political/democratic

development

International community

recognition/support

Social cohesion/harmony

Quality of national and

sub-national leadership

Competitive-indigenous

enterprise sector

Experimentation and

learning

Community mobilization

and organization

Networking among

professional organizations

Coalition formation:

Business

(SOEs)-NGOs-gov-faith-

based orgs

Political

education and activism

BOP-type initiatives

Improved and

coordinated public

management

(federal-state-municipal)

Grassroots capacity

building

Active

Involvement of national

institutions (universities,

SOEs, research institutions,

political parties,

religions organizations, etc.

Consensus on the essence

of the state and citizenship

Institutionalization of social

protection

Public-political

irreversible support and

commitment

Constitutional

entrenchment

Regional and international

recognition and support




there is a need for strong charismatic leadership, ideologically driven to give theprogramme vision, public support, legitimacy, and overcome opposition, resistanceor distortions. During the early stages of implementation, there is need for techno-cratic leadership to mobilize resources, build systems and capacities for pro-gramme management. Administrative tools and control systems (e.g. registration,monitoring, enforcement) and ICT (information and communications technol-ogy) are critical for all participating organizations. Leadership is also needed tobuild a ‘smart government’ for progressive social change (Kliksberg, 2000). Thenext stage requires institutional building leadership for institutionalizing the pro-gramme: consolidation, scaling up, deeper penetration, more precise targeting,depoliticization and sustainability; avoiding policy reversal, neglect or institutionaldecay.

Summary and discussion

This article provides lessons from experience relating to policy and programmeleadership, management, coordination and the context within which anti-povertyprogrammes are implemented. Still, much remains unknown and there are alwaysongoing challenges. For example, Borins (2001) identified five generic challenges ofinnovation and diffusion in government including the use of the systems approachand information technology, process reengineering and improvement, the involve-ment and participation of the private or voluntary sector, and empowerment ofcommunities, citizens and staff. All these five apply to the challenges of managinganti-poverty programmes and driving social change in Brazil and elsewhere.

Finally, the key challenge that motivated this article relates to the need for cross-country fertilization: experimentation, drawing out evidence-based lessons fromexperience, shared learning and adaptation according to country-specific condi-tions. The idea is not to blindly copy policies or implementing modalities fromother countries. Rather, the objective is to undertake serious analyses of experi-ences, especially in countries from the South with sound field experimentalapproaches to progressive social change, identify key success factors (whatworks, what doesn’t), the conditions under which these factors work or do notwork, and compare with one’s own country-specific conditions. Based on thisknowledge, one can adapt appropriate context-specific policies and design imple-menting strategies and tools, and continue experimenting. This approach elimin-ates some of the guessing and wasteful trial-and-error initiatives.

One interesting area for further research is the study of incentives, disincentives,sanctions and enforcements in the management and coordination of anti-povertyand progressive social change. The Brazilian programme applies a variety of toolsfor incentivizing and sanctioning programme participants in government (e.g.public officials), among beneficiaries (e.g. lactating mothers) and private sectororganizations (e.g. Caixa). Incentives and sanctions can have intended or unin-tended consequences, especially when applied in diverse and changing

Kiggundu 753



circumstances. Looking ahead, we follow Riggs by calling for comparative studiesof anti-poverty and progressive social change among developing countries andemerging economies. Such studies must be empirical, nomothetic, and ecological(Riggs, 2010: 758).

Note

1. See Pledges to Keep World Focused on Meeting Millennium Development Goals by2015. Secretary General SG/SM/12549 DEV/2765. Http://www.un.org/News/press/

docs/2009/sgsm12549.doc.htm, accessed 22 October 2009.

References

Aga Khan HH (2008) Where Hope Takes Root: Democracy and Pluralism in anInterdependent World. Vancouver, BC: Douglas & McIntyre.

Andrews WC (2004) Anti-poverty policies in Brazil: Reviewing the past ten years.International Review of Administrative Sciences 70(3): 477–488.

Bastagli F (2008) The design, implementation and impact of conditional cash transfers

targeted on the Poor: An evaluation of Brazil’s Bolsa Familia. PhD thesis submitted tothe London School of Economics.

Beghin N (2008) Notes on inequality and poverty in Brazil: From poverty to power.Available at: www.fpep.org, Oxfam International. Accessed 1 June 2010.

Bhalla SS (2002) Imagine There is No Country: Poverty, Inequality, and Growth in the Era ofGlobalization. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.

Borins S (2001) The Challenges of Innovating in Government. Arlington, VA: The

PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government.Bourguignon F and Chakravarty SR (2003) The measurement of multidimensional poverty.

Journal of Economic Inequality 1: 25–49.

Bourguinon F and Morrison C (2002) Inequality among world citizens: 1820–1992. TheWorld Bank. Available at: http://web.worldbank.org. Accessed 6 October 2009.

Brainard L, Jones A and Purvis N (eds) (2009) Climate Change and Global Poverty: A BillionLives in the Balance? Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Chen S and Ravallion M (2001) How did the world’s poorest fare in the 1990s? Review ofIncome and Wealth 47(3): 283–300.

Collier P (2007) The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be

Done About It. New York: Oxford University Press.Coudouel A, Jesko Hentschel JS and Woodon QT (2002) Poverty Measurement and

Analysis. PRSP Sourcebook. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Ferreira FHG and Ravallion M (2008) Global poverty and inequality: A review of theevidence. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4623, Washington, DC.

Gertler P (2000) The Impact of PROGRESA on health. International Food Policy Research

Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC. Available at: www.ifpri.org/publication/impact-pro-gresa-health. Accessed 5 March 2011.

Hall A (2006) From Fome Zero to Bolsa Familia: Social policies and poverty alleviationunder Lula. Journal of Latin American Studies 38: 689–709.

Hubbard RG and Duggan W (2009) The Aid Trap: Hard Truths about Ending Poverty. NewYork: Columbia Business School Press.




Kiggundu MN (1989) Managing Organizations in Developing Countries: An Operational andStrategic Approach. West Hartford, CT: Kumerian Press.

Kiggundu MN (2009) BOP: A business partnership strategy for reaching underserviced

citizens. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Association ofSchools and Institutes of Administration (IASIA), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3–8 August2009.

Kinzo MD and Dunkerley J (eds) (2003) Brazil since 1985: Economy, Polity and Society.London: University of London, School of Advanced Studies, Institute of Latin AmericanStudies.

Kliksberg B (2000) Rebuilding the state for social development: Towards ‘smart govern-ment’. International Review of Administrative Sciences 66(2): 241–257.

Landes SD (1999) The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some are so Rich and Some soPoor. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Lindert K, Linder A, Hobbs J and de la Briere B (2007) The Nuts and Bolts of Brazil’s BolsaFamilia Program: Implementing Conditional Cash Transfers in a Decentralized Context.Washington, DC: Social Protection, The World Bank.

Maxwell S (1999) The meaning and measurement of poverty. ODI Poverty Briefing.3 February.

Medeiros M, Britton T and Soares FV (June 2008) Targeted Cash Transfer Programmes in

Brazil: BPC and Bolsa Familia. Working Paper No. 46, International Poverty Centre andInstitute for Applied Economic Research.

Myrdal G (1970) The Challenge of World Poverty: A World Anti-poverty Program in Outline.New York: Vantage Books.

Narayan D, Pritchett L and Kapoor S (2009) Moving Out of Poverty: Success from theBottom Up. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Pearson BL (1969) Partners in Development: Report of the Commission on International

Development. London: Pall Mall Press.Perlman J (2010) Favela: Four Decades of Living on the Edge in Rio de Janeiro. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Prahalad CK (2006) The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty throughProfits. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Putnam RD (1993) Making Democracy Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Reddy S and Pogge T (2002) How not to count the poor. Available at: http://www.colum-bia.edu/�sr793/

Riggs FW (2010) Trends in the comparative study of public administration. InternationalReview of Administrative Sciences 76(4): 750–760.

Rodrik D (2007) One Economics, Many Recipes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Pressand New York: Oxford University Press.

Rosenberg A, Rodriguez-Acosta C and Rojas MV (2000) Decentralizing the health service

delivery system in an emerging democracy: A case study of organizational change, civilsociety participation and local institution building in Paraguay. International Review ofAdministrative Sciences 66(4): 655–672.

Sachs J (2005) The End of Poverty. New York: Penguin Press.Sala-i-Martin X (2002) The world distribution of income. Available at: http://

web.worldbank.org.Salardi P (2008) Brazilian poverty between and within groups: Decomposition by geograph-

ical, group-specific poverty lines. PRUS Working Paper No. 41 JEL code 13, 132.Available at: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units?/wps/wp41.pdf. Accessed 4 March 2011.

Kiggundu 755



Samson M (December 2009) Can cash transfers prevent inter-generational poverty inSouth-Africa? Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. Available at:www.eldis.org/insights/no.4.

Saxby J (2004) COEP-Comite de Entidades no Combate a Fome e pela Vida: Mobilizingagainst hunger and for life: An analysis of capacity and change in a Brazilian network.Discussion Paper No. 57C European Centre for Development Policy Management,

October. Available at: www.ecdpm.org.Saxby J (2011) Cotton, Computers and Citizenship: A Story of Economic and Social Change

among Rural Communities in North-eastern Brazil. Ottawa: IDRC.

Shanghai Agenda on Poverty Reduction. Available at: http://www.china.org.cn/englich/features/poverty/96685.htm. Accessed 3 March 2011.

Skidmore JN (2007) Politics in Brazil, 1930–1964: An Experiment in Democracy. New York:Oxford University Press.

Skoufias E (2005) PROGRESA and its Impact on the Welfare of Rural Households inMexico. IFPRI, Research Report 139. Available at: www.ifpri.org.

Smith CS (2005) Ending Global Poverty: A Guide to What Works. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.Sugiyama BN (2007) The politics of social policy diffusion in Brazil. Unpublished Doctoral

Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.

Thomas V (2006) From Inside Brazil: Development in a Land of Contrasts. Washington, DC:The World Bank and Stanford University Press.

Whyte MK (2010) Myth of the Social Volcano: Perceptions of Inequality and DistributiveInjustice in Contemporary China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

World Bank (2001) World Development Report 2000–2001: Attacking Poverty. New York:World Bank and Oxford University Press.

World Bank (2005) World Development Report: A Better Investment Climate for Everyone.

Washington, DC: World Bank.World Bank (2008) The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive

Development. Washington, DC: Commission on Growth and Development. Available

at: www.growthcommission.org.World Bank (2009) Development and Climate Change. Washington, DC: World Bank.World Bank (2011a) Migration and Remittances Factbook 2011. Washington, DC: World

Bank.World Bank (2011b) Measuring poverty. Available at: http://web.worldbank.org. Accessed

6 October 2009.

Moses N Kiggundu is Professor, Management and International Business, at theSprott School of Business, Carleton University, Canada.




Documents

poverty and Progressive Social