‘Sharing the Well’ and Leaving No-One Behind Geof Wood, Joe Devine, Mathilde Maitrot (University of Bath) Presentation prepared for the conference on Towards Sustained Eradication of Extreme Poverty in Bangladesh NEC Conference Room, Planning Commission 8-9 April 2015

Moving to Middle Income Status Move to Middle Income Country Status: 1.Raises questions about responsibility for action and resource mobilisation (all citizens) 2.Focus lies not on growth per se, but the quality of growth; 3.Focus on quality of institutions, and people’s ability to negotiate these (ie question of agency) 4.Wary that a) existing growth/institutional landscape favours some and adversely affects others; b) there is continuing trade off between short term essential needs and longer term desirable conditions

Development State to Social Policy Regime Social Policy in OECD – Polanyian principles in which state support is provided for livelihoods that cannot be sustained otherwise ‘Rights based entitlements’ but quality and adequacy vary thus bringing in non formal/state support In LICs/MICs different policy landscapes South Asia: more reliance on community/family-household. A more dependent form of security and agency

Model for wellbeing regime

Balance between entitlements as statutory rights or via stronger agency and collective action Enhancing this agency is central to policy analysis and consideration Balancing ‘freedom to’ and ‘freedom from’ demands and needs In limited policy regimes, narrow ‘freedom from’ (social protection) is not sufficient for livelihood security Positive and negative permeability in institutional domains – implications for non state welfare Model for wellbeing regime

Extreme and Moderate Poverty Going beyond ‘poverty lines’ and ‘poverty effects’ Multidimensional and interlocked deprivations over time/generations Significance of space Systemic and idiosyncratic Intensity - the ‘complex knot’ (Matin et al 2008) Significance of intermediation: amar kichu ney / amar keu ney

Shifting the Paradigm for a New Political Settlement Main Policy Paradigm to date: Group mobilisation and individual entrepreneurship for poverty reduction (Comilla, NGO programmes etc) Assumption: beneficiaries had capacity (material, human, social) to follow GMIE New Paradigm?: GMIE may work for some extreme poor but not all, hence focus on social protection etc Reliance on market, growth and forms of social protection – one form of ‘political settlement’ Assumptions around elasticity of poverty response to growth Engaging with inter-generational/gender dimensions Engaging with the political and economic weaknesses of the extreme poor

Now is the time! All leading to a need for a progressive and inclusive debate around connections between poverty, growth, rights, responsibility and redistribution 2021 on the horizon Strong growth and low inflation Job creation and diversification Urbanisation and infrastructural developments Inward remittance flows from migration and export of labour Achieved higher progress in human development, than other economies sharing similar levels of income (Asadullah et al 2014)

New Political Settlement Extreme poor (and moderate poor) have limited capacity to negotiate their wellbeing in the current regime landscape. This takes us beyond a discussion only about income flows and asset transfers The content and quality of economic growth matters if it plays a role in eradicating extreme poverty Move beyond GMIE Blended policy responses embracing freedom from and freedom to approaches, tailored to different generational/agentive capacities Need to highlight common public goods interests between middle and poor classes, which converge with inter- generational interests Targeted livelihood projects are necessary but not in isolation from broader wellbeing concerns

Institutional capacity and responsibility Ambitious planning to reflect we are not in ‘business as usual’ mode Duty bearers from across different parts of Government, but need for specialist focus to coordinate committed professionals Capable of alliance building (IRM) and initiating deliberate debate with extreme poor but also middle/upper classes from whom revenue expansion should be expected

Institutional capacity and responsibility National Commission for Eradication of Extreme Poverty ? Time limited – 2021 Coordinate efforts, devise appropriate policies, rationalise resources, and oversee performance, Replicate targeted extreme poverty livelihood programs which have a track-record of effective and sustainable impact