Icon Our Work

Confessions of a [former] true believer in poverty targeting

25/10/2024

I have a confession to make: I used to be a true believer in poverty targeting. I know, it’s shocking to hear and difficult for me to admit, but we all, at some time, need to come face-to-face with the Truth Commission and confess our sins.

One positive that comes from my dalliance with poverty targeting, however, is that I understand why many other true believers in poverty targeting maintain their devotion to the cult. So as not to be too hard on myself – and others in the same sinking boat – let’s admit that the poverty targeting ideology is highly seductive and it’s very easy to fall prey to its Loreleian charms.1 Anyway, let me tell my personal story.

I first began working on social protection in early 2004, when I became the team leader of the “Reaching the Very Poorest” policy team in DFID (I know, it’s a naff name – but it was the choice of the Minister – and we later managed to change its name to the Social Protection Team). I was given the task of writing a policy paper on social protection for DFID, which had become somewhat delayed. As a result, I delved into the available literature on social protection – reading as widely as possible – to find evidence that I could include in the paper.

Unfortunately, almost all the literature available in 2004 seemed to be on poor relief programmes and was written by advocates of poverty targeting. As a result, I effectively brainwashed myself into believing that poverty targeting made sense. I didn’t question the notion – widely promoted by true believers – of ‘limited budgets’, and I simplistically accepted the argument that countries should, therefore, prioritise the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. The idea of a fixed and identifiable group of ‘the poor’ seemed logical. Further, there was little or no evidence available on the real targeting errors of poor relief schemes: the Coady, Grosh and Hoddinott (2004) book on targeting had just come out and, while it talked about targeting errors, it presented them in a smoke-and-mirrors manner that fooled readers into thinking that poverty benefits were more effective than universal schemes in reaching the poorest members of society (see page 14 of this paper for an explanation). They certainly had me fooled as I rushed to write the policy paper. Indeed, I even wrote that Mexico’s now defunct Progresa (later Oportunidades) programme had ‘good targeting’ (today we know it had exclusion errors of 54 per cent).

As a true believer in an influential position within DFID, I actively promoted the virtues of poverty targeting. We discovered a small cash transfer programme in Kalomo in Zambia that targeted the poorest 10 per cent of the population without labour capacity – at the time, the designer of the scheme called them the ‘non-viable’ population – and gave it global visibility, writing about it in the DFID policy paper, inviting the programme designer to speak at DFID’s headquarters in London and even organising the Africa-wide Livingstone conference near Kalomo so that participants could visit the scheme. I spoke about Kalomo in workshops and conferences: I found out a few years later that a talk I’d given to UNICEF in New York was the catalyst for the creation of the Social Cash Transfer programme in Malawi, which followed a similar 10 per cent model and, later, was copied by a number of other African countries. I promoted Brazil’s Bolsa Familia programme to African governments, taking around 25 people from five countries in Africa on probably the first study tour to Brazil to see the programme (and which directly resulted in the extremely poverty-targeted LEAP programme in Ghana, with exclusion errors of 95 per cent). I also invited the Director of the Bolsa Familia programme to give an influential seminar to DFID staff in London.

Of course, I now deeply regret the harm I caused by convincing people that poverty targeting was the way to go.

So, how did things change? Critical in my deprogramming was the publication, in 2005, of an article by the great Malawian academic Thandika Mkandawire called Targeting and Universalism in Poverty Reduction.’ Among other things, it taught me that the idea of fixed or limited budgets was a fictional construct and that governments will always find funding for popular universal schemes that they themselves believe in (hence the 88 universal schemes found in low- and middle-income countries, as compiled in this paper). Another key moment in my deprogramming was a visit to a village in Kalomo, where I saw an old woman running across the square, hunched over and looking nervously from side-to-side. Our guide told us that she’d just been paid by the Social Cash Transfer programme and suggested we follow her home to ask about her experiences. She told us how the cash she received had made a major positive difference to her life: she could now eat, had better clothes, could wash herself with soap and had bought some hens to breed. But – and this is what hit me – she also said that she’d lost all her friends, as they were all jealous of her. I suddenly began to realise the harm that poverty targeting could cause by destroying relationships and undermining community cohesion.

Since then, of course, I’ve learnt a lot more about the pros and cons of poverty targeting and universality. I now know that the only way to reach the poorest members of society and leave no-one behind is through universality, while poverty targeting always has high exclusion errors. I have learnt that universality promotes dignity and the rights of the individual, while poverty targeting can undermine them. I’ve realised that the main driver of poverty targeting is a desire to keep costs down and thereby reduce taxes, in particular on the rich. Indeed, the drive to implement poor relief schemes in low- and middle-income countries has emanated from a neoliberal ideology that privileges the rich over the poor alongside a shortsighted pursuit of immediate economic efficiency over long term gains. So I’m now convinced that if countries wish to effectively reduce poverty, invest in their children, offer dignity to all, build cohesive societies and strong social contracts, grow government revenues and generate sustainable economic growth, it is essential for those countries to establish universal, lifecycle social security systems that protect everyone from the cradle to the grave (in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

What happened to me? In effect, I experienced a paradigm shift in my thinking. New evidence became available to me and, as a result, I changed my mind. Gone are the days when I promoted harmful poor relief schemes that trap people in poverty and undermine trust in the state. And the good news is that I have subsequently played a part in a movement which has shown that universal social security is both affordable and feasible in all countries, as long as the political will is there.

So, my appeal to all true believers in poverty targeting is, please, look at the evidence. Consider the harm that your policies are causing to individuals, to families and to nations. Challenge the myth that universal social security is unaffordable and help bring transformative change to your countries. Believe me, once the veil is lifted and you’ve shifted to the new paradigm, the world seems very different, and everything becomes possible. I know that a paradigm shift is challenging for those working in institutions with powerful internal incentives to promote poverty benefits and social registries, but my plea is to focus on – and not distort – the evidence (and challenge your institution from the inside).

I managed to make the change: so can you!


[1] According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Lorelei is a German legend about ‘a beautiful maiden who threw herself into the Rhine River in despair over a faithless lover and was transformed into a siren who lured fishermen to destruction.’

Dr Stephen Kidd is a Principal Social Protection Specialist at Development Pathways and has worked across more than 40 countries in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. He was previously Director of Policy at HelpAge International, led the UK Development Ministry’s Social Protection Team and was a Lecturer in Social Anthropology at the University of Edinburgh. He has wide experience across many aspects of social protection, has successfully supported national social protection policy development in various countries and has undertaken research across a broad range of social protection topics.