2017 has been a busy year for Development Pathways. We have redoubled our efforts to share the experience and knowledge we have gained working on building the strategies and systems needed to ensure evidence-led, inclusive programmes that realise human rights.
Our most-read resources reflect the evidence we have provided on the debate around the proxy means test used in international development to target social protection at people defined as ‘poor’. The blog by independent consultant Nicholas Freeland on the “astonishing” results of the World Bank’s critical review of the PMT’s success in tackling poverty that we published attracted unprecedented attention, and the debate continued with the intervention of Stephen Kidd with a paper on ‘anti-social registries’ and, co-authored with Diloá Bailey-Athias, on how the PMT offers exclusion by design, both in our top five most-read pieces.
The second most-read resource we provided, however, was by another guest blogger, Peter Bakvis, director of the Washington office of the International Trade Union Confederation, that focused on that other Washington institution, the IMF. Timed as the organisation declared an aim to cut inequality, Peter cast a critical eye over the IMF’s approach to social protection. The most popular piece written by our team was our paper on graduation schemes, again by Stephen and Diloá, who provide the evidence to contest claims that these programmes are effective at reducing poverty.
We were also pleased to see a lot of interest in the following pieces, all in our top dozen most-read resources:
- The good news story of the expansion of pension systems across low- and middle-income countries for older persons;
- Our research on social accountability initiatives, and how citizen action can improve social protection programmes, led by Rasmus Schjoedt;
- Alexandra Barrantes’ piece on how using a human rights lens allows us to look afresh at the design of cash transfers.
- And Richard Chirchir’s paper offering an overview of Kenya’s Single Registry to link social protection programmes.
Thank you for reading, and responding this year. We look forward to continue to bring evidence to the debates swirling around social protection strategies and systems in 2018.