PRSP and the country ownership discourse: A critique of the African case 

Bernard Gwekwerere
Michigan State University

Development policy discourse is complex. A cursory glance at development policy documents will give the impression that the discourse is self evident, but a critical analysis will prove otherwise. Development policy discourse is complex because notwithstanding the fact that the discourse is a product of social construction of the policy actors, it is presented as an objective product that is out there for discovery by all careful observers. Country ownership, a pervasive concept in extant development discourse, will be used in the current article to demonstrate the complexity. 

Country ownership and the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP)

           The one phrase that is fashionable in extant policy discourse is ‘country led’ or ‘country owned’ policy process. The term has gained currency in recent donor policy discourse following the failure of policy implementations that have been attributed to a lack of ownership of policies by nationals. Donors have developed processes to create a sense of ownership by recipient countries. One wonders why any country would need to be convinced that a policy is theirs. 

Yet a process called PRSP has been kneaded together by the World Bank (hereinafter the Bank) and International Monetary Fund (hereinafter the Fund) to convince the developing countries that they are in the driver’s seat. The recipient countries seem to ‘learn the game’ very fast when one looks at how they come up with development programs that do not deviate from the previous ‘donor-led’ policies.  

The semblance of a county-led process that is created by the PRSP is given away by the two-volumes that are 600 pages apiece, of instructions on how to conduct a successful PRSP. While the Bank and the Fund go to some lengths to explain that the sourcebook is not prescriptive, one wonders why they would invest in such elaborate instructions. To say that the sourcebook is not prescriptive when it comes in an imposing two-volume 8 1/2 x 11 paper size, written in 10-point font, single space, each volume with more than 600 pages, is playing games with words. For the recipient country, those two volumes constitute a serious message from the Bank and the Fund. The message is made very clear when those instructions are not followed. The application for funding will be denied and the response will be wrapped in colorful donor language that recommends ‘corrections’ and probably the use of an expert. The expert will then take the country through the elaborate steps in the sourcebook (which is not prescriptive.

PRSP, reality or rhetoric?

 While donors bemoan that recipient countries do not conduct PRSP in the manner that they should, as if PRSP is an objective process that everyone should be able to conceptualize if they tried hard enough, let us back up and review the genesis of the PRSP, and how it became objectified by the Bank and the Fund. What is a PRSP anyway? A conventional response would suggest that a PRSP is a national consultative policy formation process that engenders dialogue and ownership in development programs. Many African countries have invested at least two years in conducting PRSP only to find that they got it wrong. It is an illusive process.  

 According to the Bank and the Fund, African countries fail to conduct the process because they lack the necessary capacity. But is this really a question of competence per se? Is there ‘really’ something called PRSP? PRSP exists, yes, to the Bank and the Fund. They developed the process. It is a compromise product of the Bank and the Fund that culminated from intense debate and analysis. This debate and conceptualization process naturally generated commitment to PRSP by the Bank and the Fund. They conceptualized PRSP. They wrote 1200 pages about the process. It is their baby. Yet the Bank and the Fund present PRSP as if it is an objective process that any careful observer should recognize. But PRSP is a subjective product emanating from a social construction process. Only the Bank and the Fund recognize it best. They make the final approval of a winning PRSP.

What is the role of African countries in the PRSP conceptualization process? Their role comes after the conceptualization, as they study and apply the process. A country that understands the process is rewarded with generous funding (Uganda is the much loved example), while those who fail to understand the process do not get funding, but are saddled with corrections (and experts). To the Africans who have not been a part of the conceptualization process, the PRSP is something that they do to get donor funding. 

The way forward

         The development process should be about more than winning and losing funding, and conditionality. It should be about addressing the problems of poverty that face Africa. Those problems, never mind all the confidence that donors express in articulating them, no one is sure about how to tackle them. In such a situation it is imperative to cultivate an environment of trust and learning. This means an environment where a country will access funding even if they have a policy that is not agreeable to the Bank and/or the Fund, as long as that policy is well argued. The Bank and the Fund, with all the knowledge bank expertise leveraged with billions of dollars, have applied their policies to Africa but they do not have anything akin to a stellar record.