The poverty consensus: some limitations of the ‘popular agenda’

Donovan Storey, Hannah Bulloch and John Overton
Additional contact information
Donovan Storey: Institute of Development Studies, Massey University, Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Hannah Bulloch: Australian National University, 0200 ACT, Australia
John Overton: Institute of Development Studies, Massey University, Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North, New Zealand, j.d.overton@massey.ac.nz

Progress in Development Studies, 2005, vol. 5, issue 1, 30-44

Abstract: The New Poverty Agenda is said to represent a break with the past and to offer a rationale for aid that is built on partnerships towards a common and realizable goal - the elimination of poverty. However, recent critiques have highlighted problems with the practice of poverty policy, and particularly limitations identified from its association with global actors which stand accused of contributing to poverty. For some, there is no new agenda; a poverty focus merely represents a different path to the same ends (i.e., political reform and economic adjustment). This paper investigates the implications for smaller donors, such as Australia and New Zealand, of adopting poverty policy as defined by the World Bank and others. It argues that certain contexts, such as the Pacific, demonstrate the weaknesses of an all-encompassing policy that remains muddled and contradictory. In terms of effective partnerships, much more could be gained by first seeking to learn more about the nature of poverty in the immediate region and its underlying causes.

Keywords: aid; Australia; New Poverty Agenda; New Zealand; Pacific Islands; poverty (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2005
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1191/1464993405ps099oa (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:prodev:v:5:y:2005:i:1:p:30-44

DOI: 10.1191/1464993405ps099oa

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Progress in Development Studies
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().