Review: "Against the Odds: Politicians, institutions and the struggle against poverty" by Melo, Ng'ethe & Manor

As a recent DLP Research Paper showed, remarkably little serious academic research has been devoted to the role of leadership in the politics of development, though it is commonly referred to in policy documents as an important factor. While there is a substantial literature in the fields of business studies, corporate management and psychology, there remains a significant deficit in relation to development issues, but two important recent academic studies have begun to reduce that deficit. 

The first is reviewed below. 

Marcus Andre Melo, Njuguna Ng'ethe & James Manor (2012) Against the Odds: Politicians, Institutions and the Struggle Against Poverty. London: C. Hurst & Co.

Reviewed for DLP by Eduard Grebe, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Centre for Social Science Research, University of Cape Town

Against the Odds by Marcus Andre Melo, Njuguna Ng’ethe and James Manor is an immensely useful book. It presents three case studies of political leaders who pursued ‘pro-poor’ policies in developing countries: Yoweri Museveni in Uganda, Digvijay Singh in India’s Madhya Pradesh state and Fernando Henrique Cardoso in Brazil. All three these politicians faced substantial constraints on their ability to propose, build consensus around and implement their policy preferences, but nevertheless made significant headway—hence the very apt title. It is instructive to examine in some detail the political dynamics of these leaders’ attempts to overcome obstacles to their developmental agendas.

A central argument of the book—one which is very eloquently made and well supported by the evidence put forward in the case studies—is that both political agency and political institutions matter a great deal for developmental outcomes. This may sound trite, but a surprisingly large proportion of research on ‘development’ focuses on political and economic institutions, to the almost complete exclusion of agency. Contemporary political science (not to speak of economics) is certainly guilty of this. On the other hand, accounts of leaders and leadership often overestimate the influence of leaders (much like popular history often reduces complex events to clashes between ‘great men’), without paying due regard to the constraints imposed and opportunities provided by institutional context. The authors’ greatest achievement is therefore probably their success in interweaving structure and agency so that what emerges is an account of ‘enlightened Machiavellian management of politics’ (p. 109) by leaders who are driven both by their own preferences and principles (even ideology) and by a pragmatic awareness of the limits to their power and the need to construct coalitions for policy change and institutional reform.

In all three case studies pro-poor reforms took the form not only of designing and implementing new policies targeting poverty (such as the introduction of universal primary education and Uganda and the Education Guarantee Scheme in Madhya Pradesh), but also of building and strengthening institutions. Museveni came to power facing complete state collapse, making state-building a prerequisite both of effective government (and of retaining power) and of any successful policy interventions. To a significant extent, new political institutions in Uganda took the form of local elected councils based on the ‘Resistance Councils’ first introduced in liberated areas during the war that brought the National Resistance Movement to power (and eventually incorporating five layers of local councils down to village level). But also in India and Brazil—where institutions were extensive and thoroughly entrenched—efforts to enhance political decentralisation and to enhance opportunities of the poor to exert influence over policy (and policy implementation) as well as to give the poor a stake in the political process were central to Singh and Cardoso’s strategies. The centrality of building and transforming institutions to all three leaders’ pro-poor policy efforts underscores the theme of both structure and agency being profoundly important.

The case study of Museveni in Uganda is perhaps the strongest of the three. Its detailed historical overview, incorporating Ugandan post-independence political developments, Museveni’s personal and political journey, the civil war and the NRM’s capture of power as well as the post-war efforts at social and economic stabilisation and state-building, provides a rich context within which Museveni’s policy programme can be interpreted. While Museveni’s convictions and political style receive a great deal of emphasis, as much attention is paid to the political context within which he operated. This includes both the constraints and opportunities presented by an institutional vacuum, which allowed him significant political freedom and enabled him to dominate the political process through his personal authority, but also severely limited his ability to pursue social transformation and forced him to focus on stability and rebuilding the state (including devoting significant resources to defence and military stabilisation) and rely on donors for material resources. Like the other two leaders, he showed great flexibility and adaptability—and above all pragmatism—in responding to this ‘political opportunity structure’ and sought to build coalitions for effecting change. As might be expected, pragmatism and coalition-building resulted in centrist policy positions and a willingness to seek accommodation with powerful forces, including donors. He nevertheless forcefully pursued certain positions, even in the face of opposition, probably as a result of deeply held convictions, including the centrepiece of Museveni’s developmental policy: universal provision of primary education. One major weakness of this case study is the authors’ failure to adequately account for the transformation from the open and inclusive ‘Museveni I’ (which is the focus of the chapter) to the more authoritarian and intolerant ‘Museveni II’ that increasingly sidelined civil society and successfully sought a constitutional amendment allowing him to stand for third and fourth presidential terms. It is difficult to accept the glib fashion in which these disturbing developments are dealt with. It also lazily repeats the conventional wisdom that Museveni’s HIV/AIDS policies reversed the frightening rise of the epidemic during the early 1990s, without engaging with the increasingly critical literature (including evidence showing the HIV prevalence declines could not have resulted from his efforts, see Grebe, 2012: 186-194), perhaps because this is more consistent with their optimistic interpretation.

Digvijay Singh enjoyed significantly less political freedom as Chief Minister in the underdeveloped Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, constrained by strong but often dysfunctional institutions, entrenched patronage networks of local political ‘bosses’, a moribund Congress party organisation and dependence on the favour of national party leaders, as well as difficult caste-based political divisions and a resurgent Hindu Right. He nevertheless sought to make ‘development’ the core issue in state politics and pursued policies intended to alleviate poverty and improve village life. These included improved water infrastructure and, most significantly, the Education Guarantee Scheme that created tens of thousands of new schools using innovative approaches like para-professional teachers.  In addition he pursued a relatively radical ‘Dalit Agenda’ which sought to improve opportunities for the most stigmatised (and generally poorest) villagers by improving access to land. Despite significant opposition and the constraints listed above, he sought to build a broad social coalition around this developmental agenda, including by drawing in civil society (although he later retreated from this) and, most importantly, by seriously pursuing a decentralisation agenda. The latter involved establishing and empowering local elected councils and served both to multiply demands from below (courageously, but also smartly, given the ‘demand overload’ faced by all three these politicians) in order to give poor people greater influence over development policy and in order to overcome opposition at higher levels of the political system and bureaucratic intransigence. This ‘new politics’ allowed him to make significant headway (for example in the form of spectacular increases in literacy rates) despite the persistence of (and his pragmatic tolerance of) the ‘old politics’ of patronage and caste-based mobilisation. This case study’s detailed treatment of the political dynamics of reform in Madhya Pradesh results in a persuasive case that centrism and pragmatism resulted in significant successes in institutional transformation and pro-poor policy, although at times it fails to penetrate the immense complexity of Indian society, leaving the reader longing for more thoroughgoing historical exposition. It also fails to resolve the apparently anomalous contribution of political decentralisation to poverty reduction, which the authors acknowledge diverges from more general experience in the developing world. 

Fernando Henrique Cardoso faced constraints imposed by the wide dispersal of political power in Brazil’s fragmentary political system (with fiscal federalism, regionalism, weak parties and an electoral system encouraging autonomy) and its ‘coalition presidentialism’, in which Presidents are directly elected but need the support of a broad coalition of parties. This left him significantly less political freedom than Museveni (or even Singh) had, and facing formidable challenges in driving his social and developmental policy agenda, including a general rigidity in public policy. He acted ‘adroitly as the manager of an alliance of diverse political forces, fragmented along regional, programmatic and ideological fault lines’ (p. 125).  Like Museveni and Singh, he responded by adopting a flexible, pragmatic approach and centrist posture, while vigorously pursuing certain pro-poor reforms, including administrative reform and enhancing the participatory opportunities and influence of the poor in the political system. Unlike in Uganda or Madhya Pradesh, extensive poverty relief schemes already existed in Brazil (although poverty and inequality remained intense) and pro-poor policy was relatively popular, even among the middle class and affluent elites. Nevertheless, the institutional impediments to extending poverty relief were formidable and the fiscal situation not conducive. He responded by becoming a ‘centre-left reformer’ while in power (p. 157), navigating the complexities of the Brazilian political system (including by creating bodies such as the Communidade Solidaria to act as a forum for consulting civil society, but which the latter sought to turn into an overarching structure to coordinate anti-poverty programmes). A number of initiatives, including the Bolsa Escola and Fundef aimed at extending education, were successfully implemented. And despite the fiscal constraints, overall funding for poverty programmes increased. However, given the limited extent to which the complex negotiations and manoeuvres Cardoso engaged in can be traced in a short case study, and given that pro-poor policy was already firmly entrenched and popular in Brazil, this case study seems somewhat less instructive than the other two. 

A key overarching conclusion that the authors draw from the case studies is that politicians should be central in analyses of governance and development—and they strongly challenge the view that development should be seen in technocratic terms, insulated from politicians and politics. In this sense it chimes exactly with the DLP’s theme of ‘bringing politics and agency back in’ (see Leftwich, 2009). A second and related conclusion is that poverty reduction is both politically feasible and can be politically advantageous to leaders in the developing world—a distinctly optimistic conclusion, but one that is supported by the evidence. 

A number of other common themes emerge from the three case studies. All three leaders, 

  • were pragmatic, centrist reformers who avoided extremes and sought to draw the poor into the politics of accommodation;
  • exercised self-restraint (including in dealing with alternative power centres, both inside and outside the state) and balanced assertiveness and accommodation;
  • understood that clientelism was insufficient to secure their political power; and
  • pursued local democracy and greater involvement of the poor (allowing also demand), including through institution-building.

The book has a number of limitations, although these are relatively minor. It is arguable that the authors do not deal sufficiently with the widely held view that development programmes are often used for clientelistic purposes. Although the attempts by ‘political bosses’ in Madhya Pradesh to scuttle the empowerment of local elected councils so as to maintain patronage networks and the use of federal resources for patronage by local leaders in Brazil are addressed (and clientelism is acknowledged as a serious issue in the conclusion), a systematic account of clientelism in the three cases (and the degree to which it was employed, tolerated or fought by the three leaders) is absent. Even if they do not believe this to be a central issue in these cases, its salience in the literature and popular perceptions requires that it be addressed in a more thoroughgoing fashion.

A further weakness evident throughout the book is the failure to present strong evidence for sweeping assertions. For example, the authors state that ‘Recent research on Brazil shows that progressive outcomes there are more likely if high-level policy-making is opened up to social forces active at that level’ (p. 83), but then back up this claim with a footnote stating that ‘This emerged from discussions with Aaron Schneider’, without referring to the published literature. Similar sleights of hand are sprinkled throughout the text. This is, however, not a fatal flaw and the authors do indeed provide persuasive evidence for their own deductions in the case studies, drawing on both the historical record and on their extensive interviews with key informants familiar with the records of the three politicians.

It is of course a fundamental problem with case study-based research that it is difficult to generalise and draw universal lessons from specific historical cases. This problem is best addressed by conducting disciplined, systematic analyses of cases that are not chosen in a way designed to avoid undue bias (i.e. not selecting ‘on the dependent variable’ or cherry-picking cases that support one’s argument). Even better is if the case studies are supplemented with other methodological approaches suffering less from bias (such as cross-country statistical analyses) and designed to test the hypotheses emerging from the case studies. While Melo, Ng’ethe & Manor have selected broadly ‘developmentally successful’ politicians, the cases do in fact vary significantly in the details of historical circumstances, institutional arrangements, regional and geopolitical factors as well as the personalities and convictions of the political leaders. As a result, the generalities that emerge from the study can at least credibly be considered ‘universal’. They further do not claim that these three politicians are typical, but rather that they ‘show what others may achieve’ (p. 163). Given the focus on the interplay between political agency and institutional constraint, it would be difficult to supplement this work (and test its conclusions) using less biased methodology—quantitative political scientists tend to investigate institutional factors and neglect agency for precisely this reason—but this should be considered an area for productive further research.

Despite its limitations, therefore, this is a book of the highest calibre and should be read by anyone with an interest in the politics of development and social justice.

References

Grebe, Eduard (2012) Civil society leadership in the struggle for AIDS treatment in South Africa and Uganda. PhD Thesis, University of Cape Town. 

Leftwich, Adrian (2009) Bringing Agency Back In: Politics and Human Agency in Building Institutions and States. DLP Research Paper 6, Developmental Leadership Program. 

Related items

Parliamentary strengthening: fix the car, or worry about the driver?

Monday 24th November 2014

In a guest post today for the blog From Poverty to Power, Alina Rocha Menocal takes stock of the evidence on parliamentary strengthening.

Read more

DLP partner launches new online portal

Friday 21st November 2014

La Trobe University's Institute for Human Security and Social Change has launched a new website, practiceforchange.org.

Read more

Evidence on parliamentary strengthening

Friday 14th November 2014

Senior DLP Research Fellow Alina Rocha Menocal will present evidence on parliamentary strengthening to the International Development Committee at Westminster on 18 November with former colleague Tam O'Neil from ODI.

Read more

Presentation at the International Parliamentary Conference on Growth for Development

Wednesday 12th November 2014

DLP's Deputy Director David Hudson will speak next week at the International Parliamentary Conference on Growth for Development in London.

Read more

Political Settlements: the first of DLP's concept briefs

Monday 6th October 2014

What exactly are 'political settlements'? This Concept Brief, the first of a new series, sets out key elements of this increasingly prominent idea. It suggests why it is important, and what policy implications follow from it.

Read more

David Hudson 100K run in memory of DLP founder Adrian Leftwich

Saturday 28th June 2014

On 28 June DLP Deputy Director David Hudson ran 100km along the Grand Union Canal, raising over £1000 for Cancer Research UK.

Read more

Welcome to DLP's new website

Tuesday 3rd June 2014

DLP's Director, Dr Heather Marquette, introduces the new dlprog.org - gateway to the findings of more than five years of research on leadership and the politics of development.

Read more

DLP's core research themes

Friday 30th May 2014

Five core themes run through the heart of this new-look Developmental Leadership Program website. They are signposts to help visitors explore our research, and they are the building blocks of the new strategy that will guide our work over the next three years.

Read more

Presentations at UNDP/KPMG conference 'Leadership and the Challenge of Change'

Wednesday 30th April 2014

DLP was delighted to participate in this conference on 'Leadership and the Challenge of Change', which was organised by KPMG and the UNDP Global Centre for Public Service Excellence.

Read more

New article on international inequality and world poverty

Thursday 27th March 2014

What role does the international system play in producing poverty around the world? In an article in 'New Political Economy', DLP research fellow Niheer Dasandi draws on network analysis to examine this surprisingly neglected question.

Read more

Political Settlements and State Formation - the case of Somaliland

Wednesday 1st January 2014

Why did the civil wars in Somaliland end while Somalia's continued? This new DLP Research Paper asks why large-scale violence was resolved in the internationally unrecognised 'Republic of Somaliland' but not in the rest of Somalia.

Read more

Review: "Against the Odds: Politicians, institutions and the struggle against poverty" by Melo, Ng'ethe & Manor

Monday 14th January 2013

As a recent DLP Research Paper showed, remarkably little serious academic research has been devoted to the role of leadership in the politics of development, though it is commonly referred to in policy documents as an important factor. While there is a substantial literature in the fields of business studies, corporate management and psychology, there remains a significant deficit in relation to development issues, but two important recent academic studies have begun to reduce that deficit. The first by Melo, Ng'ethe, & Manor 'Against the Odds: Politicians, institutions, and the struggle against poverty' is reviewed below.

Read more

Recommended Reading: Making Sense of 'Evidence': PLAAS Working Paper 21

Monday 22nd October 2012

Debate about the relationship between 'evidence' and 'policy' in the context of the Evidence Based Policy (EBP) discourse is now widespread within both research and policy communities. But does the EBP discourse and the assumptions it makes about the policy process really help to understand why evidence is taken up, how it is used or what part it plays in the wider political processes that drive policy formation and change? This excellent new paper by Professor Andries du Toit of the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) makes a significant contribution to the debate, raising some very important questions about the EBP mantra and the relations between research and policy.

Read more

New Journal Article: Local Energy Efficiency Policy Implementation in China

Wednesday 10th October 2012

According to an IEA estimate, China recently overtook the United States as the world's largest energy consumer. This growth in energy consumption has implications, not just domestically but internationally. But China is beginning to rethink its "growth at any cost" model and is moving towards sustainable growth and energy security. A new paper by Genia Kostka and William Hobbs, based on original DLP research, addresses how Chinese leaders at a sub-national level are 'working politically' to bridge the requirements of the national energy efficiency targets against local interests ? all in the context of increasing international scrutiny of China's consumption levels and their effect on climate change.

Read more

Different Take on Africa - the importance of leadership

Tuesday 12th June 2012

Following the Joint Statement on the political economy of Africa, agreed by five research groups including DLP, we've been keeping the discussion going through the excellent 'Different take on Africa' blog. Today Adrian Leftwich posted a piece on the blog emphasising the importance of understanding the agential factors that have held back African development: the question of leadership. Specifically, what role leadership can play at "critical junctures in reconstructing coalitions, initiating new political settlements or sustaining old ones"? And the potential for developmental leaderships - in all sectors and levels of society - to mobilise people and resources to overcome the critical collective action problems that typically plague development in Africa.

Read more

Leadership and the 'emerging' African 'success' stories

Thursday 9th February 2012

In his well-received book 'Emerging Africa: How 17 Countries Are Leading the Way', Steve Radelet distinguished between 'Emerging', 'Threshold' and 'Non-Emerging' countries in sub-Saharan Africa. He pointed out that the 'Emerging' countries had performed particularly well in terms of growth and democratization. This new paper, drawing on the DLP African Heads of State database, explores the potential contribution that leadership may have made to these stories. The analysis indicates that the Heads of State in 'Emerging' countries have in general had higher levels of education, are more mature, have a different and more diverse career history and less military experience than both their counterparts in their own countries before the mid-1990s and the leaders of 'Non-emerging' countries.

Read more

Commonwealth Secretariat Senior Leaders Forum "Leadership at the Centre"

Tuesday 15th November 2011

DLP's Director of Research, Adrian Leftwich, will be speaking at the Commonwealth Secretariat's Senior Leaders Forum on the 15th November. The event brings together public servants from around the Commonwealth to strengthen their roles in implementing policies and strategies for development in their country. The event also sees the launch of the "Commonwealth Governance Yearbook 2011/12", which is a collection of writings from public service practitioners and experts in public administration and management.

Read more

Trends and transformations in African political leadership since 1960: Some evidence

Monday 7th November 2011

In a recent speech, the former Prime Minister of the UK, Mr Tony Blair, has suggested that improvement in rates of economic growth and the stabilization of a variety of political orders in parts of Africa can in part be attributed to the role of leadership. New research about African political leadership since 1960, commissioned by DLP, provides some interesting evidence in support of Mr Blair's claim. In this thought-provoking paper, Monique Theron provides statistical trends and patterns over the last 50 years with respect to the profiles of different types of ruler, their educational qualifications, their field of tertiary study, their career histories before becoming Heads of State, their political backgrounds, their length of incumbency and how they gained and lost power.

Read more

A new series of DLP Concept Briefs: No. 1 Predatory Leaderships, Predatory Rule & Predatory States

Tuesday 11th October 2011

As the development community moves towards a better understanding of, and engagement with, the political economy and politics of development, it is important to ensure the clarity of the concepts and terms used for analytical and policy purposes. This series of DLP Concept Briefs is intended as a contribution to that effort. Written as short essays, these Briefs will focus mainly on concepts used in DLP publications (for example, leadership, coalitions, structure and agency). But they will also deal with wider issues in the political analysis of development, such as 'political settlements', 'collective action' and 'political economy'.

Read more

Working Politically for Pro-Poor Policies in Indonesia

Friday 5th August 2011

This excellent paper by the Asia Foundation explores the politics of local coalitions working to expand coverage of health services for the poor in two municipalities in Central Java, Indonesia - Semarang and Pekalongan. The research, by Laurel MacLaren, Alam Surya Putra and Erman Rahman, shows that facilitating and supporting the emergence and activities of coalitions of leaders and CSOs (Civil Society Organizations) can be a highly effective means of achieving pro-poor policy outcomes in some institutional contexts.

Read more

Examining the Drivers of Change in Yemen - a presentation to Australian Government departments

Monday 18th July 2011

DLP Researcher, Dr Sarah Phillips from the Centre for International Security Studies, University of Sydney, gave a thought-provoking and timely presentation on the 8 June 2011 in AusAID in Canberra, entitled "Examining the Drivers of Change in Yemen: Informal Institutions and Agency". Speaking to an audience of AusAID staff and representatives from various government departments including the Departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs and Trade, and other guests, Dr Phillips provided a unique insight into the Yemeni regime's opaque internal politics, and the nature of the patronage system entrenched by President Ali Abdullah Saleh over the past 32 years.

Read more

DLP and Oxfam: Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning Workshop

Monday 27th June 2011

The Developmental Leadership Program (DLP), in collaboration with our partner, Oxfam Australia, recently held the first of three workshops exploring how we can incorporate an understanding of leadership and coalitions (agency) into effective monitoring and evaluation practices for development programs. The workshop brought together representatives from AusAID, The Asia Foundation, Leadership PNG, the Pacific Leadership Program and the Oxfam International Youth Partnerships program. The workshop was facilitated by Dr Linda Kelly, a development consultant and Chris Roche, Director of Development Effectiveness at Oxfam Australia.

Read more

A Report on DLP's first Research and Policy Workshop in Frankfurt

Monday 20th June 2011

There is now wide recognition that political processes - and especially the role of leaderships and coalitions - are fundamental in shaping and sustaining the institutional and policy environment that promotes or frustrates sustainable economic growth and inclusive social development. That being so, what is to be done? What does it mean for development policy and practice? In seeking to address some of these issues, the DLP held its first Research and Policy Workshop in Frankfurt in March, 2011. This paper provides a summary of the key findings, insights and initial guidance arising from the workshop and from recent phases of DLP research.

Read more

A new publication: An analysis of leadership development programmes

Monday 21st February 2011

Do 'leadership development programmes' contribute to positive development outcomes or do they only enhance the careers of their participants? Could they do both and, if so, how? What criteria can donors use in deciding whether and how to support, fund, influence or design such programmes? This paper reviews the evidence about leadership development programmes as a tool for development policy. It argues that donor and recipient organisations need to be much more discriminating when choosing to support or design a programme, and that understanding the 'political' nature of leadership is the key to choosing or designing a good programme.

Read more

New paper on 'The Anatomy of Political Predation in Zimbabwe'

Tuesday 1st February 2011

Why, after liberation in 1980, did the ruling political elite in Zimbabwe resort more to predation than development and bring about the terrible economic and political decline in that country? And why, even in the face of the current political and economic crises, have rival elites failed to forge a common developmental coalition? In this research paper, commissioned for the DLP, Michael Bratton and Eldred Masunungure offer a fine-grained political analysis of this story.

Read more

Lowy Institute paper on Leadership

Thursday 28th October 2010

A recent study by the Lowy Institute in Sydney, Australia, funded by the DLP, explores the influence which secondary and higher education and scholarships have had on leaderships in Samoa and Timor Leste.

Read more

First International Conference in Responsible Leadership

Wednesday 19th May 2010

Eduard Grebe and Minka Woermann will be presented a paper entitled "Institutions of integrity and integrity of institutions: integrity and ethics in the politics of developmental leadership" at the First International Conference in Responsible Leadership.

Read more

GTZ Brown Bag Lunch

Monday 22nd March 2010

Adrian Leftwich gave a brown bag lunch at GTZ talking on: "Beyond Institutions: Leaders, Elites and Coalitions in the Politics of Development"

Read more

About DLP

The Developmental Leadership Program (DLP) is an international research initiative that explores how leadership, power and political processes drive or block successful development.

DLP focuses on the crucial role of home-grown leaderships and coalitions in forging legitimate political settlements and institutions that promote developmental outcomes, such as sustainable growth, political stability and inclusive social development.

Find out more

News

Course on corruption from the grassroots

Tuesday 25th November 2014

DLP Research Fellow Dr Caryn Peiffer is lecturing at the ninth Afrobarometer/CSSR summer school at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, which runs from 17 November - 12 December 2014.

Read more

Parliamentary strengthening: fix the car, or worry about the driver?

Monday 24th November 2014

In a guest post today for the blog From Poverty to Power, Alina Rocha Menocal takes stock of the evidence on parliamentary strengthening.

Read more

Follow: @dlprog