Contesting the FrameEngaging with South Africa’s Anti-

Poverty Consensus

Andries du ToitInstitute for Poverty Land, and Agrarian Studies

Human Rights and Economic JusticeYale University, 18 October 2013

A disclaimer

No heartening tales of triumph or ‘best practices’ for ‘uptake of evidence’.

The search for impact is about contestations on a political terrain.

In this talk: questions and reflections about the search for a strategy

PLAAS

“ … does research, policy engagement, teaching and training about the dynamics

of chronic poverty and structural inequality in

southern Africa…”

Our focus is on the dynamics of vulnerable and marginalized livelihoods in

rural areas and within South Africa’s agro-food system

Opportunities and challenges

One set of opportunities and challenges flow from the peculiar nature of the pro-poor consensus in

South African politics…

… others flow from the political (dis) organization of the policy process in the South African state.

South Africa’s anti-poverty consensus

Since 1994, there has been an unusual degree of agreement on the centrality of poverty as an issue of political and social concern and on the measures

needed to address it…

… but there is a disjuncture between the hopes embodied in this consensus and the ability to

address the root causes of poverty.

The limits of the pro-poor consensus

Part of the problem lies in the structural nature of the processes and relationships that entrench and

perpetuate structural inequality and poverty…

… and part lies in the nature of that anti-poverty consensus itself.

Poverty is framed in depoliticized ways that mystify its nature, obscure its causes, and disconnects

poverty from a concern with inequality.

The policy process

Until 2009, presidential hegemony in an increasingly centralized and tightly controlled policy process

Evidence and findings that cannot be reconciled with dominant policy narratives are marginalized or ‘silently silenced’

Since 2009, an increasingly incoherent policy framework characterized by a ‘war of position’ between vying ideological

factions…

… so that ‘pathways to impact’ via policy change become increasingly fragile and disconnected

Strategic aims

To support the capacity for the development (within state and civil society) of better ‘theories of change’

about the constraints to and opportunities for livelihoods at the margins of the South African

economy

(Neither simple optimism about the effects of ‘growth’ (World Bank, 2013), nor apocalyptic

narratives about ‘neoliberalism’ and ‘waste lives’ capture the complexity of the threats or the

opportunities)

Our strengths and resources

Using detailed research to develop an in-depth qualitative understanding of the dynamics of

livelihoods at the economic margin…

Using participatory pedagogic methods to support processes of social learning that allow people to

‘reframe’ their understanding of complex processes…

Using our symbolic and reputational capital (!) to act as a convenor and commentator in public space.

The terrain

We need to move away from a narrow focus on the state, formal policy, and expert decision-making

towards an engagement with a wider array of actors within and outside the state.

Engaging with private governance of the South African Food system

Reframing debates, contesting myths

Using resources and

training to contest the

ways in which South African media frame

debates

Will it work?

“It’s too early to tell”…