81786 THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC’S POVERTY COMMITTEE EXPERIENCE AN INCLUSIVE, PARTICIPATORY, AND TECHNICAL PROCESS THAT ACHIEVED RESULTS By: Javier E. Báez, Miguel Sánchez Martín, and Rebecca Schutte From 2000-10, the Dominican Republic sustained high levels of economic growth. However, without a standardized poverty measurement methodology, it was difficult to assess the effect of this growth on poverty. To address this, the government requested assistance from the World Bank which helped convene a technical, inter-institutional poverty committee that was highly participatory and transparent to define the country’s new poverty measurement methodology. By including both domestic and international institutions on the committee, it got buy-in from high levels of government and the international community. It also helped decentralize knowledge about poverty measurement throughout the government and build capacity at local institutions to conduct and monitor poverty measurement in the future. The key lessons learned include early planning to ensure sustainability of the committee and new methodology, planning ahead to ensure that a technical team is available throughout the span of the project, and ensuring the process is driven by high-level government support. T he Dominican Republic has sustained strong threshold) along with the characteristics (i.e. who is poor, economic growth over the past two decades, making where they live, if they are a specific gender, ethnicity, etc.). it one of the fastest growing economies in the Latin Instead of using one consistent methodology to determine America and the Caribbean (LCR) region. Between 2001- poverty estimates, the country was simultaneously follow- 11, the economy grew annually by 5.3% on average, ing several poverty methodologies developed by different surpassing the growth rate of the region (3.4%). Income per institutions including the Inter-American Development capita growth also increased from 2000-10 by 45%, from Bank (IBD), the United Nations Economic Commission for US$2,793 to US$4,049. Latin America and the Caribbean (CEPAL) and the World Bank. This often resulted in poverty estimates that were not Although the Dominican Republic sustained this rate of comparable, moved in opposite directions and painted growth over time, assessing its impact on poverty trends different pictures of poverty in the country. Overall, key was difficult due to the lack of an official poverty measure- stakeholders and the public generally distrusted the poverty ment methodology1. A methodology is key for evidence- numbers which were perceived to lack credibility and based policy making, as it helps identify the magnitude of believed to sometimes be influenced by political interests poverty (i.e. how many people live below a certain poverty over policy objectives. Several WB staff were instrumental in the success of this project including Omar Arias, Samuel Freije-Rodríguez, Maurizio Bussolo, Carolina Díaz-Bonilla, Jasmin Chakeri, Javier E. Báez, Sergio Olivieri, Miguel E. Sánchez and Ferdinando Regalia (IDB). 1 Poverty measurement methodology categorizes who is considered poor or not by comparing their level of well-being to a monetary threshold of poverty. september 2013 THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC’S POVERTY COMMITTEE EXPERIENCE AN INCLUSIVE, PARTICIPATORY, AND TECHNICAL PROCESS THAT ACHIEVED RESULTS Process and Objectives Setting up the committee The government realized the limitations of following several In order to achieve the first objective of convening the different poverty methodologies and wanted a mechanism poverty committee in a transparent, productive, and collab- to create a poverty methodology and poverty estimates in orative way, the Ministry of Economy, Planning and Devel- line with international standards of quality, transparency opment (MEPyD) made an official request to the World and accountability. In 2009, they asked the World Bank for Bank for assistance. This signaled a high-level political technical and financial assistance to help achieve this goal. commitment to the poverty committee from the govern- Drawing from past experiences in the region, the World ment. In order to assemble the most influential and collab- Bank suggested that the government convene an inter- orative committee possible, key domestic and international institutional technical poverty committee to gather key institutions working on poverty measurement were invited domestic and international institutions to define the to join. In the domestic sphere, these institutions included country’s new poverty measurement methodology through the National Office of Statistics (ONE), Central Bank, a transparent and participatory process. MEPyD, Ministry of Labor, Vice Presidency (Cabinet of Coordination for Social Policies), and Ministry of Health. In convening the committee, both domestic and interna- On the international side, participants were the World Bank, tional institutions were included to ensure buy-in and own- United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and ership from the government while also providing a seal of CEPAL which joined later in the process. approval from the international community. The World Bank was prepared to spearhead this effort given its conven- Poverty committee structure ing power and success with previous poverty committees in The structure of the poverty committee consisted of 3 tiers Peru, Colombia, and Paraguay (Box 1). The funds for this (Figure 1). At the highest level was a small group of high- project were granted through the Institutional Development level officials whose role was to endorse and legitimize Fund (IDF) which gives money to capacity building activi- recommendations coming from the poverty committee. ties tied to the World Bank’s policy and economic work. Endorsement from this high-level group signaled country The primary objectives laid out in the grant were to: (1) ownership and international buy-in for the results and Establish a poverty committee as a forum for discussing ensured that the committee did not operate in isolation from poverty issues in the country; (2) Identify and provide the rest of government. The high-level officials included the technical inputs and analytical work for the development of Vice President (also Coordinator of the Cabinet of Social a poverty measurement methodology to ensure comparabil- Policies), Minister of MEPyD, Governor of the Central ity for poverty numbers between 2000-11 and poverty Bank, Minister of Labor, Minister of Public Health, diagnostics (poverty profiles, micro-simulation analysis, National Director of ONE, Resident Representative of etc.); and (3) Build technical capacity in domestic institutions UNDP, Country Manager from the World Bank, and working on poverty measurement, monitoring and analysis. Executive Secretary of CEPAL. BOX 1. The World Bank previously supported a poverty committee model in Peru, Colombia, and Paraguay. In 2007, Peru requested technical assistance from the World Bank after significant changes to the 2005 household survey (instrument, data collection process, and delay in updating methodology) created comparability problems. This resulted in no poverty statistics between 2004-07. The World Bank proposed creating an external Advisory Committee to reach consensus on a methodology through an inter-institutional technical team. The committee was formalized by Presidential decree and successfully resolved the issues. In Paraguay, the 2006 household survey caused comparability problems due to budget cuts which affected field work, so poverty figures were not released. In 2008, the National Statistical Office requested assistance from the World Bank and a poverty committee was formed. The committee remained informal, but weathered the transition between political cycles and resolved the comparability issues. Lastly, changes to poverty measurement methodology in Colombia in the 2006 national survey created comparability problems, so no official poverty statistics were released from 2006-09. The National Planning Directorate requested assistance from the World Bank and a poverty committee was formalized through an inter-institutional agreement and the technical issues were resolved. The second tier consisted of the core technical working FIGURE 1. Structure of the committee and responsibilities group. This is where all topics and aspects of the poverty measurement methodology were presented and finalized. Additionally, this group defined the analytical agenda on Tier 1: HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS poverty diagnostics that was carried out after the poverty • Endorsed committee recommendations methodology was finalized. This tier was comprised of technical experts from each representative institution and was jointly chaired by MEPyD and ONE. The third tier was the technical and analytical team respon- Tier 2: CORE TECHNICAL POVERTY COMMITTEE sible for responding to committee demands for modeling • Discussed poverty issues and agreed upon new different scenarios, providing technical inputs, and testing poverty measurement methodology the results. Members included technical staff from ONE and MEPyD and four consultants (one international and three local), all experts on technical aspects of poverty measurement. At the onset, this group started as a separate Tier 3: TECHNICAL & ANALYTICAL TEAM tier, but was later incorporated into the second tier given • Provided technical inputs for the committee their expertise and ability to give a technical perspective on committee discussions. Working together to create Capacity building and knowledge dissemination efforts the new methodology were also successful. A series of trainings for technical teams The second objective, identifying the new poverty measure- were carried out at various points of the process and ment methodology, required that every input be validated included representatives from institutions on the poverty during poverty committee discussions. The committee had committee and other academics and NGOs from the larger to establish consensus on key elements such as constructing community. Training topics included statistical analysis the welfare aggregate and its components2, estimating the software, technical aspects of the new methodology, details composition of a basic bundle of needs, and determining the on monetary poverty measurement and analysis, micro- monetary value of poverty lines3. The committee also simulations and macro-modeling, and poverty profiles and discussed and validated a poverty series spanning the period multidimensional poverty. 2000-11. They also agreed upon the analytical agenda that accompanied the development of the new methodology. Key lessons learned Once there was final consensus on the methodology, It is important to note that although this process had a domestic and international high-level officials signed off and successful outcome, but it really only marks the beginning in therefore legitimized the process and results. terms of implementing and monitoring the new methodology. On July 30, 2012, the national methodology and poverty There are several major lessons to share from this process in numbers for the period 2000-11 were officially launched at a the Dominican Republic that should be considered for large event chaired by the Minister of MEPyD and the similar initiatives in the future: Director of ONE at the National Palace of the Dominican Republic. Domestic media coverage was strong. (1) Plan for sustainability early on. The need for sustain- ability permeates many aspects of a committee’s work. First, Facilitating knowledge exchange it is important to plan for the long term existence of the and building capacity poverty committee as a space where experts can come The final objective, building technical capacity and facilitat- together to discuss the intricacies of poverty measurement. ing knowledge exchange, was achieved in several ways. Ideally, a government would consider institutionalizing the First, by including national institutions that were previously poverty committee at an early stage to formally ensure it not heavily involved in poverty measurement and diagnos- will continue past the scope of the project. However, none tics such as ONE, these institutions became more empow- of the poverty committees highlighted in Box 1 were institu- ered and were brought into the process with an important tionalized at the onset. Colombia and Peru were later and clear role. institutionalized by the government once they fully appreci- 2 The welfare aggregate sums up either the consumption or income of a household over a certain period of time to gauge its level of monetary well-being. 3 The poverty line is the monetary threshold below which individuals are considered poor. If the welfare aggregate is below the monetary poverty line, that household is considered poor. ated the technical nature and relevance of the committee’s In this experience, the entire process from organizing the work. In the Dominican Republic, the poverty committee committee to launching the new methodology took two has not yet been institutionalized and would have profited years. However, the groundwork leading up to the creation from this action earlier in the process rather than trying to of the poverty committee began in 2005 when the World achieve it retroactively. On a hopeful note, discussions with Bank and IDB worked jointly on a Poverty Assessment. the government regarding preparation of a law or decree to Both organizations lobbied for a new poverty measurement formally institutionalize the Committee are underway. methodology then, but it was a tough political context given a recent change in the government. The World Bank and Likewise, a sustainability plan should be implemented early IDB partnered again for a 2007 NLTA on capacity building on to ensure proper and comprehensive documentation of for poverty measurement. Under the NLTA, a workshop the methodology. Better documentation ensures the sustain- brought together a range of actors to learn about poverty ability of the committee’s results over time while building measurement. The participants left with STATA do-files and capacity at national institutions. The data should also be microdata to experiment with the numbers and work made publically available. In the Dominican Republic, through different assumptions. As a result, MEPyD began knowledge management was more of an afterthought and producing poverty numbers according to the World Bank better efforts could have been made during the process to methodology, but they were simultaneously publishing improve documentation systems in local institutions. It is numbers using methodology from CEPAL and others, easier to catalog the result and process during the scope of resulting in different estimates. This set the stage for the implementation versus trying to go back after the fact and 2009 NLTA which established the poverty committee to retrace your steps. determine a single official methodology for all to adhere to. (2) Use poverty committee as a tool to decentralize (4) A lot of technical work is required. Determining knowledge. Including a range of institutions on the poverty methodology requires large amounts of technical committee decentralizes knowledge and enables more work and inputs over a long period of time. The poverty institutions to contribute, not only to the poverty measure- committee needs a plan at the onset to ensure that highly ment methodology identification process, but also to the skilled experts are available throughout the scope of the application and monitoring of the new methodology. This project to conduct the technical work. In the Dominican helps ensure that poverty numbers can be replicated and Republic, this was a challenge since the production of monitored over the long term outside of government as well technical inputs took almost 18 months to complete. as within. (5) Political support at the highest levels of government is A flexible poverty committee structure can help efficiency. critical. If the country does not take ownership of the In the Dominican Republic, there were some institutions process and lead, the committee will not be sustainable in that only took part when there was a relevant topic for their the long run and its results will not be widely adopted. In expertise (like the Ministry of Health to provide caloric the Dominican Republic, MEPyD asked the World Bank requirement recommendations) and some joined the for help, but other key domestic institutions working on committee at a later stage (CEPAL). Notably absent on the poverty measurement and data joined the process and were committee were academics which would have offered a willing to work together with international experts to useful domestic perspective external to government. produce a solid product. This was a collaborative process Regardless of the number of institutions involved, the where the committee’s outputs were endorsed by high-level committee must retain a technical focus at all costs. officials which created country ownership, improved trans- parency and prevented political manipulation. This commit- (3) This process takes time. Including many organizations tee was the outcome of building political support and broad on the committee enhances the quality of results, but consensus across multiple stakeholders over many years. achieving consensus on numerous technical components can Success is not always immediate, but it is important to have take a long time. Participants often cannot commit large and patience and keep the effort and process moving forward as consistent amounts of time to this process, so meetings much as possible. might be held only once every few months, thus further drawing it out. Sometimes the committee also cannot move forward without key technical work which can take months to produce.