• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Pro-poor national budgets

Pro-poor national budgets

Helpdesk Report
  • Becky Carter
March 2015

Question

What national budget expenditure (especially in Africa and specifically Nigeria) has the most impact on poverty reduction and pro poor growth?

Summary

There is a wealth of evidence that spending on basic social services (health, nutrition, education) and social protection can be progressive and reach the poor, with particularly high potential returns from expenditures in these sectors reaching poor and vulnerable women and children. In recent years, empirical research has reinvigorated interest in the potential poverty outcomes from government spend in areas such as agriculture, infrastructure and private sector development.

The literature includes a number of recommendations for improving the impact of national budget spend on poverty reduction and pro-poor growth:

  • Incorporating a focus on inclusive growth, with a focus on ensuring non-discriminatory participation in the growth process by large segments of the population (Alexander 2015).
  • Helping the chronically poor, stopping impoverishment and sustaining poverty escapes: understanding the complex and fluctuating paths people take in and out of poverty leads the Chronic Poverty Research Centre to call for financing for social assistance, education and ‘pro-poorest’ economic growth.
  • Refining the application of priority sectors and targets to help focus debate and lobby for resources, while not detracting from a poverty reduction strategy’s inter-sectoral complementarities and trade-offs.
  • Improving the transparency and accountability of public financial management through strengthened oversight of the budget process, and participation by beneficiaries.
  • Strengthening analytical tools for allocating limited resources: these include: assessing the alignment of the budget with a country’s growth and poverty reduction strategy; understanding the trade-offs and interrelationships between allocations; modelling the macroeconomic impact of alternative policy investment choices; and understanding how public expenditure is consistent with a structural transformation of the economy that overcomes binding constraints to growth.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

Infrastructure Project Failures in Colombia
Helpdesk Report
2018
Local financing for infrastructure in Zambia
Helpdesk Report
2017
Implementing Public Financial Management Reform
E-Learning
2017
Decentralisation of budgeting process
Literature Review
2017
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more