IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/eurjdr/v23y2011i2p319-336.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Great Experiment: Testing the PRSP Approach in Nicaragua, 2000–2007

Author

Listed:
  • João P C Guimarães

    (Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Néstor Avendaño

    (Consultores Para el Desarrollo Empresarial (COPADES), Managua)

Abstract

Introduced in 1999, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) created hopes of a significant change in development cooperation and in the fight against poverty. Often, however, these hopes led to disappointment. In Nicaragua, despite the adoption of a PRSP in 2001 and conditions that seemed favourable to poverty reduction, poverty actually increased between 2001 and 2005. The article views implementation of the PRSP in Nicaragua as a policy experiment, reviews the main aspects of the PRSP process over the period 2000–2007, analyses the factors underlying the increase in poverty and draws lessons from the experiment, particularly concerning the real priorities of both the government and the donors. It concludes that it seems neither cynical nor particularly far-fetched to see the introduction of PRSPs largely as an elaborate public relations exercise designed to keep in place the essentials of structural adjustment at a time when they were coming under increasingly strong criticism.Introduits en 1999, les DSRPs ont engendré des espoirs de changements significatifs dans la coopération pour le développement et dans la lutte contre la pauvreté. Souvent, cependant, ces espoirs ont été déçus. Au Nicaragua, malgré l′adoption en 2001 d′un DSRP et des conditions qui semblaient propices à une réduction de la pauvreté, cette dernière s′est en fait accrue entre 2001 et 2005. Cet article envisage la mise en œuvre du DSRP au Nicaragua comme un essai de politique passe en revue les principaux aspects du processus de DSRP pendant la période 2000–2007, analyse les facteurs sous-tendant la montée de la pauvreté, et tire des leçons de cet exercice, notamment en ce qui concerne les priorités réelles du gouvernement ainsi que des donateurs. Nous concluons qu′il ne semble ni excessif de considérer l′introduction des DSRPs comme étant, en grande partie, un exercice élaboré de relations publiques conçu pour maintenir l′essentiel de la réforme structurelle, à un moment où cette dernière suscitait des critiques grandissantes.

Suggested Citation

  • João P C Guimarães & Néstor Avendaño, 2011. "The Great Experiment: Testing the PRSP Approach in Nicaragua, 2000–2007," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 23(2), pages 319-336, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:eurjdr:v:23:y:2011:i:2:p:319-336
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ejdr/journal/v23/n2/pdf/ejdr201050a.pdf
    File Function: Link to full text PDF
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ejdr/journal/v23/n2/full/ejdr201050a.html
    File Function: Link to full text HTML
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Buccirossi, Paolo & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2006. "Leniency policies and illegal transactions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, pages 1281-1297.
    2. Fernando Aguiar & Pablo Brañas-Garza & Ramón Cobo-Reyes & Natalia Jimenez & Luis Miller, 2009. "Are women expected to be more generous?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(1), pages 93-98, March.
    3. Steffen Andersen & Erwin Bulte & Uri Gneezy & John A. List, 2008. "Do Women Supply More Public Goods Than Men? Preliminary Experimental Evidence from Matrilineal and Patriarchal Societies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 376-381, May.
    4. Omar Azfar & William Nelson, 2007. "Transparency, wages, and the separation of powers: An experimental analysis of corruption," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 471-493, March.
    5. Swamy, Anand & Knack, Stephen & Lee, Young & Azfar, Omar, 2001. "Gender and corruption," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 25-55, February.
    6. Uri Gneezy & Muriel Niederle & Aldo Rustichini, 2003. "Performance in Competitive Environments: Gender Differences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 118(3), pages 1049-1074.
    7. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2008. "Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier.
    8. Klaus Abbink & Bernd Irlenbusch & Elke Renner, 2002. "An Experimental Bribery Game," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 428-454, October.
    9. Frank, Bjorn & Schulze, Gunther G., 2000. "Does economics make citizens corrupt?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 101-113, September.
    10. M. Fernanda Rivas, 2013. "An Experiment On Corruption And Gender," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 10-42, January.
    11. Lambsdorff, Johann Graf & Frank, Björn, 2010. "Bribing versus gift-giving - An experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 347-357, June.
    12. Günther G. Schulze & Björn Frank, 2003. "Deterrence versus intrinsic motivation: Experimental evidence on the determinants of corruptibility," Economics of Governance, Springer, pages 143-160.
    13. Vivi Alatas & Lisa Cameron & Ananish Chaudhuri & Nisvan Erkal & Lata Gangadharan, 2009. "Subject pool effects in a corruption experiment: A comparison of Indonesian public servants and Indonesian students," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(1), pages 113-132, March.
    14. Cecile Jackson, 2009. "Researching the Researched: Gender, Reflexivity and Actor-Orientation in an Experimental Game," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 21(5), pages 772-791, December.
    15. Fernando Aguiar & Pablo Brañas-Garza & Ramón Cobo-Reyes & Natalia Jiménez & Luis M. Miller, 2006. "Gender based prescriptions: evidence for altruism," ThE Papers 06/11, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    16. Klaus Abbink, 2006. "Laboratory Experiments on Corruption," Chapters,in: International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption, chapter 14 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Olivier Armantier & Amadou Boly, 2008. "Can Corruption Be Studied in the Lab? Comparing a Field and a Lab Experiment," CIRANO Working Papers 2008s-26, CIRANO.
    18. Dollar, David & Fisman, Raymond & Gatti, Roberta, 2001. "Are women really the "fairer" sex? Corruption and women in government," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 423-429, December.
    19. Vivi Alatas & Lisa Cameron & Ananish Chaudhuri & Nisvan Erkal & Lata Gangadharan, 2009. "Gender, Culture, and Corruption: Insights from an Experimental Analysis," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 663-680, January.
    20. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    21. Echazu Luciana, 2010. "Corruption and the Balance of Gender Power," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 59-74, April.
    22. Catherine C. Eckel, 2007. "People Playing Games: The Human Face of Experimental Economics," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 840-857, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:eurjdr:v:23:y:2011:i:2:p:319-336. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.