intervention. Without these building blocks in place, Duncan and Pollard suggest that there will be no growth in incomes. For example, investment projects in countries with no civil and social order have historically yielded dismal results.

The OECD (1999) reviews the lessons of experience on what works and what does not work in poverty reduction. It identifies three (3) issues generally regarded as critical: (i) the choice of the appropriate level of targeting; (ii) encouraging participation; and (iii) factors affecting sustainability. It reviews the pros and cons of targeted intervention; notes the “clear and demonstrable” benefits of stakeholders being in a position to influence the design and implementation of the intervention, while acknowledging the significant opportunity costs of participation for poor people; and lists rules for improving the sustainability of povertyfocused projects.

# _Typologies of Pro-Poor Interventions_

While acknowledging that there is no easy way to define “pro-poor spending,” Hentschel (2002) offers three alternative definitions: (i) spending that benefits the poor more than the non-poor; (ii) spending that actually reaches the poor; and (iii) spending that has an impact on the welfare of the poor over time. The merit of these definitions is that they begin to make explicit the concept of pro-poor, distinguishing between the relative and absolute impact on the poor and the long-term impact on poverty. Secondly, they implicitly underline the importance of empirical verification of the impact of public spending on the target group, using analytical techniques such as benefit incidence, service delivery surveys and expenditure tracking.

It is also important to acknowledge that the choice of public intervention must also take account of the nature of poverty being addressed. In a review of the social impact of its adjustment operations, the World Bank (1995) suggests that it is useful to distinguish between transient poverty and chronic poverty. Public expenditure policies are then designed differently depending on the nature of poverty being addressed. For example, with respect to transient poverty (poverty associated with abrupt changes in economic conditions), short run public programs (public relief, food aid, severance pay) may be appropriate. In the case of chronic poverty, two (2) sets of public interventions are appropriate: the first increases the productivity of the poor; the second provides a safety net to those unable to participate in the economy.

Lipton and Ravallion (1995: 2623) present a framework for classifying alternative interventions. While their framework is based on programs that alter inputs into rural production and thus reduce chronic rural poverty, the classification is potentially useful. In their framework, interventions alter choice about inputs—land, human capital, and credit— and potentially raise incomes among the poor. In each case, the poor can gain from seven (7) types of interventions that affect inputs by raising input volumes, improving factor productivity, or by altering prices. The interventions include (1) a rise in resource availability; (2) redistribution of resources; (3) a combination of (1) and (2); (4) distribution-neutral enhancement of factor productivity; (5) poor-oriented enhancement of productivity; (6) price alteration of inputs bought by the poor; and (7) price alteration of outputs produced by the poor.

32