poor should be seen as a countervailing measure to the tendency for political elites in recipient countries to influence the allocation toward programs which cater to their needs rather than those of the poor.<sup>3</sup> There is, however, growing concern regarding the wisdom of relying so heavily on social sector spending to promote poverty reduction. The OED finds that a different balance between social and other sectors, particularly infrastructure and rural development, may be warranted for mobilizing investment to promote growth, a necessary condition for sustainable poverty reduction. Killick (2004) utilizes the OED’s findings to argue forcefully that large amounts of aid are being misdirected, promoting a narrow approach to poverty where spending in the social sectors is expanded at the expense of broader developmental priorities such as raising economic growth and addressing structural weaknesses, both of which are key to sustained poverty reduction. In Uganda, it has been argued that roads, agriculture and water and sanitation may yield higher returns for employment and income creation than primary health care and education and that the Poverty Action Fund has promoted a narrow interpretation of pro-poor programs, skewing budget allocations away from programs that may have allowed greater poverty reduction. (Williamson and Canagarajah 2003, World Bank 2002) The social sector bias in pro-poor allocations is also present in the PRSP programs which include countries not eligible for HIPC assistance. In a review of the role of PRGF programs in supporting PRSPs, the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) of the IMF reached similar conclusions.

“Strategies outlined in PRSPs generally constitute an improvement over previous development strategies, in the sense of providing greater poverty focus, a longerterm perspective, and some results-orientation. However, most PRSPs fall short of providing a strategic roadmap for policy making, especially in the area of macroeconomic and related structural policies. _The focus of most PRSPs is on the composition of public expenditures, especially social sector spending, with much less emphasis on other aspects of a broader strategy to encourage poverty-reducing growth_ [emphasis ours].” (IMF 2004: 4)

# **II.   METHODOLOGICAL CONCERNS AND ISSUES**

One of the weaknesses of the pro-poor approach is that it has used facile reasoning to link inputs (public spending) and outcomes (absolute poverty levels). An unintended consequence of this approach is that it has suppressed the essential discussion of the linkages between public spending policy and its direct and indirect effects and short and long term consequences. The effects of a public policy on policy objectives (such as absolute

> 3 An Overseas Development Institute (ODI) review (Foster and others (2002)) of the experience with pro-poor budgeting in five sub-Saharan African countries observed that the criteria for what constitutes poverty-reducing expenditure have generally focused on direct benefits to the poor.  They suggest that the general tendency of equating poverty reduction with social service provision needs to be seen in historical context as a compensation for previous neglect of services to the poor.

3