A Plea To Mr. Eugene L. Fahngon: Stop Making Mockery Of President Weah’s Pro-Poor Agenda
Dear Mr. Fahngon:
Mr. Fahngon, Pro-Poor Agenda means progressivism—meaning lifting ordinary struggling Liberians from an impoverished living standard to an appreciable standard of living. This means those who are using fire-woods to cook, need to be lifted to a charcoal status, cook-bo sellers to mini-restaurants and not perpetual state-of-inertia. Additionally, this agenda also intended to promote people from their current living status to the next considerable stage, and not what you are insinuating in your facebook post.
According to UNDP Oslo Governance Centre publication in 2009 (Gaportal), this framework serves as a tool for assessing the extent to which policy making processes are pro-poor and to help in diagnosing the necessary corrective actions for enhancing poverty sensitivity of policy processes. The framework is applied to experiences of participatory budgeting in a given society (local content). It provides a conceptual framework for assessing the pro-poor characteristics of policy making as a process. A process approach focuses on stages of policy making and the role of the main actors, their institutional environment, including participation and accountability mechanisms, and the values and incentives that shape choices.
This will enable the government, national/international counterparts to include policy making processes as an integral component in broader governance and poverty assessments. The agenda (Pro-Poor) also serves as a framework to guide the assessment of governance interventions and their contribution to enhanced pro poor policy environments. In so doing, the main aim of the framework is to serve as a tool for assessing the extent to which policy making processes are pro-poor and to help in diagnosing the necessary corrective actions for enhancing poverty sensitivity of policy processes. The framework is applied to two experiences of improved pro-poor governance in policy making: participatory budgeting [a cross country macro perspective] and participatory budgeting [a micro perspective].
Finally, the agenda provides examples of critical questions to ask at each stage of the policy making process. It also includes a list of references to toolkits, handbooks and internet resources on issues concerned with pro- poor governance of policy with particular emphasis on participation in policy processes and participatory budgeting.
Hint to a wise is quite sufficient!
Peal P. H. Nyenkan
Jordan P Center for Intellectual & Social Development