Open Science Repository Philosophy

doi: 10.7392/openaccess.70081974


The Ethics of Pro-Poor Poverty Policy: A Critique of the Neo-Liberal Imperative and the Epistemology of Poverty Eradication in Uganda


Kizito Michael George

Department of Philosophy, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda


Abstract

Since the early 1990s, Uganda has been cajoled by the IMF and World Bank to pursue a neo-liberal approach to  development as opposed to a liberal development modus operandi. However, in theory the World Bank has pursued  a liberal,  rights based approach to poverty reduction policy but, in practice, it has implemented a neo-liberal, market centric approach to poverty reduction. This is the reason why pro-poor poverty reduction in Uganda is more of rhetorical than practical. This paper critiques the epistemological pre-suppositions characteristic of the ethics of the current pro-poor poverty policy in Uganda. The fundamental premises of this critique are: Can the views of the poor in Uganda influence poverty policies given their asymmetrical disadvantage? Who knows the views of poor? Do the elites interpret the views of the poor as they are or as they think them to be? Do the poor have poverty knowledge or poverty opinion? Are some of the views of the poor simply adaptive preferences? What constitutes poverty knowledge as opposed to poverty opinion?  Is it ethical to eradicate poverty using opinion riddled poverty polices? Is  it ethically sustainable for poverty policies to persistently aim at integrating women in poverty eradication interventions while largely giving lip service patriarchal power relations that asymmetrically disadvantage them.      

Keywords: pro-poor, poverty policy, epistemology, Uganda, neo-liberal imperative.



Citation: George, K. M. (2013). The Ethics of Pro-Poor Poverty Policy: A Critique of the Neo-Liberal Imperative and the Epistemology of Poverty Eradication in Uganda. Open Science Repository Philosophy, Online(open-access), e70081974. doi:10.7392/openaccess.70081974

Received: June 12, 2013

Published: June 20, 2013

Copyright: © 2013 George, K. M. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Contact: research@open-science-repository.com



Full text

Other download options: cloud 2; cloud 3.

You don't have a PDF plugin, but you can download the PDF file.


Cite this paper

APA

George, K. M. (2013). The Ethics of Pro-Poor Poverty Policy: A Critique of the Neo-Liberal Imperative and the Epistemology of Poverty Eradication in Uganda. Open Science Repository Philosophy, Online(open-access), e70081974. doi:10.7392/openaccess.70081974

MLA

George, Kizito Michael. “The Ethics of Pro-Poor Poverty Policy: A Critique of the Neo-Liberal Imperative and the Epistemology of Poverty Eradication in Uganda.” Open Science Repository Philosophy Online.open-access (2013): e70081974.

Chicago

George, Kizito Michael. 2013. “The Ethics of Pro-Poor Poverty Policy: A Critique of the Neo-Liberal Imperative and the Epistemology of Poverty Eradication in Uganda.” Open Science Repository Philosophy Online (open-access): e70081974. doi:10.7392/openaccess.70081974. http://www.open-science-repository.com/philosophy-70081974.html.

Harvard

George, K.M., 2013. The Ethics of Pro-Poor Poverty Policy: A Critique of the Neo-Liberal Imperative and the Epistemology of Poverty Eradication in Uganda. Open Science Repository Philosophy, Online(open-access), p.e70081974. Available at: http://www.open-science-repository.com/philosophy-70081974.html.

Science

1. K. M. George, The Ethics of Pro-Poor Poverty Policy: A Critique of the Neo-Liberal Imperative and the Epistemology of Poverty Eradication in Uganda, Open Science Repository Philosophy Online, e70081974 (2013).

Nature

1. George, K. M. The Ethics of Pro-Poor Poverty Policy: A Critique of the Neo-Liberal Imperative and the Epistemology of Poverty Eradication in Uganda. Open Science Repository Philosophy Online, e70081974 (2013).


doi

Research registered in the DOI resolution system as: 10.7392/openaccess.70081974.


Submit an open review for this paper

Instructions

Main criteria reviewers should evaluate are: originality, sound methodology and data, following of universal ethical principles, scientific relevance and clear description of problems, hypotheses and results.

Names, affiliations of reviewers and personal contacts should be included at the end of the text.

Maximum text length is 10000 characters. Only serious, consistent and original reviews are accepted.



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.