- To understand the potential contribution of the state to urban poverty reduction, through an analysis of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) (in different sites) and other poverty reduction initiatives, i.e. to assess what difference it has made.
- To understand the significance of state capacity and elite commitment for the performance of pro-poor urban programmes, through analysing experiences of state poverty reduction measures in multiple sites. This will include analysis of state involvement in programme design, management, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. It will also include the examination of the government’s approach to poverty reduction and the ‘vision’ underlying the design of interventions.
- To understand the factors influencing the development and realisation of state capacity and elite commitment, through the selection of sites in which there has been a differential presence of potentially significant factors. In this respect, to look specifically at:
- the contribution of the quality of community agency to the success of the intervention;
- the contribution of quality of state programme design to the success of the intervention;
- the impact of interaction between the quality of community agency and the quality of state intervention on final programme outcomes (including an analysis of political elite commitment, political capacity, power relations and vision, plus concepts related to programme design).
The project examines urban poverty in India. The five cities selected for the study are Pune, Bhopal, Bhubaneswar, either Raipur or Patna, and Cuttack, based on their differing levels of experience with the JNNURM programme.
- What do the experiences of the JNNURM and other government poverty reduction projects tell us about the measures (individually or in combination) that are successful in reducing urban poverty in the medium term (i.e. over three years)? What, drawing on these experiences, are the most important aspects of interventions?
- How is success spatially differentiated across five case study cities (and within the cities, with respect to the projects studied), and what are the underlying factors that explain such a differentiation, specifically with respect to community partnership and state involvement (e.g. small and big cities, nature of the economy, levels of political commitment, scale of citizen organisation, forms and depth of state capacity, historical trajectory on which to build, etc.)?
- What explains the interest and willingness of the state to address urban poverty at this time, to acknowledge their own previous failures in urban poverty reduction and to draw in non-state groups and organisations to state planning? Related to this, how important are: elite commitment; the structure of the state and hence required state capacity at various levels (various forms to be disaggregated); power relations between political parties, state agencies and the urban poor; and the specific models of intervention being used?
- From this work, which appear to be the most effective strategies for states to use to improve informal urban settlements and reduce urban poverty?