SOCIAL POLICY IN A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: SHIFTING ... · SOCIAL POLICY IN A HISTORICAL...

SOCIAL POLICY INA HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:SHIFTING APPROACHES TO

SOCIAL PROVISIONINGBy: Jehovaness Aikaeli and Humphrey Moshi

THDR 2017: Background Paper No. 6ESRF Discussion Paper 67

2016 www.esrftz.org

The Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF) is an independent policy research institution based in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. ESRF was established in 1994 to respond to the growing need for a research think tank with a mandate to conduct research for policy analysis and capacity building. The Foundation’s primary objectives are therefore to undertake policy-enhancing research, strengthen capabilities in policy analysis and decision making, as well as articulate and improve the understanding of policy options in government, the public sector, the donor community, and the growing private sector, and civil society.

Vision:Advancing knowledge to serve the public, the government, CSOs, and the private sector through sound policy research, capacity development initiatives, and advocating good development management practices.

Mission:To become a national and regional centre of excellence in policy research and capacity development for policy analysis and development management.

Objectives:The overall objective of ESRF is to conduct research in economic and social policy areas and development management, and use its research outcomes to facilitate the country’s capacity for economic development and social advancement.

“This ESRF Discussion Paper is based on the output of the Tanzania Human Development Report 2017”

ESRF Discussion Paper No. 67 | i

SOCIAL POLICY INA HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: SHIFTING APPROACHES TO

SOCIAL PROVISIONING

By Jehovaness Aikaeli and Humphrey Moshi

THDR 2017: Background Paper No. 6

ISBN 978-9987-770-20-5@ 2016 Economic and Social Research Foundation

THDR 2014: Background Paper No. 5, ESRF Discussion Paper 59 | i

What GroWth Pattern is needed to achieve the objective of

tanzania’s develoPment vision–2025?

ByDr. Longinus Rutasitara & Dr. Jehovaness Aikaeli

thdr 2014: background Paper no. 5esrf discussion Paper 59

isbn: 978-9987-610-94-5@ 2014 Economic and Social Research Foundation

Email: [email protected] • Website: www.esrftz.org

Published by:

ii | THDR 2017: Background Paper No. 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... III

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... IV

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1

2.0 RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES................................................................................3

3.0 SOCIAL POLICY EPISODES IN TANZANIA .............................................................4 3.1 Pre-Arusha Declaration: 1961–1967 ....................................................................4 3.2 Socialist policy era, 1967–1985 ...........................................................................5 3.3 Efficiencyandgrowthemphasis,1986–1995 .......................................................9 3.4 Integrationofsocialpolicyintoeconomicreforminitiatives,1996–2004 .............10 3.5 Inclusivegrowth,equity,andqualityoflifeemphasis:2005andbeyond .............11

4.0 PARADIGM CHANGES IN SOCIAL PROVISIONING APPROACHES ...................13

5.0 IMPLICATIONS OF PROVISIONING APPROACHES FOR SOCIAL INDICATORS .................................................................................................15

6.0 CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS ........................................................18

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................20

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ESRF Discussion Paper No. 67 | iii

ThispaperispublishedaspartofthebackgroundpapersfortheTanzaniaHumanDevelopmentReport(2017)SocialPolicyintheContextofEconomicTransformationinTanzania,coordinatedbytheEconomicandSocialResearchFoundation(ESRF).Theauthorswould liketoextendsincere gratitude to Dr. TausiMbaga Kida, the Executive Director of the ESRF and projectmanagerfortheTHDRproject,forgivingustheopportunitytocontributeabackgroundpaperfortheTHDR2017,andforallthetechnicalandcoordinationsupportprovidedthroughoutthereport’s preparation.

Wewould like to recordour gratitude to the followingmembersof theTHDRcore team inchargeofthepreparationoftheTHDR2017fortheirinvaluablecommentsandguidance:Prof.MarcWuyts(ISS),Mr.RodgersDhliwayo(UNDP),Mr.AmonManyama(UNDP),Dr.JehovanessAikaeli (DoEUDSM),Dr.KennethMdadila (DoEUDSM),Mr.AhmedMakbel (PrimeMinister’sOffice,Policy,ParliamentaryAffairs,Labour,Employment,Youth,andtheDisabled),Mr.IreniusRuyobya (NBS),andMr.DeogratiusMutalemwa (ESRF).Weappreciatecomments receivedfrommembersoftheTHDRWorkingGroupandfromdifferentworkshopsheldaspartofthepeerreviewprocessofthebackgroundpapersfortheTHDR2017.

Inparticular,wethankProf.MarcWuytsandProf.SamuelWangweforreviewingearlierversionsofthispaper.WethankDr.RichardWhitehead,theManagingDirectorofEdittoPublish,forsplendidworkincopy-editingthefinalmanuscript.Lastbutnotleast,theauthorswouldliketospeciallyrecognizethesupportextendedbyMr.DanfordSangoandMr.YasserManuoftheESRFintheircapacityasmembersoftheTHDRsecretariat.

Finally,theESRFwouldliketothanktheUNDPforprovidingtheproject’sfinancialsupport.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

iv | THDR 2017: Background Paper No. 6

Socialprovisioning isacritical ingredientofhumandevelopmentandthus inextricably linkedto economic development.With this understanding inmind, this chapter seeks to analyse,historically, the development of social provisioning in Tanzania by identifying the economic,politicalandsocialdriverswhichledtoshiftsinprioritizationofeitherhumandevelopment(socialprovisioning)oreconomicdevelopmentissuesinthecountry’ssocio-economicplanning,policyand institutional frameworks.Theanalysisshowsclearlythatthemaindriversoftheshifts inprioritysetting ranged fromtheadopteddevelopmentparadigmcum ideologicalorientation,availabilityoffinancialresources,policiesofmultilateralfinancialinstitutions,namelytheWorldBank (WB)and InternationalMonetaryFund (IMF), toglobaldevelopment initiatives,suchasMillenniumDevelopmentGoals(MDGs),SustainableDevelopmentGoals(SDGs),andsoon.

ThemainobservationisthatthehistoryofsocialprovisioninginTanzaniaisreflectiveofpoliciesandstrategies,whichinmostcasesfailedtostrikeanappropriatebalancebetweenthetwoobjectivesofsocialprovisioningandeconomicdevelopment.Thisinturnledtounsatisfactorysocial provisioning results and outcomes, even during periods of relatively good economicperformance.Thismanifestationindicatesthatpositiveeconomicperformanceisnotnecessarilyasufficientconditionforachievingpositivesocialoutcomes,unlessaclearstrategyisadoptedandtherequisitemeasuresareeffectively implementedtoattainenvisionedsocialgoalsandobjectives.

Thisbeingthecase,thewayforwarddemandsthefollowingactions:one,theneedforpublicpoliciestobebotheconomicallyandsociallyintegrated;two,socialprovisioningpoliciesshouldnotonlyfocusonquantitativebutalsoonthequalitativeaspects;three,thedesignofpolicies,strategiesandprogrammesneedtobedecentralizedto lower levels– regions,districtsandvillages–withtheobjectiveofachievingenhancedsocialprovisioningresultsandoutcomes;four,economicgrowthneedstobeinclusiveandequitableinordertoimproveavailabilityofandaccessibilitytosocialservicesonsustainablebasis.

ABSTRACT

ESRF Discussion Paper No. 67 | 1

Humandevelopmentisusuallyembeddedinthesocio-culturalenvironmentofasociety,whichtherefore determines both social and economic outcomes. The social provisioning processis about social reality, in termsof how theprovisioning of goods and services to society isorganizedaccordingtoexistingvaluesandsocialstructures.Theconceptofsocialprovisioningemergedoutof institutionaleconomics (Gruchy,1987;Dugger,1996),andhasbeen furtherdeveloped by institutional and other heterodox economists (Lee, 2010; Jo, 2011). Socialprovisioning isguidedbysocialpolicy,which issupposed tobedesigned inaway that fitswithchangingvaluesandsocio-economicstructures including,amongother things:gender,culture, power, politics, the economic system, and the environment.Social policy concernsallaspectsthatarerelatedtosocialservicesandwelfare.Theseareanypoliciesguidingtheadministrationofsocialservices,comprisinghealth,housing,incomemaintenance,education,andsocialwork;theneedsofandissuesaffectingtheusersofsocialservices(likepoverty,oldage,health,disability,andfamilymatters);andthedeliveryofwelfare.Socialpolicyisthereforeamultifacetedconcept.Thismeansthatsocialpolicyandeconomicpolicyareintertwinedbydesignanddifficulttoseparateaccordingtoclear-cutcriteria.Indeed,creatingeconomicpolicyasifitwasseparatefromsocialpolicywouldresultinpiecemealinterventionswhichmaynothavesubstantiveimpactsontransformationprocesses.

ThispaperlooksintothehistoricalarchetypeofsocialpolicyinTanzaniaandtheparadigmshiftsinsocialprovisioningapproachesovertime.AsoneofthebackgroundpapersfortheTanzaniaHumanDevelopmentReport(THDR),thispiecesuggeststhatdevelopmentandpovertyshouldbeconceptualizedfromamultidimensionalperspectiveratherthanbeingthoughtthrough(anddiscussed)only intermsofeconomicor incomeaspects.Multidimensionalconsiderations intheTHDRmakeitimportanttoexploreissuesrelatedtohistoricalperspectivesonsocialpolicyasawaytounderstandthereasons,processes,andunderlyingfactorsthatinformTanzania’scurrentstateofaffairs,andthustounearththewayforwardtoimprovinghumanlifethroughdifferentpublicpolicies.

Understandingtheconceptualframeworkofinterplaybetweensocialandeconomicpolicytoguaranteehumandevelopmentisimportant.TheroleofsocialpolicyinhumandevelopmentisdepictedintheconceptualframeworkportrayedinthediagraminFigure1.

Itistheunderstandingofthisframeworkthatguidedthewritingofthispaper.Thefiguredepictsasimplepictureoftherelationshipbetweensocialpolicyandhumandevelopment,cognizantoftheinterplayoffactorsotherthansocialpolicy,whichmeanthatwhatisreferredtoastheexternal environment is critical. Social policy contributes directly to poverty reduction andhumandevelopment, and raises productive capacity and output as a result. As productionintheeconomyimproves,incomeincreases,aggregatedemandfollows,andthesupplysideresponsetodemandcreatesemployment,ifeverythingelseremainsright.Theseinturnfeedinto lowering poverty further and enhancing human development.Note also that there is agovernmentrevenue(tax)dividendfromtheexpandedproductionresultingfromemploymentand incomegrowth. External environment, i.e. other factors including uncontrollable foreign

1. INTRODUCTION

2 | THDR 2017: Background Paper No. 6

influencesandmarketdynamics,arerelevanttoeconomicperformanceasillustratedabove,andtheyhaveindirectimplicationsforhumandevelopmentandpovertyreduction.

Figure 1: Conceptual framework of social policy and poverty reduction

Source:Author’sowncompilation

Itneedstobeunderscoredthatsocialprovisioningasacriticalingredientofhumandevelopmentisinextricablylinkedtoeconomicdevelopment,giventhathumandevelopmentistheprimaryobjectiveofeconomicdevelopment.Atthesametime,economicdevelopmentisanessentialmeanstohumandevelopment.However,inthepolicyformulationandimplementationprocess,moreoftenthannot,policymakerstendtogiveprioritytoeitherhumandevelopmentoreconomicissues,dependingontheadopteddevelopmentparadigmorthescopeofavailablefinancialresourcesintermsofbudgetaryconstraints,coupledwithmultilateralfinancialinstitution’sandglobaldevelopment initiativessuchasBasicNeeds,MillenniumDevelopmentGoals (MDGs),SustainableDevelopmentGoals (SDGs), andsoon. In this regard, thedevelopmenthistoryofsocialprovisioning inTanzania is reflectiveofpolicieswhich inmostcases failed tostrikean appropriate balance between the two objectives of human development and economicdevelopment.Indeed,pursuingbothobjectivestogether,throughpolicieswhicharecognizantoftheirinter-linkages,wouldhaveenhancedresultsandoutcomesforbothofthem.Nonetheless,thenatureofthebalancedidalsovaryacrossdifferenthistoricalperiods.

The rest of thispaper is organizedas follows.The rationale andobjectiveof thepaper arepresented insection2.Adiscussionof thehistoryof thecountry’ssocialpolicyepisodes isundertakeninsection3.Section4analysesparadigmchangesinsocialprovisioningapproaches,withemphasisonchangingprioritiesandtheattendantinstitutionalframeworks.Theimplicationsandresultsoftheadoptedprovisioningapproachesinrelationtosocialindicatorsarethesubjectofsection5.Thelastsectionconcludesthestudy,whileoutliningasetofpolicyimplicationsforinformingfuturegenerationsofsocialprovisioningefforts.

Social Policy

Poverty Reduction

Human Development(Improved healtheducation, social

security etc.)

Increased Production

Increased Employment,Income and

Govt. Revenue)

Economic Policyand Development

Good ExternalEnvironment


Tanzania has come a long way since independence in its efforts to spearhead social andeconomicdevelopment.Itisthusworthwhiletoexaminethecountry’spolicyprocesstoassessprogress and identify areas for improvement. As the country compares with its Asian andPacificpeersfromthe1960s,forexample,thereisevidenceofaslowpaceofbotheconomicandhumandevelopment in thecountry. It isacknowledgedbyscholars,policymakers,andmanyothersthatnationaldevelopmentisusuallydependentonthepublic-policyandqualityofgovernancepractice.

However,itishighlycontestedwhethertheproblemofslowhumandevelopmentprocessesisassociatedwith:(a)incoherentsocialandeconomicpolicies;(b)inadequateimplementationofexistingpolicies;or(c)otherfactorsaltogether.Inthispaperwemaynotbeabletostatisticallyidentifytheexactextenttowhichsocialpolicyhascontributedtohumandevelopmentinthecountry since independence, but we will depict the positive and negative stakes of socialprovisioningapproachesasregardshumandevelopmentprocessesinTanzania.Wethustracethehistoricalparadigmchangesofsocialprovisioningapproachesduringthedifferenteconomicsystemsanddevelopmentprogrammesthatthecountryembarkeduponsinceindependence,uptothepresentaspirationsstipulatedintheNationalDevelopmentVision2025.Therefore,thespecificobjectivesofthepaperareasfollows:

i) TopresentahistoricalperspectiveonsocialpolicyinTanzania;

ii) Tounderscore the rationale forand thedriversofparadigmchangewith regard to theadoptedsocialprovisioningapproaches;

iii) To draw lessons from the various adopted regimes of social provisioning on humandevelopmentprocesses,intermsofidentifyingnotonlythecontinuitiesanddeparturesofeachera,butalsotherealizedoutcomes;and

iv) Tocomeupwithpolicy implicationsaimedat the improvementof futuregenerationsofsocio-economicpolicydesignandimplementation,takingintoconsiderationthefailuresandsuccessesofpastandcurrentinitiatives.

2. RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES


Tanzania has gone through different eras of approaches to social provisioning policy sinceindependence.Althoughtherehasbeennosinglecoherentnationalsocialpolicycuttingacrossallsectors,therearesector-specificsocialpolicies,althoughthesearenotnecessarilycoherentandintertwinedastheywerepreparedandimplementedbytherespectivesectorsinisolation.Healthpolicy, social security policy, and education policy, for instance, stand alone; they areweaklycoordinated,andnoneareclearlylinkedwithothersocialpoliciesinthecountry.Inmostcasestheprocessofsocialpolicyformulationhasbeeninitiatedbytechnocratsortaskforcesattheministeriallevelorbyinstitutionsentrustedwithspecificsocialprovisioningroles.Whereastheimplementingagents are communities, NGOs, and government institutions, the implementation process isbasicallytop-down.Themainfundersofsocialpolicydirectivesincludethegovernment,donors,NGOs,individuals,andreligiousinstitutions(Mchomvuetal.,1998).TheobservedfragmentationandweakcoordinationhasimprovedovertimesincemostoftheseissuesweremainstreamedinnationalplanningframeworkssuchasMKUKUTA1and2,whichalsosawenhancedcoordinationandconsultationamongkeystakeholders.

3.1 Pre-Arusha Declaration: 1961–1967

Tanzania’ssocialprovisioninghasbeencharacterizedbydifferentregimes,althoughwithsomeoverlappinguniversalelements.Duringtheperiodfrom1961to1967thecountry’ssocialpolicyemphasizedadevelopmentalstrategythatfocusedonbuildingnationalcohesionwhilefightingthe threeenemiesofdevelopment,whichwere identifiedaspoverty, ignorance, anddisease.Poverty was fought through modernization and the expansion of production of goods andservices,particularlyintheagriculturalandindustrialsectors.Ignorancewastobedefeatedbyexpanding access to education through interventions like Universal Primary Education (UPE).Diseasesweretobecontrolledbyplacingemphasisonexpandingaccesstoprimaryhealthcareandcampaignsonhealthissues(MujinjaandKida,2014).Thesethreesocialconcernsofthetimewereperceivedasimpossibletoresolveundertheexistingeconomicsystem,whichwasentirelymarketoriented.Inviewofthis,socialprovisioningwasprivateinnature,andtheacquisitionofsocialserviceswasthereforelimitedtothosewhocouldaffordtopayforit.Socialandeconomicpolicieswere thus interlaced to serve the purse of the inherited capitalist economy, althoughthiswas fundamentallycontrary tothethinkingandphilosophyofPresidentJuliusK.Nyerere.Inthisregard,theperiodwitnessedatransformationfromalesstoamoreinclusiveeconomicsystemandsocialprovisioning,asevidencedbythesubsequentnationalizationofthemeansofproduction.

Sincethemeansofproductionwereinthehandsoftheprivatesectorintheearly1960s,efficiencytrade-offswithequityandinequalitieswereapparentacrossthecountry.Theeconomicstructureof thedaywassuch thatplantation/commercial farmingwasdonebyEuropeansettlerswhoremainedinthecountryafterindependence;afewindustrieshadbeenestablishedbycolonialcapitalists and they continued to own them; financial elites owned banks and other financialintermediaries;andtradeandcommerceweregenerallyprivate.Duringthisperiodsocialserviceswereprovidedprivatelyandastateredistributionfunctionwasperformedthroughconventional

3. SOCIAL POLICY EPISODES IN TANZANIA


taxation.Governmentpaternalismwasataminimum,andthestate’sauthorityoverthemeansofproductionwaslimited.

Despiteeconomicandsocialefforts in theearlyyearsof independence, themajorsocialandeconomiccharacteristicsofTanzaniaremainedthesameastheyhadbeenduringthecolonialperiod.Theeconomy’sstructureintermsofproductionrelationships,ownership,andtheprioritiesof commodities were still oriented to the industrial countries (Ruhumbika, 1974). In order toaddressthisstateofaffairs,thenotionsofAfricanizationandsocializationoftheeconomywerehatched,includingtheneedtochangethesocialandeconomicattitudesofthepeople.ItwasinthiscontextthatMwalimuJuliusK.Nyereresawthewideninggapinsocialprovisioning,andbecameeagertoestablishamoreequitablesociety.PresidentNyererebelievedintheequalityofthepeopleandhadinmindtheideaofvestingthecriticalmeansofproductioninthehandsofthemajority/nationals,henceensuringcollectiveownershipandsocialprovisioningtoallnationalsinanequalway.

Thisthinking,asdiscussedlater,ledtotheeconomicsystemandpolicyparadigmchangefromacapitalisttoasocialistapproach,andthusthesocialprovisioningarchetypealsohadtochangeaccordingly.ThebasictenetsoftheTanzanianvisionwerelaiddownbyMwalimuNyerereinhis“Ujamaa–TheBasisofAfricanSocialism”,whichwaspublishedasaTanganyikaAfricanNationalUnionpamphletinApril1962.NyereretranslatedtheUjamaaconceptintoapolitical-economicmanagementmodelthroughseveralmeans,including,interalia,theinstitutionalizationofsocial,economic,andpoliticalequalitybycreatingacentraldemocracy,abolishingdiscrimination,andnationalizingtheeconomy’skeysectors,namelyproduction,serviceprovision,anddistribution.

ThefirstFive-YearDevelopmentPlan(FYDP)waslaunchedin1964,whichunderstoodthatraisingliteracy levelsespecially among theadultpopulationwasessential in thedrive toachieve thenationalobjectiveofhumandevelopment.Themostimportantgoaloftheplanwastoraisetheliteracy levels of rural peasants in an effort to improve agricultural production. Emphasiswasalsoplacedonimprovingthequalityofsecondaryandhigherleveleducation,tospeeduptheprocessof replacing foreignexpatriateworkerswith local Tanzanians. Itwaswell known thatbefore independence large companies and the public sector had depended on expatriatesas managers, technicians, and administrators, while Tanzanians performed the more menialactivities.Toachieveaneconomicsystemwithsocialistandself-relianceorientation,theprovisionofservices,notablyeducation,tookintoaccountthenationalsocialandeconomicdevelopmentperspectiveastheunderpinningpillar.Therefore,economicandsocialpolicieswereinterlinkedtoserveasinglenationaldevelopmentobjective,namelythedirectionthathadtobesetbythependingnationalizationprocesswhichwouldfollowinthenextfewyears.

In 1965 a Presidential Commission was appointed to institutionalize the country’s socialistapproach,anditsfindingsledtotheadoptionofasingle-partysystemandinitiatedaprocessofsocialismthatwasinauguratedbyPresidentNyerereinwhatisusuallyreferredtoastheArushaDeclaration.Nyerere considered socialism to be essential in achieving human equality, and ameanstoreducetheexploitationofmanbyman.ThePresidentadvocatedforpubliccontrolofthemeansofproduction,andself-reliancebecamethecallandaconceptthatwastoinfiltrateallfacetsofgovernmentpolicy,whethersocialoreconomic.Todemonstratethegovernment’scommitmentandto“serveasanexampletothepeople”,partyandgovernmentleaderswerenotallowedtoholdsharesinprivatecompanies,receiverentonproperty,orclaimmorethanonesalary at a time.


3.2 Socialist policy era, 1967–1985

This period was characterized by a number of strategic measures and policy changes: first,theadoptionof theArushaDeclaration in1967; second, theadoptionof thesecondFive-YearDevelopment Plan; third, the announcement of a variety of policies contained in a number ofpublicationsbyMwalimuNyerere,namelyEducationforSelf-reliance,SocialandRuralDevelopment,andFreedomandDevelopment;fourth,thelaunchingofcampaignstargetingbotheconomicandsocialdevelopment,forexampleMtuniAfya(ManishisHealth)andKilimochaKufanaKupona(AgricultureasMeansforLifeandDeath);fifth,theadoptionoftheNationalEmergencyProgramme(NEP)andtheNationalEconomicSurvivalProgramme(NESP) in responseto thefirst foodandoilcrisisof1973/74andthesecondoilcrisisof1979;andsixth,thecraftingoftheTwenty-YearPerspectivePlan(1980–2000),placingheavyemphasisonsocialprovisioningintermsofeducation(universalprimaryeducation),water,andbasicmedicalservicesinurbanandruralareas.

From1967 to1985Tanzania’ssocialpolicywasbroaderas it focusedon theequityaspectsof socialismandself-reliance.Themajormeansofproductionwerenationalized following theArushaDeclarationwhichputproductionandsocialprovisioningunderthestate.Thegovernmentinvestedindifferenteconomicactivitiesandprovidedalmostalltypesofsocialservicescentrally.Thedevelopmentprocesswasguidedby thebasic needs strategyby focusingonprovidingsocialservicessuchaseducation,health,water,andsanitationtoenhancehumandevelopment.Socialprovisioningwaslargelyfundedbyforeigninflowsthroughtheinstrumentsofaidanddebt,especiallyduringthecrisesofthe1970sand1980s.Bydesign,thisparadigmchangesoundsgoodasregardssocialdevelopmentandequity.Nevertheless,thepoliciespursuedinthe1970sand1980sledtopooreconomicperformance.Indeed,thisperformanceinturnunderminedorweakenedthecapacityofthegovernmenttoprovideadequatesocialservices,notonlyintermsofquantitybutalsoinquality.Alltheseindicatorsshowedsignsofdeterioration.

Although there are well known reasons why external factors were partly responsible for theeconomic crises in the 1970s and 1980s, one should not underplay the domestic causes. One ofthefactorsthatslowedtheeconomywastheneglectofagriculturalinvestmentinthewakeoftheneedtospurindustrialdevelopmentasawaytoachievequickerprogress.Thiswasratheraparadoxgiventhe fact that themajorityof thepeoplewerestillemployed inagricultureandthecountrywasfar lessexport-competitive, thusexacerbatingmisalignment in thebalanceofpayments.Althoughagriculturecontinuedtobethemainsectorcontributingtorealoutputandthekeygeneratorofforeignexchange,investmentinagriculturedeclinedby37%from1976to1981(NduluandHyuha,1984).Inanattempttoreversetheworseningmacroeconomiccondition,repressive policies were introducedwith a significant negative effect on agricultural producerprices,andthisresultedinadeclineintheproductionofcashcrops.Otherpolicyandstrategicmeasureswhichcompoundedtheproblemincluded:thevillagizationprogramme(1972–1975);theabolitionofcooperativeunions(1976),whichwerereplacedbycumbersome,inefficientcropauthorities;andthesiphoningofscarceresourcesintocostlystatefarms.Inaddition,repressivefinancialsectorpolicieswereenactedtofacilitatecreditrationingandforeignexchangecontrol,inter alia. These domestic policy options, in conjunction with the uncontrollable internationalturmoilresultingfromtheoilcrisis,leftTanzaniainadifficulteconomicstate.Consequently,socialprovisioningdeterioratedandthecoherenceofitspoliciesweakened.

Inanattempttoaddresstheseeconomicandsocialcrises,intheearly1980stheGovernmentofTanzaniaheldtalkswithfinancialinstitutions,especiallytheInternationalMonetaryFund(IMF),


aswellas improvisinghome-grownrecoveryprogrammes like theNationalEconomicSurvivalProgrammeof1981/1982andtheStructuralAdjustmentProgrammeof1982.Whilethestatewantedtomobilizemoreresourcesforitsuse,atthesametimeitmaintainedthecontrol-cum-exclusioniststancethatithadadoptedsinceindependence(THDR,2014).Theconcentrationofpoweratthecentrecontinuedtobeaconcern,financialinstitutionswererepressed,andforthesereasonsdonorswerepushingforbotheconomicandpoliticalliberalization.

ItshouldbenotedthatduringthisperiodTanzaniaachievedsomeadvancesinsocialdevelopment,particularly before the peak of the economic crisis in the 1980s. In 1978, for example, thegovernmentpassedanEducationActmakingeducationcompulsory forchildrenbetweentheagesof7and13 in linewith theUniversalPrimaryEducation (UPE)programme.Among thenotableaccomplishmentsduringthistimewereariseintheliteracyratefromonly33%in1970to90%in1985owingtoUniversalPrimaryEducation(UPE)andadulteducationprogrammes;adecreaseintheinfantmortalityratefrom146per1000livebirthsin1960to120per1000livebirths in1980;andan increase in lifeexpectancyfrom41years in1960to52years in1980.Nevertheless,todatesomechallengestoestablishinganeffectiveandstableeducationsystempersist,mostespeciallyintermsofthequalityofeducation(Al-SamarraiandPeasgood,1998).

Notwithstandingtheseachievementsinsomeofthesesocialindicators,thecountrydidnotsustainitseconomicgrowthrate,whichwasatanaverageof3.5%inthe1970s.Althoughagricultureplayedanimportantroleasthebackboneoftheeconomy,itsgrowthslackenedduringeconomiccrisesduetonumerousadministrativecontrolmeasures.Asmentionedearlier, thevillagizationprogramme(1972–1975)andtheabolitionofcooperativeunions(1976)wereamongthemajorinterventionsthatbecameahindrancetothedevelopmentoftheagriculturalsector.Further,thesectorwasaccordedlessprioritywhenthecountryembarkedonanimportindustrializationpolicy;governmentsizeincreasedwithoutsufficientresourcesforfundingsocialservices,amongotherthings,whileatthesametimeinefficiencyworsenedintheproductionanddistributionchannelsofthepublicsector.Followingtheconsequencesofeconomiccrisesandthelackofsustainableflowofresourcesfortheprovisionofsocialservices,theimpressivesocialindicatorsofthelate1960s and the early 1970s became unsustainable. By themid-1980s the country had beenseriouslyaffectedbydeepeconomiccrisesandthekeymacroeconomicvariableswerenolongerbalanced.

Thebudgetwasindeficit,inflationwasataround30percent,andunderutilizationofproductivecapacitywasexacerbatedbyashortageofforeignexchangewhichhadbeenfinancingimportedgoods.Thegovernmentresortedtoover-taxationofagriculture,therebyreducingtheincomesoffarmers.Inviewofthesedifficulties,theprovisionofsocialservicesdwindledandthestatusofhumandevelopmentworsened.Sincethecrisisaffectedtheeconomynegatively,stateprovisioningwashalted,andsubsequentlypolicyinitiativesstartedtobeundertakenwithaviewtochangingtheapproach fromacentrallyplannedandorganizedeconomy toamarketorientedsystem.Likewise, the social policy paradigm changed towards the accentuation of privately providedsocialservices.

Forexample,theruraldevelopmentstrategyoftheArushaDeclarationimplementedpolicieswithenormousdistortionsthatcompromisedthehumandevelopmentobjective.Orderscamefromabove,aswasthecasewiththevillagizationprogrammeasawaytorevampruraldevelopment,whichintheenddisruptedproductionandthewaypeopleorganizedproductionintheirlocalities(Hyden,1980,p.119;Coulson,1982,p.246;Chazanetal.,1988,p.251).Cooperativesocieties


were providing efficient economic services to their members in the production, collection,processing,andmarketingofcrops.Fortheseservicestoberealized,cooperativesfocusedonthe following key functions: providing crop finance; providingmarket informationonprices tomembers,andhelpingthemtosecureoptimalprices;facilitatingcollection,transport,grading,processing, packaging, and marketing; providing information on input prices and seekingthe lowestprices for thebestquality inputs;supplying farmequipmentand inputs (seedlings,fertilizers, and chemicals) to members; and providing cooperative education and extensionservicestomembersofcooperativesocieties.Further,cooperativesocietiesassumedothersocialfunctionsincluding,amongotherthings,healthservicesthroughunionassurances;educationandtraining;andothersocialresponsibilitiesintheirspecificareas.Theimplementationofstrategies,suchasthevillagizationprogramme,whichtranslated intoeveryvillagebeingdesignatedasacooperativesocietyregardlessofwhetherornotitwaseconomicallyviable(andvoluntary),werehighlydisruptive.Asaresult,regionalcooperativeunionswerecreatedwhichendedupdrainingresourcesfrompeasantstoruntheirunproductivebureaucracies.

Mostunionsbecameindebtedtotheextentthatin1984thegovernmentabolishedtheminfavourofspecializednationwideCropsAuthorities.Despitethiscorrectiveaction,“theseAuthoritieswerenobetterastheydrainedpeasants’resourcestothesameextent”(MaliyamkonoandBagachwa,1990,p.5–6).Thisledpeopleinruralareastoreverttosubsistencefarmingandabandoncashcropcultivation, to thedisadvantageof theeconomyandhumandevelopment (Hyden,1980,2005;Riddell,1992).

In1974thegovernmentadoptedpan-territorialpricingformaize,paddy,wheat,tobacco,cashewnuts,andpyrethrum.Everyyearthecabinetwouldannounceuniformproducerpricesfortheserespectivecropsacrossregions,regardlessoflocationandotherfactors.Thiscamejusttwoyearsafterthegovernmenthadannounced“PoliticsisAgriculture”(SiasaniKilimo)declarationinIringain1972.The“AgricultureasaMatterofLifeandDeath”(KilimochaKufanaKupona)policywasenactedin1975asanotherinitiativetopushagriculturalsectordevelopment,whichhadnotmadesignificantprogresssincetheIringaDeclaration.Thepoliciesandinitiativesthatweremadeinrelationtoagricultureshowthatthecountryhadplacedpriorityonthesectorasawaytorevamptheeconomy.Thelinkageofagriculture,industry,andtradewasrecognized.Tanzania adopted an import substitution industrialization strategy and facilitated trade byestablishingtheBoardof InternalTrade in1973andtheBoardofExternalTrade in1978asanattempttocreateanintegratedeconomy.Theeconomicdevelopmentstrategiesthatweredesignedwithinthesocialistsystemwereanattempttoprovideallsocialservicesforallpeopleinthecountry.Despitethegoodintentionsofthepolicyinitiativesofthetime,theinterpretationandimplementationofthosepoliciesanddeclarationsleftthecountryinacomplexsituationwithscarcityofbasiccommoditiesduetoproductiondeficienciesandinefficiencies.Thiswastheproductofthemismanagementofparastatalorganizations.Ultimately,thisstateofaffairsledtothepoorprovisionofsocialservices.

Amidthissituation,theeconomyexperiencedshortagesofbasiccommoditiesbecausefactoriescouldnotbuyinputsduetothescarcityofforeignexchange,unreliablemarkets,theunavailabilityofbasicgoods fordailyuse,adecline inexportcropproduction,anddeterioration inserviceprovision.Corruption increasedandmadeaccesstobasicservicesevenmoredifficult for themajoritywhocouldnotdance to the tuneof the time.Thegovernmentwas losing legitimacy,resultinginamushroomingofself-helpcivilsocietyorganizationsthatemergedtoeasethedifficultconditionspeoplewereexperiencingashumandevelopmentalmostcametoastandstill.


Itisworthnotingthattherelationshipbetweeneconomicpolicyandsocialpolicywasclear.Asthegovernmentembarkedonthesocialistpath,andsobecamesociallyobligedtoprovidebasicsocialservicestoitscitizens,ithadnoalternativeotherthantoadoptastatemonopolyoftheeconomicprocess.Thesocialaspirationsofthegovernmentledtoitscaptureoftheeconomicsystemtoavailitselfwiththemeansforsocialprovisioning.Nevertheless,asexplainedearlier,anumberofinternalandexternalfactorsdidnotprovidetherequisiteenvironmentfortherealizationoftheintendeddevelopmentobjectives.

3.3 Efficiencyandgrowthemphasis,1986–1995

Duringthe1970sand1980sTanzania,likemostotherdevelopingcountries,washitbyoilanddebtcrises.Thefirstoilcrisisin1973andthesecondin1979exacerbatedtheexternaldebtcrisis,whichwaslatercompoundedbytheTanzania-Ugandawarin1978/79.

Followingthedifficultiesthatbesiegedtheeconomy,livingstandardsweredecliningandpovertyincreasing.Inattempttofindasolutiontotheeconomicupheaval,Tanzaniaformulatedashort-term policy measure, the National Economic Survival Programme (NESP, 1981/82) to easetheeconomy from thecurrenthardshipswhile findinga lastingsolution.Throughout theearly1980sPresidentNyererewasinvolvedindisagreementswiththeIMFandtheWorldBank.Thesemultilateral financial institutions were of the opinion that Tanzania should change its socialistpolicies.However,Mwalimuwasnotreadytoleadsuchaturnaround.Nevertheless,heyieldedandwillinglyretiredfromactivepoliticsin1985tolethissuccessor,PresidentAliHassanMwinyi,championtheanti-socialistreforms.

Thecountrydesignedshort-termreformstorevamptheeconomythroughadifferentparadigmapproachintermsofpoliciesandstrategies.Inthisregard,in1986TanzaniaadoptedtheIMF’sEconomicRecoveryProgramme(ERP),andtheWorldBanksponsoredaStructuralAdjustmentProgramme(SAP).Theprogrammes’emphasiswasonliberalization,privatization,andstabilization.The liberalizationpoliciescontinued to reverse somehumandevelopmentgains in education,health,incomes,andsoon(Commander,1989;Wagao,1992).TheStructuralAdjustmentandStabilizationPolicies’instrumentsoffiscal,monetary,andexchangeratepolicydistortionsaffectedeconomicactivitiesandhumandevelopment.Therewereseveralconditionsembedded in theprogrammes,whichthegovernmenthadresisted.However,adoptionwiththeseconditionswasinevitablegiventhepressureoftheIMFandtheWorldBankpushingtowardsdevaluation,theliberalizationofcropmarketing,theliberalizationofexportandimporttrade,andtheremovalofsubsidiestopeasantfarmers.

Duringtheperiodfrom1986to1989stabilizationmeasures,macroeconomicpolicyreforms,andreforms intradeandtheexchangerateregimewereemphasizedundertheERP.Thereformsincreasedaccess toadditionalexternal support,and later theeconomystarted to recoverasit registeredanaverageeconomicgrowth rateof4%perannumduring the1990s.However,thesocialdimensionsofadjustmentprogrammesdidnotgetenoughpolicyattention. Indeed,itwasnotuntiltheendofthe1980sthattheEconomicandSocialActionProgramme(1989–1992)wasformulatedasanaddendumtothereformprocess,andnotactuallyasoneofthecorepolicyagendasofthetime.TheEconomicandSocialActionProgrammewasadoptedincognizanceofthefactthatseriousactionwasnecessarytotackletheproblemofpoverty.Indeed,itsimplementationdemandedabroadermulti-dimensionalperspective.Reformswereintensifiedinthelate1980sandearly1990s,inlinewiththerecommendationsoftheWorldBank’sBerg


Report(1981),whenthefollowingactionswereundertaken:rollingbacktheroleofstateinthenationaleconomy;endingthefreeprovisionofsocialservices,whichalsomarkedtheintroductionofuser fees; the freezingofwagesandemployment in thepublicsector; theretrenchmentofpublicsectorworkersinanattempttocontroltheirwagebill;andarestructuringofparastatals,aimedatreducingnumberssincetheyhadvariousperformanceproblems(Nellis,1986;Moshi,1989).Inpursuitofthereformsprocessthecountryrevertedfromacontrolledeconomytoasemi-marketorientedsystemamidinfrastructuralbottlenecksandtheabsenceofastronginstitutionalframeworkforsupportingthechangeprocess.

The reformmeasuresdidnot seem to immediately favourhumandevelopment,especially forpoorandvulnerablegroups.Retrenchmentofpublicemployeesandthedivestmentofparastatalsaffected thosewhowereseeking jobs toearn income.The introductionofuser feesand theremovalofagriculturalsubsidiesputpeasantfarmersandotherpoorgroupsinadifficultpositionasagriculturalproductiondeclined.Farmerswereunabletopurchasefertilizersandotheragriculturalinputs. The retrenchmentofworkerswasextendedeven to social sectors that neededmoreemployees,likeeducationandhealth.Althoughnotunusualfortheearlystagesofarestructuringprocess, the results of these reformswere in conflictwith the objective of enhancing humandevelopment.All thesenegativeoutcomeswerecountedas thepricepaid for theenvisagedlong-term stability and growth,which downplayed human development aspects in economicdevelopment,consequentlyharmingsocialprovisioning. Inviewof this therewasasignificantneedfortheestablishmentofsafetynetsforweak,poor,andvulnerablegroupsintheprovisionofgoodsandservices (URT,2014a).Asawayofachievinganeconomic transformation thatwould not bringquantitativemacroeconomicoutcomes at the cost of highpolicy distortions,institutional reformswere aprerequisite to smoothly support the economic transformation forbalancedhumandevelopment.

Despite the fact that reforms triggered some efficiency improvements and growth started toregain itsmomentum,ordinarypeople inruralareasremainedpoorandtheprovisionofsocialserviceswasinadequate.Whiletherewasconsiderationofsocialaspectsinthereformprocess,the bifurcation between economic and social policies as separate sectorswas still apparent.Theviewthatsocialpolicyachievementswouldcomeasanultimateendendured.Therewasnocoherent integrationofsocialgoals intoeconomicpolicy formulationaspartandparcelofthetransformationprocess.Alotofemphasisandeffortwasdevotedtostructuralchangesandeconomicstabilization,assumingthatsocialprovisioningwouldautomaticallyemanatefromanefficientmarketsystemoncethiswasachieved.However,infactthiswasnotthecase.

3.4 Integration of social policy into economic reform initiatives, 1996–2004

It was not until the mid-1990s that Tanzania realized that its economic reform process hadcompromised the country’s earlier achievements in social development. During this timethe IMFand theWorldBankemphasized thatdevelopmentshouldbeapproached inamorecomprehensivewaythanjustfocusingoneconomicgrowthalone.Itbecameclearthatalthoughthe economy was performing well in terms of revamped growth, this was accompanied byincreasedinequality,poverty,andyouthunemployment.Inthisregardandwiththeassistanceoftheseinternationalfinancialinstitutions,thecountrystartedtorestructureitsdevelopmentstrategyby incorporating social and political aspects of the reform process. To accommodate theseelementsoftransformation,thecountrypreparedaPovertyReductionStrategyPaper(PRSP),whichwastiedtotheHighlyIndebtedPoorCountries(HIPC)debtreliefinitiative.Thedocument


wassupposedtodetailtheintendedadjustmentsandtoconvincebothmultilateralandbilateraldevelopmentpartnersabouthowthecountrycouldtransform,enhancinggrowthandreducingpoverty as conditions for accessing HIPC resources. The PRSP was a kind of participatoryapproachtopublicpolicymaking,wherebythecountrycreateditsroadmapwithacommitmenttoaddresssocio-politicalissuesinadditiontoeconomicconcerns.Intermsofissues,thePRSPentailedmorethanjuststructuraladjustmentsandstabilization.Inotherwords,itconstitutedanattempttointegrateotherpolicieswiththecoreeconomicpolicy,targetedatincreasingefficiencyandgrowth.FiscaldisciplinewasmonitoredthroughaPublicExpenditureReview(PER)processwhichwasfacilitatedbytheWorldBank,whilemacroeconomicpolicyformulationwassupportedbytheIMFasawayofrealizingbettersocio-economicoutcomes.

AsaresultofthePRSP,publicresourcemanagementwasimprovedandresourcesweremadeavailable for some social sectors: primary education fees were eliminated; a Medium-TermExpenditureFramework(MTEF)wasintroducedasawaytostrengthenlinksbetweensectoralpoliciesandresourceallocation,amongotherthings;andtheNationalStrategyforGrowthandReductionofPoverty(NSGRP),1thesecondnationalorganizingframeworkforputtingthefocuson poverty reduction, was drafted to guide the country’s development agenda. TheNSGRPexpandedthepolicyscopetoincludehumandevelopmentandsocialwell-being,interalia.Thisstrategywasdraftedthroughanationalconsultativeprocess.However,oneoftheconcernsabouttheNSGRPwasthatsectoralprioritizationwasnotwelldone,causingincoherenceinfocusduringitsimplementation.ItisimportanttonotethatitwasduringthisperiodthatTanzaniacraftedtheDevelopmentVision2025,whichwaslaunchedin1999withtheambitiontotransformthecountryintoamiddle-incomeeconomywithahighlevelofhumandevelopmentby2025.Basically,theVision’saspirationsare:highqualitylivelihoods;peace,stability,andunity;goodgovernance;awell-educatedandlearningsociety;andacompetitiveeconomycapableofproducingsustainablegrowth.Ascanbededucedfromtheseaspirations,humandevelopment ispartandparcelofTanzania’stransformationtoachievetheVision’sgoals.

The interpretation and implementationof theVisionwas, bydesign,meant to be carriedoutthrough the five-year development plans.However, the five-year development plan approachwasnotadoptedimmediately.Instead,shorter-termstrategiesandpoliciesliketheNSGRPwereadopted.Itwasnotuntil2010thattheLong-TermPerspectivePlan(LTPP)andsubsequentlythefirstFive-YearDevelopmentPlan(FYDP-I)werepreparedasframeworksfortheimplementationoftheVision2025.

3.5 Inclusive growth, equity, and quality of life emphasis: 2005 and beyond

Thegovernmentrecognizedthatitshouldplayacentralroleinsocialservicessectorstoachievethegoalof improvingqualityof lifeandsocialwell-being. In this regard,effortsweremade toincreaseexpenditureonpro-poorsocialservices.However,theintendedlevelsofresourceswerenotfullyrealised.From2005onwardsthegovernmentrecognizedaneedtoreducevulnerabilityandincreasetheinvolvementofLocalGovernmentAuthorities(LGAs)intheprovisionofsocialservices.ThefirstNSGRP(2005/06–2010/11)camewithanumberofsocialindicatorsthatweretargetedtoensureequityandqualityissuesinthedeliveryofsocialservices.Thisstrategywasintendedtoreducedisparitiesbetweenrichandpoor,acrossagegroups,andbetweenurbanandruralcitizensinaccessingandusingsocialservices(URT,2005).Thenon-incomepartofthepovertyreductionguidanceaimedtoachievetwobroadoutcomes:1 InKiswahili,theacronymisMKUKUTA(MkakatiwaKukuzaUchuminaKupunguzaUmaskini).


i. Improvedqualityoflifeandsocialwell-being,withaparticularfocusonthepoorestandthemostvulnerablegroups;and

ii. Reduced inequalities (e.g. in education, survival, and health) across geographical areas,income,age,gender,andotherdimensions.

InviewoftheNSGRP,Tanzania’sfocusfrom2005seemstohavebeenmoreontheenhancementofsocialprovisioning,giventhatequity,well-being,andqualityoflifehavebothincomeandnon-incomedimensions.During this period theGDPgrowth ratewas in the rangeof 6% to7%.However,povertydeclinedrelativelyslowlyandinequalityremainedhigh.Amongthereasonsforthisisthedisproportionatedistributionofassets,opportunities,andincome.Itisworthnotingthatthereareconventionallytwowaysthroughwhichgrowthcanreducepoverty:(i)bydevelopingthehumancapabilitiesofthepoortoenablethemtoharnessthedividendsofgrowth;and/or(ii)byconcentratinggrowthinsectorsthatdirectlybenefitthepoor.ThepoorestpeopleinTanzaniaareemployedinagriculture(i.e.thepeasantry),andaround75%ofthecountry’spopulationisdependentonagriculturefortheirlivelihood.Agriculturehasbeengrowingataslowerrate(4.5%)thantheoveralleconomy,whichmeansthatthesectorisnotoneofthedriversofgrowth,althoughitaccountsforthelargestchunkofthenationaloutput.Inanutshell,thequalityofgrowthhasnotbeeninclusivetoaddressthechallengesofpovertyandinequality.

Thechallengeofinclusivegrowth,i.e.growththatensuresabetterqualityoflifeforthemajority,hasbeenthepreoccupationoftheNSGRPIandII.SubsequentlythegovernmentdraftedtheFYDP-ItorunconcurrentlywiththeNSGRPII,theLTPP,andlatertheBigResultsNow(BRN)initiativeinpursuitoftheachievementofthegoalsofVision2025.Inallthesepolicyframeworksandinitiativessocialprovisioningissuesareprioritized,amongotherthings.Nonetheless,disjointsinpolicydesignsandfragmentationof theframeworksforthe implementationof thecountry’sdevelopmentVisionhave ledtochallenges intermsofmanagingtoomanyframeworkswhichareweaklycoordinated,overlapping,andpoorlyimplemented.ThisstateofaffairsseemstobechangingsincethecraftingofthesecondFive-YearDevelopmentPlan(2016/17–2021/22),whichnotonlyincorporatestheNSGRPframeworksbutisalsounderpinnedbyVision2025,whilebeingmorefocusedonachievingstructuraltransformationthroughthedevelopmentofagricultureandindustrialization.Itseffectiveimplementationwilldefinitelyresultininclusivegrowthandimprovedsocialprovisioning.

Thedebateoninclusivegrowthhasalsoencompassedanotherdimension:thatoflinkingpoverty,inequality,economicinsecurity,poorhealth,andpooreconomicperformanceontheonehand,andpoorhumandevelopmentontheother.Accordingly,althoughTanzaniahasmaintainedaGDPgrowthrateofaround6.5%foralmostadecadenow,theincidenceofpovertyhasonlydeclinedmarginallyfrom35.7%in2001to33.6%in2007,furtherdecliningto28.2%in2011/12(URT,2009b;2014b).Povertyisaccompaniedbyavarietyofinequalitiesacrosscategoriesofgender(male-female),geographical locations (rural-urban), agegroups (adult-youth), andemployment(informal-formal). Further, inadequate social provisioning not only leads to undernourishmentandpoorhealth,butalsotoloweducationalattainment,therebycreatingaviciouscirclewhichundermines a country’s progress, both socially and economically (Moshi andMtui,2015). Forexample,whereaspovertyinhibitshumandevelopment,italsoundermineslabourproductivityandreducesinvestmentandthusundercutseconomicdevelopment.Weakeconomicperformanceinturnlimitstheabilityofacountrytoachievepovertyreductionandtoaugmentitsresourcesfortheprovisionofsocialservices.


Theapproachthatthecountryadoptsasitspoliticalsystemdeterminesthekindofsocialprovisioningembracedbythegovernment.Thismeansthatthecoherenceofpoliciesandstrategiesiscrucialfortherealizationofanyintendedimpacts.Ifthepriorityofthetimeistheattainmentoftheefficiencyobjective,thereisthepossibilitytotradeoffequity,thusleadingthegovernmenttocommitasinofomissioninsomesocialservices.Otherwise,ifthegovernmentcommitmentistoaccomplishtheequityobjective,itispossibletotradeoffefficiencyandinvestmoreintheprovisionofbasicservicestoraisethewell-beingofthemajority.Neitheroftheseisbetterthantheother,butstrikinganappropriatebalancebetweentheefficiencyandequityobjectivesisnecessarygiventheinterdependentrelationshipofthetwovariables.Experienceshowsthatevencapitaliststatescareaboutsocialprovisioninginordertoseekbenefactionlegitimacyfromthepublic.Theonlydifferencebetweenthecapitalistandsocialistextremes,asfarassocialprovisioningisconcerned,istheextenttowhichtheyintendtoachievesocialindicators.Thatis,socialistswillpreferhighersocialoutcomesthancapitalistsifotherfactorsremainthesame,andviceversa.Besidesthesetwoextremes,therearestatesthathavebeenconnotativelyreferredtoas“welfarestates”,suchasmostoftheScandinaviancountries.Thesearemixedeconomieswhichhaveputadequateweightonsocialprovisioningfortheircitizens’well-being.Amongthedistinguishingfeaturesofthosecountriesaretheirhighscoresinthehumandevelopmentindicatorsthatareguaranteedbysocialpolicies.Theexistenceofsuchcasesmeansthattherewillalwaysbeanopportunity tochangesocialpolicyparadigms toallowabetterprovisionofsocialservices,regardlessoftheunderpinningpoliticalideology.

However,itisimportanttonotethatideologyiscrucialininformingacountry’sdevelopmentparadigmandtheattendantsocio-economicpolicies,strategies,andmindset.Towardstheendofthe1990sTanzania had no clear development vision to guide economic and social development throughforging people’sminds, and diverting efforts and resources towards the attainment of specificgoals.Thiswasareasonbehindtheincoherenceinpolicyframeworksthatbluntedtheoutcomesofdevelopment initiatives implementedthroughout the liberalizationprocess.Notwithstanding itsweaknesses, theUjamaasystem, forexample,hadan ideologicalperspective inalignmentwithwhatthecountrywantedtoattain,whichwasnotthecaseduringtheliberalizationera,andthisisanimportantmissinglinkinthecontemporarydevelopmentprocessinTanzania.Whilethecountrystrivedtoachieveahighrateofgrowth,thesharingofgrowthgainswasnotwellthoughtout,whichledtoaslowrateofpovertyreduction.Indeed,thesocio-economicreformsofthe1980sand1990swerenotguidedbyaclearlong-termdevelopmentperspectiveorvision(Moshi,2016).

TheothermisleadingpartofTanzania’spolicy-makingprocessisrelatedtoalossoffocusasthecountrywentthroughdifferentpolicyregimes.Anumberofpoliciesandstrategiesthatwereimplementedinanattempttoreformtheeconomywereeitherincoherentorinvolvedaduplicationofeffortandthedilutionofeconomicandsocialpolicystances.Thiswasevidentintheformulationofpoliciesthatimplicitlymeanttheabolitionofotherswithoutclearnoticeofthemotivesbehindthechanges.Somepolicieswerereplacedevenbeforetheyhadbeenappropriatelyimplementedandassessedintermsoftheirimpactonhumandevelopment.Forexample,inthecourseoftheimplementationofMKUKUTA,theFive-YearDevelopmentPlan2011/12–2015/16wasformulatedasanothermedium-termpolicyframeworktooperationalizetheVision.ThisconstitutedthereplacementofMKUKUTA

4. PARADIGM CHANGES IN SOCIAL PROVISIONING APPROACHES


withafive-yearplan,butMKUKUTAremainedasakindofconcurrenteffort.TheformulationoftheplanwasaclearduplicationofMKUKUTA,albeitwithabroaderfocus.However,attentionwasdivertedtotheplanratherthanremainingwithMKUKUTA,whichstayedinthelistofexistingpolicyframeworks.ThetwoframeworkswereofficiallymergedduringthepreparationofthesecondFive-YearDevelopmentPlan(2016/17–2020/21).Theargumentinthispaperisthataparadigmchangeinsocialpolicyhastobeunderpinnedbythedesiretoachieveahighlevelofsharedgrowthandwelfareinacountry.SocialprovisioningforTanzaniaisnotdestinedtoremainunchanged,sinceithasobviouslyvariedthroughdifferentpolicyregimes.Nevertheless,anychangehastobewellthoughtoutandbasedontheendeavourtoplacethehumandevelopmentobjectiveintheforefront.Furthermore,theobjectivehastobeconsistentlyfoundedonanationalpolicyframeworkwhichisnotconfusedbyconcurrentmulti-programmesaimingatthesamegoals.Amongthefactorsthatmightexplainachangeinthesocialprovisioningapproachare:

a) Publicpolicyandrealconditionsontheground:Anapproachtoaspecificsocialprovisioningsystemshouldbebasedonanumberoffactors,someofwhichareeconomicandotherssocialandpoliticalinnature.Forexample,ifthegovernmentiskeentoseeinggrowthinconjunctionwithnotableimprovementsinthequalityoflifeforthemajority,thenithastoputinplaceamechanismthatcreatescapabilities–especiallyforthepoor–asawaytoallowthemtobenefitfromtheavailablenationalresourcesinameaningfulway.Thatis,insteadofusingredistributivemeansliketaxesandsubsidies,publicpolicy should target thecreationof economicopportunities thatcanequitablyallowpeopletoobtainhigherdisposableincomes.Forinstance,ifthelabourmarketpolicyreducesunemploymentsignificantlyandthereisequityinthedistributionofresources;peoplecanaccessseveralsocialservicesattheirowncost,therebymakingitimportanttoadoptcost-sharingmodelsand/ortoprivatizetheprovisionofservicestoalargeextent.Onthecontrary,ifunemploymentishighandincomesarelow,thereisanunevenincomedistribution,ortaxesarehigh,thismeansthatpeoplecan’teasilyaffordsocialservicesprivately, implyingthatthegovernmentprovisioningrolebecomesvital.Regardingthesepossiblesituations,itisclearthatanychangeinthesocialserviceprovisioningapproachhastobeintandemwiththerealitiesontheground.Economicandsocialpoliciesshouldthereforebetiedtogetherinthesensethatwhateveriseconomicallyachievedareacauseandaneffectoftheadoptedapproachtosocialservicesprovision.Thisargumentmeansthatthepovertysituationiscriticalindeterminingthesocialprovisioningapproach.Thatis,changesinpovertyalsoentailchangesinthesocialprovisioningapproach.

b) Resourceavailability:Sometimesthelevelofincomeanditsdistributionstatusmaynotmattervis-à-vis theadoptedsocialprovisioningapproach.Anexceptionalcasecouldbea resource-richeconomywithfiscaldiscipline,whichcaninvestintheprovisionofsocialservicesasatributetothecitizensfortheextractionoftheircountry’snaturalresources.Fiscalarrangementsforhowtodistributeincome(i.e.thehorizontalandverticalequityissues)havetocomeintothepicture.However,amajorchallengethatneedstobeconsideredisthecostofmobilizingsuchresources,whilestrikingabalancebetweenhighertaxratesandaffordabilitybyindividuals.Ifthegovernmentissurethereisasustainableflowofresourcesfortheprovisionofbasicsocialservices,thenitshouldundertakethatrole.Inthecaseoflimitedresources,forwhateverreason(s),thencost-sharingmodelsortheprivateprovisionofsocialservicesmaybeadopted.Itisimportanttonotethatassuranceoffinancemaynotnecessarilybefromnaturalresources;itcouldalsostemfromtheefficiencyofthecountry’staxmachinery.Thismeansthatthepoorprovisionofbasicsocialservicesduetoaresourcegapmayimplyeitherthatthegovernmentisineffectiveincollectingrevenue,orelsethatthereisanirrationalpublicexpendituresituation.This impliesthatasresourcemobilizationefficiency increases, theremaybe leverageformorepublicprovisionofbasicsocialservices,coupledwithenhancedfiscalindiscipline.


Tanzania has implemented different social provisioning approaches following various policyepisodes since independence. Because social provisioning approaches have changed overtime,onemightwishtoassesssocial indicators togaugetheachievementsof thesedifferentapproachestohumandevelopment,withaviewtodrawinglessonsfromthedifferentapproachesandmakingsuggestionsforthewayforwardtoimprovenationalwelfare.

AtindependenceTanzaniapursuedacapitalistapproach,andthestate’sroleintheprovisionofmostbasicsocialserviceswaslimited.Thecountryinheritedcolonialeconomicandpublicsectorstructures.Thehealthsectorinthecountryhadonlyafewhospitals,whichweremainlyprivateorownedbyreligiousorganizations;schoolsweresegregatedonthebasisofracewithverypoorqualityAfricanschools;mostofthepeopleobtainedwaterfromnaturalsourceswithoutchargesorpurchaseditfromkiosks;andsanitationandsocialprotectionissuesdidnotreceiveseriouspolicy attention.

Some social indicators were very low after independence. Recognizing that situation, thegovernmentfromthe1960sonwardturneditsattentiontothesupplyofbasicsocialservices.From1969to1978thenumberofhealthcentresoperatedbythegovernmenttripled,andthenumberofdispensariesdoubled.UndertheRegionalWaterMasterPlanwaterdeliverysystemsweresignificantlyexpandedduringthe1970s,andthepercentageofthepopulationwithaccesstoanimprovedwatersupplyincreasedfrom12%to47%.Initiativestoimprovesanitationwerealsopursued;forexample,in1973theMtuniAfyacampaignemphasizedbuildingandcleaninglatrines forhealthpurposes.Asaresult, latrinecoverage inruralareas increasedfrom20%in1973 to 50% in 1980. The literacy rate rose substantially followingUPEand adult educationprogrammesstartinginthelate1970s.Thesewerethesocialprovisioningachievementsattainedduringthesocialistpolicyperiod.

However,thesuccessesachievedinthe1970swerenotsustainedthroughthe1980sbecauseofthegovernment’sresourceconstraints,whichstifledtheattainmentoftheambitioustargetforhighlevelsofimprovementinthesupplyofsocialservices.EconomiccrisesandthewarbetweenTanzaniaandUgandain1978/79exacerbateddeficits,whileatthesametimedonorsdidnotcontinue supporting the country adequatelydue tounfavourableglobal economic conditions,aswellas ideologicaldifferenceswithsomecountriessuchasWestGermany. Inviewof this,investment ineducation,health,watersupply,energy,and the trainingofpersonneldwindled.Problemsintheexpansionofsocialserviceswerecompoundedbyover-importationofgoods,including oil, amid economic crises, and unfavourable termsof trade.Between1976/77 and1981/82thepricesofthecountry’smajorexportcrops(coffee,tea,andcotton)decreasedby40%,29%,and12%respectively.Despite thepromisingsocialserviceprovisionstatusof theearly1970s, thecountry’ssocial indicators in the1980swere theworst theyhadbeensinceindependence.Thegovernmentfacedseverestrainsthathamperedthesupplyofservices.Agoodlessontobelearnedhereisthatthepresenceofaneconomicsystem(suchasasocialistregime)which is friendlytosocialservicesprovisioningmaynotbeasufficientconditionforaccessingqualitysocialservices.Withoutimprovementsinthefinancialandmaterialpositionofthecountry,

5. IMPLICATIONS OF PROVISIONING APPROACHES FOR SOCIAL INDICATORS


theprovisionofsocialservicescannotbesustained.

Stressonsocialservicesdeliveryinthe1980swasreflectedinthepooroutcomesamongsocialindicatorsinthe1990s.Theprimaryschoolenrolmentratedeclined,andbasichealthandalliedservices,includingtheprovisionofwater,sanitation,andnutrition,worsened.TheoverwhelmingHIV/AIDS pandemic, an increased fertility rate, and population growth pressure reversed theimprovedsocialservicesprovisionachievedinearlierperiods.Poorprimaryschoolpassrates,low intakes tosecondaryschoolsanduniversities, thepresenceofanumberof inadequatelyqualified teachers inclassrooms,and thehorrendousstateofmanyschoolsandweaknessesinmanagement/leadershipinthesectorcreatedaclearcrisisintheeducationalsystem.Healthserviceaccesswasverylowowingtolimitedfacilities,insufficientessentialdrugs,andthesmallnumberofmedicalpersonnel.Thissituationaffectedalllevelsofhealthservicedelivery,includingprimaryhealthcare,preventiveandcurativeservices,MCHservices,andreferralhospitals.Aclearchangethatdidoccurinthehealthsectorwasagrowthinnon-governmenthealthcarefacilities,particularlyastheresultofinitiativesamonghealthentrepreneursduringtheliberalizationerainthe1990s.Forexample,healthfacilitiesincreasedinnumberfrom3,577in1995to4,961by1999,outofwhichabout39%wereprivatelyowned(URT,1999).Thewaterandsanitationsituationwasalsonotencouraging,sincewater-borneandwater-relateddiseasesaccountedforover50%ofallthediseasesthataffectedthecountry’spopulation.

Itisimportanttonotethatduringthe1990sTanzaniahadembarkedonareformprocesswhichaltereditssocialandeconomicsystemfromsocialismtoamarketorientation.Thisbeingthecase,socialservicesprovisionwaslargelymarket-driven.However,thegovernmentwasstillplayingaprimaryroleinsupplyingsomebasicservices.Aswiththeprevioussocialistapproach,wherethequalityofserviceswasnotsoimportantbecauseotherfundamentalswerenotyetright,inthiscaseofaseeminglyfreemarketapproachthedownplayingofqualityintheprovisionofsocialserviceswascarriedforward.Thatis,itremainedachallenge.Resourceconstraintsremainedakeyfactorunderminingsocialprovisioningsincetheeconomicreformprocesshadnoteffectivelyintegratedsocialpolicyassynergicandcomplementaryfortheachievementofhumandevelopment.

Duringthe2000sthegovernmentrealizedthattherewasreasonforaturnaroundtoemphasizetransformativegrowth,whichimpactsonhumandevelopment.Itwasatthistimethatconceptslikepro-poorgrowthandsharedgrowthwereembraced,anddifferentwelfare-enhancinginitiativesandprioritizationswereestablished.Socialsectors,includingeducationandhealth,receivedpriorityinpublicpolicyandthegovernmentbudget.Publicsecondaryandtertiaryeducationenrolmentincreasedasthenumbersofschoolsandhigherlearninginstitutions,notablyuniversities,wereincreased.Regardingthepublicexpenditurerationalization,thechallengeofmakingexpenditurepro-poor demanded the setting of priorities and the allocation of expenditure according toprogrammesthatwerefocusedonenhancingwelfare.Thereweresomeopportunitiestoenhanceallocations tosocial sectors followingHIPCdebt relief, and this improved theperformanceofsome social sectors.

Subsequent to the government’s programmes that targeted growth andpoverty reduction, anumberofsocial indicators improvedsignificantlyduringthe2000s(URT,2012).Forexample,accesstoeducationincreased,withthenetenrolmentrate(NER)forprimaryschoolsrisingfrom66%in2001toapeakof97%in2007and2008.Genderparityinaccesstoprimaryeducationwasalsoachieved.However,since2008theNERsteadilydeclinedto94%in2011,although


this trend iscurrentlyexpected to reverse following the freeeducationpolicywhichhasbeenimplemented.During2004/05–2010/11theliteracyrateforwomenrosefrom67%to72%,whiletherateamongmenimprovedmarginallyfrom80%to82%.Transitionfromprimaryschoolstosecondaryschoolswentupsharplyfrom12%in2002to60%in2006,althoughitlaterdeclined.Highereducationexpandedevenfasterduringthe2000s,withthenumberofstudentsinhigherlearning institutions improving from less than31,000students in2002/03 toaround140,000students in the 2010/11 academic year.However, an analysis of learning outcomespaints aworryingpictureofthequalityofeducationreceived,andinthepastfewyearsthegovernmenthasbeenattemptingtoaddressthiscriticalissuewhichstemsfromarangeoffactorsrelatedtoteachingquality,infrastructureandequipment,incentives,andsoon.

Likewise,health indicatorsshowed improvementduringthisperiod.Lifeexpectancy increasedfrom51yearsin2002to58yearsin2010(57yearsformenand59yearsforwomen),atrendthatwascloselyassociatedwithafallintheunder-fivemortalityratewhichdeclinedfrom147deathsper1,000birthsin1999to81deathsper1,000birthsin2010,missingtheMKUKUTAtargetof79for2010onlymarginally.ThesegainsinchildsurvivalwerelargelyduetoprogressmadeinTanzania’shealthsystem;however,thecontributionofnutritionwassadlynegligible.Therehavebeennotableadvancesinmalariaprevention,diagnosis,andtreatmentandtheuseofinsecticide-treatedmosquitonetsincreasedsubstantially.

Effortswere also devoted to reducingmaternal deaths and to campaigns against HIV/AIDS,whichreducedHIVprevalenceinadults(aged15to49years)from6.3%in2003/04to4.7%in2007/2008,althoughthenationalaverageroseto5.1%in2011/12(URT,2014).Tuberculosis(TB)treatmentinTanzaniaexceededtheglobaltargetof85%,reaching88%in2008andremainingconsistentlyhighinrecentyears.

Watersupply indicators improved inthe2000s,evidencedbyan increase inwaterservices inruralareasby7.5percentagepoints,risingfrom40.4%in2007to47.9%in2010.ThisoutcomeowedmuchtotheWaterSectorDevelopmentProgrammewhichcommencedin2007. Inthe19regionalurbancentresotherthanDaresSalaamandKibaha(whicharecollectivelyreferredtoas“otherurbanareas”),thecoverageofwatersupplyservicesroseto86%in2010from80%in2007.Nevertheless,forallurbanareastherewasanegligibleincreaseinwateraccess,from80%in2007to81.2%in2010.Inaddition,adownwardtrendwaswitnessedamongsanitationindicators, sincehouseholdaccess tobasicsanitationdropped from93% in2007 to86% in2010.Schoolsanitationandhygieneremainedpoor.

Intermsofsocialprotectionoutcomes,thecountryhasnotmadesatisfactoryprogressdespitethegovernment’sinitiativetoputinplaceaSocialProtectionFramework.Inthisregard,theTanzaniaSocialActionFund(TASAF)IIIhasattemptedtoaddresssomesocialprotectionproblemsthroughgovernmentfinancialinterventionsforthemostpoor,especiallyinruralareas.Therearechallengesinsocialprovisioningforthemostvulnerablechildrenandotherdisadvantagedgroupsforwhichtherearestillno lastingsolutions,especially inhealthcareandotherbasicsocialservices.Oldagewelfarepackagesarenotavailable,exceptforafewformalemployeeswhoarecoveredbysocialsecurityfunds.Eventheseexistingfundsarefarfromfinanciallysecureintermsofprovidingadequate income to theirbeneficiariesasawayofpreventingoldagepovertyby smoothingconsumptionwithoutdestabilizingpublic financesor imposinganexcessiveburdenon futuregenerations.


Thispaperhasattempted toaccount forTanzania’shistoricalchanges insocialprovisioningapproaches.IthasunderscoredhowsocialprovisioningapproacheshavechangedovertimeasTanzaniaexperienceddifferentsocial,economic,andpoliticalsystems,withtheattendantstructuralchangesandreforms.Thefactthattheexistingeconomicsystemhasabearingontheapproachtosocialprovisioningcannotbedisputed,butexperienceshowsthattheoutcomesof social indicatorsdonotdependentirelyon theeconomicsystemof the time.During thesocialisterathecountryscoredquitehighlyonsomesocialindicators,suchasliteracyratesandthesupplyofhealthservices,buttheemergenceofcrisesandresourceconstraintsunderminedthesustainedprovisionofsocialservices.Theadoptionofreformsandstructuralchangesintheeconomy in the1980s,with theeconomicsystemchanging fromasocialist toamixedeconomy,reducedtheroleofgovernmentinsocialprovisioning.However,thisturnarounddidnotensure theadequateprovisionofsocialservicesdespite theprivatesectorcommitmenttosocialprovisioning.Fromthemid-1980stothelate1990stherewasstillawidegapintheoutcomesofsocialindicators.

All thesefactorspointtothe imperativeofaneconomicsystemasamatterofprinciple,butindicate thataneconomicsystem isnotaguarantee forachievingpositivesocialoutcomesunlessaclearstrategyisadoptedandrequisitemeasuresareundertakentoachievethedesiredgoalsandobjectives.Thepositiveachievementsinsocialindicatorsduringthesocialistperiodwereunderpinnedbyanideologythatbelievedinequity,andconsequentlytherewereattemptsto redistribute the meagre available resources in a manner that would socially benefit themajority.Nevertheless,resourceconstraintsdidnotenablesustainabilityinsocialprovisioning.Duringtheearlyyearsoftheeconomicreformsinvolvedinthechangefromthesocialistsystem,the reform’ssocialdimensionswerenotemphasized,whichcompromisedsocialoutcomes.By the early 2000s the country had learned that economic policies targeted at enhancinggrowth cannot provide social dividends if social policies are not explicitly integrated. Itwasthisunderstandingthatledtoaparadigmchangeinnationaldevelopmentprogrammesintherecent past to include social dimensions.

Changes in social provisioning in Tanzania have been influenced not only by the country’sVision2025butalsobythedrivetomeetinternationalcommitmentssuchastheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals(MDGs).Thismeansthatbasicsocialindicatorsweremainstreamedinthecountry’spoliciesandprogrammes,implyingthataspecificpolicydirectionshouldbepursuedtowardstheachievementofhumandevelopmenttargetsifthetargetedeconomicandsocialindicatorsare tobe realized.Economicgrowth isoneof themost importantnationalpolicyobjectives.However,sustainablegrowthrequiresthesustenanceofsocialservicesprovision.Hence,it isamatterofstrikingarightbalancebetweenpositiveandnormativeviewsduringpublicpolicymaking.

It should also be noted that Tanzania has experienced a number of policies and strategiesthathavebeen implemented inattempts to revamp thecountry.Nonetheless, theobservedincoherenceofsuchpoliciesandstrategieshaslimitedtheiroutcomes.Duplicationofeffortand

6. CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS


thedilutionofeconomicandsocialpolicystanceshavebeenexacerbatedbytheformulationofpoliciesthatindirectlyinvolvedtheabolitionofotherswithoutaneffectivecost-benefitanalysis.Inaddition,somepolicieswerereplacedbeforebeingappropriatelyimplementedandevaluatedintermsoftheirimpactonhumandevelopment.

TheimplicationsdrawnfromTanzania’sexperienceinclude:

i) Publicpoliciesshouldbeeconomicallyandsociallyintegrated.Thepolicieshavetoshow,inadditiontotheireconomicends,thewayinwhichtheywillcontributetotheachievementofsocial/humandevelopmentgoals.

ii) Whileemphasishasbeenplacedonquantitativegoalsintheprovisionofsocialservicessuchaseducationandhealth,qualityaspectsintheprovisionoftheseserviceshasbeendownplayed.Toaddressthisanomaly,quality targets forsocialserviceshavetobesetandfactoredintothesocialprovisioningtoensuresignificanttransformationsinthelivingstandardsofthepeople,withtheultimateobjectiveofenhancingtheirwelfare.Therefore,qualitativeapproachesshouldbeemployedinanalysesofthepublicpolicyachievementsinsocialprovisioning.

iii) Becausesocio-economicdevelopmentdiffersacrossgeographicalareas,there isgoodreason todesign localdevelopmentprogrammes inaddition tonationalones, inorderto localize national goals at the regional, district, and village levels. This approachwillnot only fast-track socio-economic transformation, butwill also promote ownership ofthedevelopmentagendaatvariouslevelsofgovernance.Indeed,totheextentthatlocalpotentialsanddemandsaredifferent,thedomesticationofeconomicandsocialgoalscanbefruitfulintheachievementofoverallnationalgoals.

iv) Theadoptionofaninclusivegrowthapproachisnecessary,giventhatdespitetwodecadesofsustainablegrowthinTanzania,theseeconomicgainshavenottranslatedintosignificantpositivesocialoutcomes.Thissuggeststhatgrowthhasnotbeensufficientlyinclusiveandequitableforallsectionsofsociety.Inequalitiesareobservableacrossgender,geographicalareas,andage;socialprotectionremainsinadequateandinaccessibletomanypeople,particularlythepoorestandmostvulnerablegroups,therebyreducingtheirparticipationinthedevelopmentprocessandloweringtheirgainsfromeconomicgrowth.Integratingthesegroupsintothedecision-makingprocessandincreasingtheircapabilitiesbecomesanimperativeintransitioningtoasustainableandinclusiveequitablegrowth.


Al-Samarrai,S.andPeasgood,T.(1998).EducationalAttainmentsandHouseholdCharacteristicsinTanzania.EconomicsofEducationReview,17(4):395–417.

Chazan, N., Mortimer, R., Ravenhill, J. and Rothschild, D. (1988). Politics and Society inContemporaryAfrica.London:MacmillanEducational.

Commander, S. (1989). Structural Adjustment and Agriculture: Theory and Practice in LatinAmericaandAfrica.London:OverseasDevelopmentInstitute.

Coulson,A.(1982).Tanzania:APoliticalEconomy.London:MacMillan.

Dugger,W.(1996).RedefiningEconomics:FromMarketAllocationtoSocialProvisioning.InC.Whalen(ed.),PoliticalEconomyforthe21stCentury(pp.31–43).Armonk,NY:M.E.Sharpe.

Gruchy, A. (1987). The Reconstruction of Economics: An Analysis of the Fundamentals ofInstitutionalEconomics.NewYork,NY:GreenwoodPress.

Hyden,G.(1980).BeyondUjamaainTanzania:UnderdevelopmentandanUncapturedPeasantry.London:Macmillan.

Hyden,G.AndMmuya,M.(2008).PowerandPolicySlippageinTanzania:DiscussingNationalOwnershipofDevelopment.Stockholm:SIDA.

Jo, T. H. (2011). Social Provisioning Process and Socio-Economic Modelling. The AmericanJournalofEconomicsandSociology,70(5):1094–1116.

Lee,F.(2010).AlfredEichner’sMissing‘CompleteModel’:AHeterodoxMicro–MacroModelofaMonetaryProductionEconomy.InM.Lavoie,L.-P.RochonandM.Seccareccia(eds.),MoneyandMacrodynamics:AlfredEichnerandPost-KeynesianEconomics(pp.22–42).Armonk,NY:M.E.Sharpe.

Maliyamkono,T.LandBagachwa,M.S.D.(1990).TheSecondEconomyinTanzania.London:JamesCurrey.

Mchomvu,A.,Ngalula,T.,Nchahaga,G.,Tungaraza,F.andMaghimbi,S.(1998).SocialPolicyandResearchPracticeinTanzania.JournalofSocialDevelopmentinAfrica,13(2):45–53.

Moshi, H. P. B. (1989). The Contribution of Public Enterprises to Economic Development inDevelopingCountries:TheCaseofTanzania.BadenBaden.

Moshi,H.P.B.andMtui,J.(2015).InformalityandInequalityinAfrica:ATanzanianCaseStudy.AddisAbaba:UNECA

REFERENCES

ESRF Discussion Paper No. 67 | A

Moshi,H.P.B. (2016). TheRebirthof Long-TermDevelopmentVision inAfrica: TheCaseofTanzania.InO.Adebayo(ed.),AlternativeDevelopmentPlanningAfrica(pp.60–79).Dakar:UN-IDEP.

Mujinja, P. and Kida, T. (2014). Implications of Health Sector Reforms in Tanzania: Policies,IndicatorsandAccessibility toHealthServices (Backgroundpaper).DaresSalaam:Economicand Social Research Foundation.

Ndulu,B.andHyuha,M.(1984).Tanzania’sEconomicDevelopment:LessonsfromtheExperienceandChallenges for theFuture. InL.Msambichaka,etal. (eds.),DevelopmentChallengesandStrategiesforTanzania.DaresSalaamUniversityPress.

NellisJ.(1986).PublicEnterprisesinSub-SaharanAfrica(Discussionpaper).Washington,D.C.:WorldBank.

Riddell,J.B.(1992).ThingsFallApartAgain:StructuralAdjustmentProgrammesinSub-SaharanAfrica.JournalofModernAfricanStudies,30(1):53–68.

Ruhumbika,G.(1974).TowardsUjamaa:TwentyYearsofTANULeadership.DaresSalaam:EastAfricanLiteratureBureau

TanzaniaHumanDevelopmentReport.(2014).EconomicTransformationforHumanDevelopment.Dar es Salaam: Economic and Research Foundation (ESRF).

URT.(1999).HealthStatisticsAbstract1999(Vol.2).MinistryofHealth,UnitedRepublicofTanzania.

URT.(2005).NationalStrategyforGrowthandReductionofPoverty.UnitedRepublicofTanzania.

URT.(2012).MKUKUTAReport,2011.UnitedRepublicofTanzania.

URT.(2014a).NationalHIVandAidsResponseReport,2013.UnitedRepublicofTanzania.

URT.(2014b).TanzaniaHumanDevelopmentReport,2014.UnitedRepublicofTanzania.

Wagao,J.(1992).AdjustmentPoliciesinTanzania,1981–9:TheImpactonGrowth,StructureandHumanWelfare.InG.A.Cornia,R.V.HoevenandT.Mkandawire(eds.),Africa’sRecoveryinthe1990s:FromStagnationandAdjustmenttoHumanDevelopment.NewYork:StMartin’s.

WorldBank.(1981).AcceleratedDevelopmentinSub-SaharanAfrica:AnAgendaforAction.(TheBergReport).Washington,D.C.:WorldBank.

SOCIAL POLICY INA HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:SHIFTING APPROACHES TO

SOCIAL PROVISIONINGBy: Jehovaness Aikaeli and Humphrey Moshi

THDR 2017: Background Paper No. 6ESRF Discussion Paper 67

2016 www.esrftz.org

The Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF) is an independent policy research institution based in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. ESRF was established in 1994 to respond to the growing need for a research think tank with a mandate to conduct research for policy analysis and capacity building. The Foundation’s primary objectives are therefore to undertake policy-enhancing research, strengthen capabilities in policy analysis and decision making, as well as articulate and improve the understanding of policy options in government, the public sector, the donor community, and the growing private sector, and civil society.

Vision:Advancing knowledge to serve the public, the government, CSOs, and the private sector through sound policy research, capacity development initiatives, and advocating good development management practices.

Mission:To become a national and regional centre of excellence in policy research and capacity development for policy analysis and development management.

Objectives:The overall objective of ESRF is to conduct research in economic and social policy areas and development management, and use its research outcomes to facilitate the country’s capacity for economic development and social advancement.

“This ESRF Discussion Paper is based on the output of the Tanzania Human Development Report 2017”

SOCIAL POLICY IN A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: SHIFTING ... · SOCIAL POLICY IN A HISTORICAL...

Documents

Transcript of SOCIAL POLICY IN A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: SHIFTING ... · SOCIAL POLICY IN A HISTORICAL...