The view that Africa's structural adjustment programmes have largely failed for not decreasing income inequalities has become commonplace. This thesis is correct, however, only if these programmes sought greater income equality and defined equality as their critics do. Basing its argument on the origin of the structural adjustment programmes, this article suggests that this assumption is incorrect, and suggests criteria by which to assess these programmes' success or failure on their own terms. It is argued, however, that this latter exercise is critically impeded by our reliance on quantitative indicators which are rarely sufficiently sensitive to capture the essence of such success or failure. Alternate indicators and how they may be collected are suggested. From their inception, sub-Saharan Africa's structural adjustment programmes have been criticised, mainly on the grounds that they more distort their constituents' development than advance it. Such distortions set in, it is suggested, because such economic development as these programmes achieve is not accompanied by an attendant degree of social progress, defined usually in terms of more egalitarian income distribution (Bourguignon, de Melo & Suwa, 1991; Sahn, 1994; Walkins, 1995). Armed with this thesis, analysts then assemble much convincing data to prove their point, such as the financial enrichment of the business, political and administrative elite at the expense of the majority, an ever-increasing proportion of who are relegated to living in poverty. This paper assesses the thesis that sub-Saharan Africa's structural adjustment programmes were introduced, among other reasons, in the name of egalitarianism. Its main argument is that to prove that these programmes fail to distribute income progressi vely, it is necessary first to show that they sought greater income equality and, second, that they define equality as their critics do.
Read
