This issue of the JID draws on papers from the Development Studies Association Annual Conference hosted by the Institute for Development Policy and Management of the University of Manchester on 10 to 12 September 2001. It contains four of the keynote presentations and a selection of papers from five of the twelve symposia that were mounted. These papers relate to both the theme of the conference-Different Poverties, Different Policies-and the continuing work of the DSA's many Study Groups. Other papers from the conference have already appeared or will appear in JID: the special issue on e-development and forthcoming Policy Arenas on Children in Poverty and Ageing and Poverty: and, in a special issue of the Journal of Southern African Studies on Agrarian Change in Southern Africa. As the reader will gather it was a very active conference with more than 100 papers presented and more than 300 participants.
The conference theme was selected for two main reasons. First, there was a concern amongst many members of the DSA that the central place now accorded to 'poverty' in policy pronouncements on international development was leading to the homogenization of the poor. They are increasingly seen as a single group whose poverty will be reduced by ' . . . opportunity, empowerment and security . . . ' (World Bank, 2000). This holy trinityalso known as economic growth, democracy and residual social safety nets-had been debated hotly at last year's conference (see JID 13( 7)). At best, this prescription could lead to many poor people not benefiting from development policies; at worst, it might fundamentally undermine the achievements of the post-Millennium drive for povertyreduction. Second, by selecting this theme the conference was able to draw on the networks of the Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC) partnership (www.chronicpoverty.org) which is based at the University of Manchester.
Three of the plenary presentations relate directly to the issue of 'who' is poor and 'what' policies might support them. Francie Lund's paper argues that central state policies to provide social security (why does 'opportunity' always have to lead the list?) do not 'crowd out' private action, as some economic theory posits. Rather, it can both achieve its welfare objective and, through the personal agency of the poor, promote entrepreneurial activity. Social security policies, rather than modular social safety nets (World Bank, 2000, p. 147), may be the conceptual framework needed for poverty-reduction. Paul Mosley's