The idea for this article originated while being part of a project commissioned by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD, from here on) in July 2010.

1: There were 3 aspects to the project –1) devising a method for 'rationalising' all the disparate (welfare) schemes run by the GNCTD, 2) creation of a multidimensional index capturing the 'vulnerability' of the population covered in a survey commissioned by a department of GNCTD known as Samajik Suvidha Sangam (SSS), and 3)
creating a standard operating procedure (SOP) using the index created (in step 2 above) for a 'cash transfer' scheme to be piloted in some districts in Delhi. We (an independent academic research organisation) were called to participate in a process where certain facets of policy were being made and our involvement implicitly served certain requirements of the policy being made. But, first the terms of reference. The first objective hints at a certain un-rationalised state of affairs in the schemes run by the
GNCTD from a specific policy position. The second objective showed the illusive notion of vulnerability as 'captured quantitatively' through the SSS survey. However, a look at the third objective reveals that this mandate for the creation of an index was for a purpose –so that a cash transfer scheme can be instituted.

2: The first two aspects of the exercise bring home a key aspect of poverty –its
multidimensionality. This, not only has implications on the way poverty (vulnerability) is measured from a methodological point of view, but also informs policy making in ways yet to be formally coded. The third objective raised raised two issues –the use of cash transfers replacing/augmenting certain schemes as a new policy option and the second concerning the targeting method to be employed were the multidimensional approach such as the one envisaged to be implemented. Cash transfer programs  are being mooted as a radical new alternatives by different governments around the world. Although the implications of these innovations in the spheres of public policy are huge, we will limit ourselves to a  crucial aspect of the legitimacy deriving processes of cash transfers –the demonstration effect of third-party impact evaluations of these schemes devised in a scientific way. It is through these third party impact evaluations that the cash transfers have got popularity and acceptance. Moreover, the exercise itself hinted at the performativity (Callon (1998, 2007)) of two specific tools –use of multidimensional measures of poverty and randomised control trials.

3: The idea of “performativity” we have used is in the sense that these tools not only depict or more specifically “describe” (Didier (2007)) the objects they set out to describe (measuring poverty in the first case and development effectiveness
in the second), but also transform/have an effect on/create anew these objects as they set out to describe them.