Perspective Chapter: Monetary Policy as a Tool for Reducing Poverty – Transmission Mechanisms and Challenges

1. Introduction

Monetary policy refers to the set of actions undertaken by a nation’s central bank to regulate the money supply, manage interest rates, and maintain macroeconomic stability [1]. Traditionally, its objectives have centered around price stability, full employment, and sustainable economic growth. Over time, however, it has become clear that monetary decisions not only shape aggregate outcomes like inflation and GDP but also have direct and indirect consequences for poverty and inequality [2, 3].

The relationship between macroeconomic policy and poverty reduction has evolved significantly over the past century. In the post-World War II period, dominant development paradigms assumed that economic growth, spurred by significant state intervention, would inherently lead to poverty alleviation. Influenced by the works of Kuznets and Solow, policymakers believed that industrialization, employment creation, and infrastructure investment would result in trickle-down benefits for low-income populations [4]. This “big push” strategy emphasized large-scale state-led investment in key sectors and was exemplified by public ownership, import-substitution industrialization, and coordinated planning across the Global South.

However, by the 1970s, disillusionment with these models began to set in. Growth in many developing countries has failed to yield substantial poverty reduction or convergence with high-income nations. Rising income inequality and entrenched poverty prompted a re-evaluation of the growth-first approach. The 1974 publication of Redistribution with Growth by the World Bank and ILO marked a significant turning point, arguing for more inclusive strategies that prioritized education, rural infrastructure, and employment over capital-intensive development [5].

This reorientation was short-lived. The late 1970s and early 1980s brought an ideological and policy shift with the rise of monetarism and neoliberal economic prescriptions. Macroeconomic crises—including the Latin American debt crisis and stagflation in developed economies—undermined Keynesian approaches and made way for the Washington Consensus, coined by John Williamson in 1989. This policy framework promoted fiscal austerity, deregulation, trade liberalization, privatization of state-owned enterprises, and market-determined interest and exchange rates [6]. The IMF and World Bank enforced these prescriptions through Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) attached to development loans.

The central premise was that macroeconomic stabilization and liberalized markets would generate growth that would eventually reduce poverty. However, by the 1990s, these expectations proved overly optimistic. Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia showed that growth was uneven, poverty persisted, and inequality often worsened [7]. In Latin America, the 1980s became known as the “Lost Decade,” where inflation was controlled at the cost of employment, wage growth, and social services.

These outcomes sparked widespread criticism of the Washington Consensus. Critics argued that it ignored institutional quality, downplayed the role of the state, and treated poverty reduction as a secondary outcome of macroeconomic discipline. Fiscal contraction often came at the expense of pro-poor services, such as education and healthcare, and subsidy removals in agriculture made smallholder farmers more vulnerable to market shocks [8]. In response, development thinking evolved once more, moving toward the Post-Washington Consensus and the inclusive growth paradigm. This approach emphasized the importance of not just the pace but also the pattern of growth. Inclusive growth strategies recognize that economic expansion must be accompanied by investment in human development, access to financial services, and policies that directly target the needs of the poor [7].

Alternative models such as the Beijing Consensus also gained prominence during this era, stressing state-led development, gradual reform, and the primacy of national sovereignty over externally imposed liberalization agendas [9]. The failure of a purely market-oriented development approach to reduce poverty sustainably prompted international financial institutions to reconsider the role of equity and inclusion in macroeconomic frameworks.

It was in this context that scholars and policymakers began to scrutinize the poverty implications of monetary policy itself. While once considered a neutral, technical domain limited to inflation and interest rates, monetary policy is now understood to have profound distributional effects.

This chapter seeks to answer the two central questions: How do key monetary transmission mechanisms shape poverty outcomes? And what policy frameworks can enhance their effectiveness in promoting social equity?

To address these questions, the chapter explores the role of monetary policy in poverty reduction by focusing on three primary transmission mechanisms:

1. Inflation control and price stability are essential because inflation disproportionately affects the poor. Low-income households spend a larger portion of their earnings on essentials such as food and housing, making them more vulnerable to price increases [5].

2. Interest rate policy significantly influences access to credit. High interest rates, while effective in curbing inflation, can constrain borrowing for low-income households and small businesses [10]. Inclusive financial instruments such as microcredit schemes are essential to ensure that monetary easing reaches marginalized communities [11].

3. Exchange rate stability impacts the cost of imported essentials, especially in developing economies. Currency depreciation can raise the cost of food and fuel, thereby exacerbating poverty [12]. Managing exchange rate volatility and ensuring trade resilience is key to maintaining household welfare and investment confidence [13].

While monetary policy alone cannot eliminate poverty, a well-calibrated strategy that considers these transmission mechanisms can help create a more inclusive and resilient economic environment. The remainder of this chapter discusses these channels in detail and proposes practical recommendations for integrating poverty reduction into central banking strategies.

2. Inflation and poverty: The unseen tax on the poor

Inflation is one of the most pervasive and regressive economic forces impacting low-income households. While inflation affects all members of society, it does not do so equally. The poor—who spend a greater share of their income on food, fuel, rent, and transport—face higher exposure and fewer options for adaptation. Consequently, inflation directly erodes their purchasing power, compromises their ability to meet basic needs, and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities.

Studies have long established a strong connection between inflation and poverty. Chenery et al. [5] found that high and volatile inflation correlates with higher poverty rates and deeper inequality, particularly in low-income countries with weak safety nets. More recent data from Jayashankar. and Murphy [13] show that lower-income households report far greater financial strain during inflationary periods, especially when food and energy prices rise sharply.

One reason for this disproportionate burden is inflation inequality. National inflation figures often obscure the fact that poor households face different—and often higher—inflation rates than wealthier households. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), the inflation experienced by low-income households can exceed national averages because of their heavy reliance on goods like food and energy, which are more prone to rapid price increases [14]. For instance, a uniform 8% inflation rate may mean a 10–12% real cost-of-living increase for poorer families.

The IFS also highlights “cheapflation”—the faster price growth of low-cost, lower-quality goods consumed mostly by the poor. This phenomenon disproportionately affects those already on the economic margins by inflating the price of basic products while leaving higher-end goods consumed by the wealthy relatively stable [14]. This not only reduces the poor’s ability to maintain consumption levels but also forces them to substitute with lower-quality or less nutritious alternatives.

In rural and informal economies, inflation often compounds existing structural challenges. Fielding [15] found that even modest food price shocks in the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) region significantly increased short-term poverty, particularly in areas lacking reliable food distribution systems or market access. In such contexts, inflation drives families to reduce food intake, delay healthcare, or remove children from school, deepening intergenerational poverty.

Inflation also diminishes the real value of social protection programs when benefits are not indexed. Welfare transfers, pensions, and public sector wages in many developing countries remain fixed in nominal terms. As prices rise, the purchasing power of these transfers erodes, reducing the very support meant to insulate the poor from hardship. This effect is particularly acute during inflation surges, when support is needed most.

Monetary responses to inflation—especially interest rate hikes—can have mixed effects on poverty. While necessary to stabilize prices, higher interest rates may reduce access to credit for small businesses and informal workers, potentially suppressing employment and income generation. Without compensatory fiscal interventions, such as subsidies or direct transfers, tight monetary policy may unintentionally increase poverty in the short term.

However, several countries demonstrate how policy design can mitigate these effects. Brazil, for example, maintained inflation-targeting while expanding Bolsa Família, providing targeted cash transfers to cushion the poor from rising prices. Similarly, India combined inflation control through its central bank with extensive food and fuel subsidies, delivered digitally to reduce leakage and delay. Rwanda has pursued flexible inflation targeting in coordination with food price monitoring and strategic grain reserves.

To ensure inclusive inflation management, policymakers must monitor disaggregated inflation data across income groups, index social transfers to reflect real cost changes, and coordinate monetary tightening with protective fiscal measures. When inflation is treated not just as a macroeconomic indicator but as a distributional force, central banks and governments are better positioned to safeguard vulnerable populations.

In sum, inflation disproportionately affects the poor by increasing the cost of essentials, eroding the value of transfers, and amplifying insecurity. Addressing it requires more than price stabilization—it demands inclusive, data-driven policy coordination that protects households at the bottom of the income distribution.

3. Interest rates and financial inclusion

Interest rate policy is a fundamental tool of central banks used to influence aggregate demand, manage inflation, and stimulate or dampen economic activity. However, its effects on poverty are mediated by how it shapes access to credit, savings, and productive investment. In theory, lower interest rates should promote borrowing and consumption, creating opportunities for economic growth and job creation. In practice, the poor often remain excluded from the financial systems that transmit these effects, rendering standard monetary tools insufficient for inclusive development.

The transmission of monetary policy through interest rates is structurally unequal. Households and businesses in the formal sector, with established banking relationships and credit histories, benefit first and most from falling rates. In contrast, poor households—especially those in rural areas or the informal economy—often face barriers such as lack of collateral, inadequate documentation, and geographic isolation from financial services. This exclusion significantly limits their ability to borrow and invest, even when central banks implement accommodative monetary policies.

Fouda [1] highlights that in many countries, monetary easing fails to lower poverty unless it is explicitly paired with policies that extend financial access. In Central and West Africa, for example, even when interest rates are lowered, large segments of the population are unaffected due to low bank penetration and the absence of inclusive lending frameworks.

Access to affordable credit is critical for poverty alleviation. Credit allows households to invest in income-generating activities, smooth consumption, respond to shocks, and build human capital through education and health expenditure. However, when interest rates are high, borrowing becomes expensive, especially for small-scale entrepreneurs and the working poor. This limits the ability of low-income individuals to escape poverty through productive self-employment or business expansion.

Furthermore, when only wealthier individuals and larger firms benefit from lower interest rates, the result is a deepening of income and asset inequality. Monetary expansion under such conditions may inadvertently accelerate inequality by boosting real estate and stock prices, which are disproportionately owned by the wealthy. The European Central Bank (ECB) has acknowledged that asset purchase programs like quantitative easing (QE) have amplified wealth gaps by raising the value of financial and property assets [16].

To make interest rate policy pro-poor, expanding financial inclusion is critical. Financial inclusion refers to the availability and usage of affordable financial services—such as savings accounts, insurance, remittances, and credit—by disadvantaged populations. It increases the efficacy of monetary policy by enabling a broader base of individuals to respond to changes in interest rates.

Successful examples of financial inclusion have emerged in countries like Kenya, where M-PESA’s mobile money services have brought banking to millions, including those previously unreachable by traditional banks. Bangladesh’s Grameen Bank and other microfinance institutions have demonstrated that structured group lending and community-based finance can bridge gaps in formal lending systems.

Digital finance also offers powerful tools to connect monetary policy with the informal sector. By reducing transaction costs and improving transparency, digital financial services can accelerate credit provision and improve household resilience to shocks. However, these systems require regulatory support, infrastructure investment, and digital literacy initiatives to be effective.

Central banks and governments can actively influence credit flows through development finance institutions (DFIs) and targeted lending schemes. Refinancing lines for priority sectors such as agriculture, housing, and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) can help channel liquidity toward pro-poor investments. India’s Priority Sector Lending mandates, for instance, require banks to allocate a fixed portion of their credit portfolio to underserved sectors, including small farmers, women, and microenterprises. Similarly, Brazil’s Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (BNDES) has played a pivotal role in financing infrastructure and inclusive industrial development, often counter-cyclically during economic downturns. These tools effectively link monetary expansion to targeted credit provision and can amplify the poverty-reducing effects of interest rate adjustments.

Monetary authorities can also employ interest rate subsidies for vulnerable borrowers. While this must be balanced against risks of distortion and fiscal burden, in contexts of high exclusion, well-targeted subsidies can have powerful developmental impacts.

Although lowering interest rates can stimulate investment and consumption, it also carries risks—particularly in the form of misallocated credit, rising debt, or financial instability. In fragile economies, monetary easing without robust regulatory oversight can lead to credit bubbles or inflationary pressures. Conversely, overly restrictive monetary policy may suppress job creation and economic recovery, disproportionately hurting low-income households. Therefore, macroprudential measures—such as debt-to-income caps, risk-based pricing, and consumer protection frameworks—are essential to ensure that pro-poor credit expansion does not lead to over-indebtedness or exclusion traps.

A pro-poor interest rate framework requires more than just rate cuts. It demands a parallel financial architecture that ensures accessibility, affordability, and security of credit for low-income populations. Central banks must collaborate with financial regulators, fintech companies, cooperatives, and development institutions to build this architecture. At the same time, transparency and accountability are essential. Central banks should regularly publish disaggregated data on credit flows by income, gender, and region to monitor the inclusiveness of their policy tools. Surveys and feedback loops can further help assess whether changes in policy are reaching the intended populations.

4. Exchange rate stability and the cost of living

Exchange rate fluctuations significantly shape poverty outcomes in both direct and indirect ways. Although often discussed in macroeconomic or trade terms, currency movements can alter the cost of living, public service delivery, and economic opportunities—especially for low-income and vulnerable households. In developing countries, where consumption baskets are heavily dependent on imported goods, and financial safety nets are limited, the consequences of currency depreciation can be particularly severe.

A depreciating currency raises the local prices of imported food, fuel, medicine, and agricultural inputs. These essential goods often form a disproportionate share of poor households’ expenditures [9]. As prices rise, low-income families—who typically lack savings or formal credit access—are forced to reduce consumption, delay healthcare, or pull children from school to cope. The poverty impact is immediate and multidimensional.

For example, Fielding [15] showed that in the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU), exchange rate shocks significantly increased rural poverty by raising the price of imported staples and reducing real wages among agricultural workers. In such contexts, a mere 5–10% depreciation could translate into significant caloric shortfalls or lost school days for children in poor families.

Additionally, public sector budgets are squeezed when exchange rate depreciation raises the cost of servicing foreign debt. This can result in cuts to social spending on education, subsidies, or healthcare—critical safety nets for the poor. Thus, currency movements affect not only household purchasing power but also the state’s ability to support those most in need.

Exchange rate volatility also disrupts economic activity and employment patterns. When businesses face uncertainty about input costs or export revenues due to unstable currency values, they may delay hiring, cancel orders, or shift to more precarious employment models. The result is a contraction in job opportunities—especially in sectors like agriculture, construction, and informal services, which employ the bulk of low-income workers.

Moreover, informal workers—w`ho often rely on fixed payments or piece-rate income—are hit hardest by inflation triggered by currency depreciation. Unlike salaried workers, they lack wage bargaining power or contractual protections to maintain real incomes. For poor families relying on cash remittances or informal trade, even small swings in the exchange rate can destabilize livelihoods.

While wealthier actors may hedge against exchange rate risks through diversified assets or foreign holdings, poor households remain exposed. They generally earn in local currency, save in cash, and consume imported essentials. This asymmetric exposure means that currency depreciation leads to a decline in real income and household welfare while offering no compensating gain through asset revaluation or export income.

Furthermore, the poor cannot substitute easily. While richer households may shift consumption from imported to domestic goods during price spikes, low-income housing is the cheapest available options and lack room to adjust. This lack of substitution elasticity amplifies their vulnerability to depreciation-driven inflation.

In urban areas, exchange rate depreciation often translates into faster price increases for fuel and transport, which affects the cost of commuting, food distribution, and household electricity. As transport and retail prices rise, wage earners in low-skilled jobs may find their real earnings eroded, forcing cutbacks in nutrition, education, or basic services. For example, when the Nigerian naira depreciated sharply in 2016 and again in 2020, the price of rice—a staple food—nearly doubled in urban markets. For daily wage earners and informal vendors, the rise in food and transportation costs reduced effective disposable income by over 30% in real terms, pushing many into food insecurity.

Despite these risks, exchange rate policy can be leveraged to protect the poor if used strategically. Countries with high exposure to imported essentials should aim to manage currency volatility—not necessarily fix the rate but ensure predictable and gradual adjustments. This enables poor households and small businesses to plan, smooth consumption, and avoid crisis-level disruptions.

Some policy options include:

1. Buffer stock management: Countries like India and Ethiopia maintain food grain reserves to protect against import-driven price spikes.

2. Subsidy targeting: Indonesia’s cash transfer programs during periods of currency depreciation help offset higher food and energy prices for the poor.

3. Inflation-indexed transfers: Welfare programs in Latin America, such as Brazil’s Bolsa Família, adjust benefit levels in line with inflation, including that caused by exchange rate changes.

4. Regulatory tools: Temporary tariff reductions or price ceilings on essential goods during periods of currency stress can provide short-term relief.

In the long run, the best protection against exchange rate-induced poverty lies in economic diversification. Countries heavily reliant on imported food and fossil fuels are most vulnerable. Investment in local agriculture, renewable energy, and manufacturing can reduce external dependency and insulate the poor from global currency volatility.

For instance, Rwanda’s strategy to develop domestic fertilizer production and food self-sufficiency has reduced its vulnerability to both price and currency shocks. Similarly, Bangladesh’s emphasis on garment exports—an industry with high employment elasticity—has allowed it to translate depreciation into job creation rather than inflation.

In conclusion, while exchange rate policy is often treated as a technocratic tool for managing trade and capital flows, its implications for poverty are profound. Currency depreciation directly reduces the real incomes of poor households, inflates their consumption baskets, destabilizes informal jobs, and undermines public service delivery.

Central banks and governments must therefore treat exchange rate policy not only as a macroeconomic variable but also as a social policy lever. By coordinating with fiscal agencies, using targeted safety nets, and supporting inclusive industrial strategies, they can shield vulnerable populations from the worst impacts of currency instability and transform exchange rate management into a tool for resilience and poverty reduction.

5. Policy coordination: A unified approach to pro-poor macroeconomics

Monetary policy affects poverty through indirect macroeconomic channels—shaping inflation, employment, and financial access—while fiscal policy directly reallocates resources through taxes, subsidies, and public spending. Historically, these two domains have been institutionally and ideologically separated. Yet, in practice, sustainable poverty reduction requires tight coordination between monetary and fiscal policy to ensure that macroeconomic stabilization efforts do not come at the expense of the poor.

When monetary and fiscal policies are poorly aligned, their goals can conflict, undermining both macroeconomic stability and social outcomes. For example, a central bank may raise interest rates to curb inflation, while the finance ministry increases public spending to stimulate employment or expand social transfers. If these efforts are uncoordinated, they can neutralize each other—leading to macroeconomic inefficiency and policy confusion. Worse, they can create volatility that erodes real incomes and destabilizes household welfare. This conflict is particularly dangerous in developing countries where social safety nets are thin, and market shocks translate quickly into poverty. If monetary tightening is not offset by targeted fiscal interventions, poor households may bear the brunt of inflation control—through job losses, reduced credit access, or rising loan repayments.

Conversely, expansive fiscal policies without regard for inflationary pressures can provoke destabilizing responses from central banks, prompting aggressive rate hikes that suppress employment growth. The poor lose twice: first through reduced purchasing power, and then through reduced income opportunities.

Some countries have demonstrated the benefits of strategic coordination. Brazil in the 2000s is often cited as a successful example. The Central Bank of Brazil pursued inflation targeting and conservative monetary policy, while the federal government expanded Bolsa Família, a conditional cash transfer program reaching over 40 million people. Because the transfers were targeted and did not significantly raise inflation, the result was a dual success: low inflation and declining poverty [17].

Indonesia offers another instructive case. Following the Asian Financial Crisis, Indonesia’s central bank focused on stabilizing the currency and controlling inflation, while the government implemented large-scale food subsidies and cash-for-work programs in rural areas. The central bank did not resist this fiscal expansion because it was temporary, well-targeted, and essential for social stabilization.

South Africa, despite facing criticism for high unemployment and inequality, has also acknowledged the need for “policy synergy.” The South African Reserve Bank has held dialogs with the National Treasury and the Department of Social Development to align macroeconomic stabilization with poverty alleviation strategies. Although implementation has been uneven, the recognition of joint mandates is a step toward more coordinated governance.

Traditionally, central banks are tasked with maintaining price stability and financial market integrity, while elected governments manage redistribution and development. However, in the face of widening inequality and climate risk, many central banks are rethinking their mandates. The ECB, for example, now includes inequality indicators and employment impacts in its internal review processes [18]. The U.S. Federal Reserve, under its dual mandate, has emphasized “inclusive employment” as a key criterion for policy normalization.

Some scholars have called for “triple mandates” for central banks: stability, growth, and inflation. While controversial, this proposal underscores a growing consensus that macroeconomic institutions cannot be blind to distributional outcomes. Rather than infringing on central bank independence, this approach advocates strategic coordination grounded in clearly defined objectives and transparent accountability.

Effective policy coordination does not require a merger of institutions, but it does demand frameworks for communication and mutual adjustment. Several tools can facilitate this:

1. Medium-term expenditure frameworks (MTEFs) that align budget planning with monetary projections.

2. Inflation-targeting frameworks that explicitly allow for temporary deviations when social protection is needed.

3. Joint macroeconomic surveillance units that assess the distributional effects of policy interactions.

4. Crisis coordination task forces, particularly during external shocks (e.g., pandemics and commodity collapses).

Additionally, institutional reforms—such as creating formal inter-ministerial working groups or legislative mandates for joint policy reporting—can institutionalize these practices beyond electoral cycles.

One of the major obstacles to coordination is institutional culture and political fragmentation. Central banks often prize independence and technocratic neutrality, while finance ministries face political pressures and shifting priorities. This asymmetry leads to distrust or inertia, especially in countries with weak governance or polarized political systems.

However, ignoring coordination comes at a cost. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed that emergency macroeconomic responses work best when monetary and fiscal levers are pulled together. Central banks offered liquidity and asset purchases, while governments delivered cash transfers, food, and health subsidies. The synergy mitigated mass destitution and market collapse. These lessons must now inform peacetime policymaking.

The political will to institutionalize coordination is often shaped by civil society, think tanks, and multilateral institutions. The IMF and World Bank increasingly encourage coordinated policy assessments in their Article IV consultations, recognizing that fragmentation undermines resilience and inclusion.

For poverty reduction, coordination is not just a technical improvement—it is an ethical imperative. Uncoordinated macroeconomic policy risks imposing adjustment burdens on those least equipped to carry them. Strategic alignment allows governments and central banks to:

1. Shield the poor during disinflation and currency corrections.

2. Expand credit access while avoiding overheating.

3. Protect social spending during fiscal consolidation.

4. Promote employment without undermining price stability.

Moreover, by coordinating signals to markets and citizens, governments and central banks can strengthen policy credibility, reduce uncertainty, and improve the quality of growth.

6. Conclusion

Monetary policy plays a vital, if often underestimated, role in shaping poverty outcomes. While it is typically crafted with macroeconomic goals such as inflation control, currency stability, and interest rate management in mind, its indirect effects on low-income households are profound. The poor live closest to the margins of economic security, and even marginal shifts in prices, borrowing costs, or exchange rates can trigger immediate and long-lasting hardship.

Inflation, particularly in essential goods like food and fuel, erodes the real income of the poor more than any other group. Because their consumption baskets are narrow and largely composed of non-discretionary spending, they are least able to adjust or shield themselves from cost increases. High interest rates similarly inhibit opportunities for mobility, especially where credit markets are inaccessible or underdeveloped. When monetary tightening occurs in such contexts, it risks excluding the very populations that policy is supposed to serve.

Currency depreciation introduces further risks by inflating the cost of vital imports and eroding public sector capacity to deliver pro-poor services. Poor households do not have the buffers—financial or institutional—to navigate sudden price shocks. Their earnings are seldom indexed, their savings are vulnerable to inflation, and their public support systems are often under strain during economic crises.

Despite these challenges, monetary policy can be designed and deployed to protect, and even empower, vulnerable populations. Targeted measures such as inflation-indexed welfare payments, priority sector lending, support for financial inclusion, and managed exchange rate regimes offer pathways toward equitable outcomes. Central banks can monitor distributional impacts and coordinate with fiscal authorities to ensure policy synergy rather than conflict.

The broader lesson is clear: monetary policy should not be confined to the realm of abstract aggregates and financial indicators. It is a powerful tool that shapes the daily economic experiences of citizens—especially those at the base of the income pyramid. As global economies contend with rising inequality, climate risk, and external volatility, the case for inclusive monetary frameworks has never been more urgent.

If central banks and policymakers embrace this imperative, monetary policy can shift from being a neutral force—or even a regressive one—into a key component of inclusive and sustainable development.

This chapter is limited by its reliance on secondary sources and lacks primary empirical data. While it draws on a broad set of international cases, regional nuances and institutional heterogeneity warrant deeper country-level analysis in future research.”

Acknowledgments

Disclaimer: The views expressed in the chapter are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Federation of Exchanges (WFE) or its member institutions and the University of Lincoln.