APPENDICES - World Banksiteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVERTY/Resources/335642-1124115102975/... · Yulian Konstantinov, and also included Kristina Andonova, Gyulbie Dalova, Vera

APPENDICES

Appendix 1Study Team and Acknowledgments

Appendix 2Study Countries and Sites

Appendix 3Overview of Study Themes and Methods

Appendix 4About the Authors

Appendices.qxd 9/7/00 3:04 PM Page 291


293

Appendix 1. Study Team and Acknowledgments

This book draws on the work of many people who were involved in different phas-

es of the Voices of the Poor study. The Voices of the Poor study was led and

managed by Deepa Narayan, Lead Social Development Specialist in the World

Bank’s Poverty Group, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network.

Patti Petesch, Consultant, provided overall coordination. Meera Shah, Consultant,

provided methodological guidance and training to several study teams. Robert

Chambers and colleagues, with the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) at the

University of Sussex, provided advisory support. Ulrike Erhardt, Ben Jones and

Tiffany Marlowe provided administrative and research assistance.

The research was made possible through the generous financial support of

the U.K. Department for International Development (DFID), numerous departments

within the World Bank, and the Swedish International Development Cooperation

Agency (SIDA). IDS support was financed by DFID, SIDA and the Swiss Agency for

Development and Cooperation. Several of the country studies were partially or fully

financed by NGOs. These included Proshika, Concern and ActionAid in

Bangladesh; Praxis and ActionAid in India; ActionAid in Somaliland; ActionAid,

Oxfam, Save the Children, the Vietnam-Sweden Mountain Rural Development

Program, and the Vietnam Sweden Health Cooperative Program in Vietnam.

The study would never have been undertaken without the support of Ravi

Kanbur, who was Director of the World Development Report until May 2000, and

Mike Walton, who was Director of the Poverty Group of the World Bank until

September 2000. Several people contributed to the early discussions framing the

study. They included participants at a workshop held at the World Bank in New

Delhi in August 1998, a second workshop at IDS in December 1998, and a work-

shop held in January 1999 at the World Bank in Washington, D.C.

involving over 100 participants.

A methodology guide was developed and piloted in four countries led by

Chamindra Weerackody in Sri Lanka, Anchana Naranong in Thailand, Fernando

Dick in Bolivia and James Mascarenhas in India.

The 23 country studies on which the book is based were conducted by local

research teams. Below are the team leaders and members.

Argentina: The study team was led by Daniel Cichero, Patricia Feliu, and

Mirta Mauro and team members included Silvia Fuentes, Hernán Nazer, Blanca

Irene García Prado, Héctor Salamanca, Mariano Salzman and Norberto Vázquez.

Bangladesh: The study was coordinated by Md. Shahabuddin, and the field-

work was led by Rashed un Nabi, Dipankara Datta, Subrata Chakrabarty, Masuma

Begum and Nasima Jahan Chaudhury. The study team also included Mostafa

Zainul Abedin, Shukhakriti Adhikari, Dil Afroz, Selina Akhter, Zaed Al-Hasan,

Khodeja Begum, Morzina Begum, Hasibur Rahman Bijon, Pradip Kumar Biswas,


294

Lipi Daam, Nikunja Debnath, Bijoy Kumar Dhar, S. M. Tozammel Haque, Emarat

Hossain, Tariqul Islam, Iqbal Hossain Jahangir, Roji Khatun, Shohel Newaz,

Moshfeka Jahan Parveen, Rajia Pervin, Amjad Hossain Pintu, A. K. M. Azad

Rahman, Ashekur Rahman, Mizanur Rahman, Abdus Salam, Shofikus Saleh,

Mezbah Uddin Shaheen, Afroza Sultana and Al-Haz Uddin.

Bolivia: The study team was led by Fernando Dick and included El Departa-

mento de Gestión Rural de la Universidad Nur. Study team members included

Freddy Chávez, Desiderio Choque A., Pablo Cuba, Gualberto Jaramillo, Pilar

Lizárraga A., Daniel Moreno, Ligia Muguertegui, Q. Hermis Quintana, Policarpio

Quiroz, Mirela Armand Ugon, Carlos Vacaflores R., Daniel Vacaflores and Martha

Vargas.

Bosnia and Herzegovina: The study team was led by Dino Djipa, Mirsada

Muzur and Paula Franklin Lytle, and also included Dado Babic, Vesna Bodirogic,

Sanja Djermanovic, Fuad Hegic, Milos Karisik, Maida Koso, Elma Pasic, Marko

Romic and Mladen Vidovick.

Brazil: The study team was led by Marcus Melo and also included Denilson

Bandeira, Josineide Menezes, Mirna Pimentel, Flávio Rezende, Rosane Salles, Ana

Flávia Novaes Viana and Ruben Vergara.

Bulgaria: The study team was led by Iliia Iliev, Petya Kabakchieva and

Yulian Konstantinov, and also included Kristina Andonova, Gyulbie Dalova, Vera

Davidova, Dimitar Dimitrov, Milena Harizanova, Toni Mileva, Raitcho Pojarliev,

Ivan Popov, Dessislav Sabev, Venelin Stoichev, Vesselin Tepavicharov and Milena

Yakimova.

Ecuador: The study team was led by Alexandra Martínez Flores and also

included Milena Almeida, Elizabeth Arauz, Santiago Baca, Pablo Cousín, Nicolás

Cuvi, Oswaldo Merino, Eduardo Morcillo, María Moreno and Edith Segarra.

Egypt: The study team was managed by the Center for Development Services

in Cairo. Members included Ali Abdel-Aal, Redah Nagi Abul-Magd, Iman Amin,

Bellah, Areeg Bahie El-Deen, Ihab Saad El-Mashaly, Hisham El-Rouby, Ashraf

Gaballah, Sameh Fayez Guirguis, Mohamed Ahmed Abdek Kader, Marlene

Kanawati, Maher Mahmoud, Nermine Mitry, Fatma Mossalam, Mohamed Naguib,

Rasha Youssef Omar, Alaa Saber, Mohamed Sami, Mohamed Samy, Reda Hassan

Radwan and Ali El Zafarany.

Ethiopia: The study team was led by Dessalegn Rahmato and Aklilu Kidanu

and also included Alemayehu Abebe, Gillilat Aberra, Solomon Alemu, Belisumaa

Assazenew, Meron Bekele, Mekonnen Bekureyesus, Gezahegne Belay, Begasshaw

Direse, Tesfaye Kassa, Fitsum K. Mariam, Muluka Nuru, Aberra G. Tsadik and

Yemistarch Zena.

Ghana: The study team was led by Ernest Kunfaa, Tony Dogbe, Heather J.

Mackay and Celia Marshall, and included Harriet Adjapong Avle, Bright Asare

Boadi, Philip Acheampong, Michael Tsike, Godfred Fosu Agyem, Adjapong Avle,


295

Nana Awuku, Richard Basadi, Solomon Yaw Fordjour, Victoria Kumi-Wood, Joe

Lambongang Aba Oppong, Prudence Seeninyin and Victoria Tuffour.

India: The study team was led by Somesh Kumar and also included V. C. S.

Bahadur, Bhartendu, Anindo Banerjee, Ronnie Barnard, B. Rama Devi, Shirsendu

Ghosh, S. S. Jaideep, H. K. Jha, N. J. Joseph, Madhumati Katkar, Somesh Kumar,

Jyotsna Kumari, Neelam Kumari, P. S. Lalita Kumari, Kumari Mridula, G.

Muralidhar, K. S. N. Murthy, Nagendra, Murali Krishna Naidu, Amitabh Pandey,

Harshavardan Patnaik, K. J. Prabhavati, Anamika Priyadarshini, B. Saroja

Rajashekhar, D. Rajeshwar, Netala Rajeshwari, R. Venkata Ramana, V. V. Ramana,

V. Paul Raja Rao, E. S. Rathnamma, M. Rajashekhar Reddy, N. Laxmi Narsimha

Reddy, Surendra Sain, Shailesh Kumar Singh, Shipra Singh, Neelam Sharma,

Surisetty Sreenivas and C. Upendranadh.

Indonesia: The study team was led by Nilanjana Mukherjee and also in-

cluded Alma Arief, Ratna I. Josodipoero, Sita Laksmini, I. Nyoman Oka, Amin

Robiarto, Setiadi, Joko Siswanto, Ronny So, Devi R. Soemardi, Suhardi, Nyoman

Susanti, Herry Widjanarko and Susi Eja Yuarsi.

Jamaica: The study team was led by S. Jacqueline Grant and Toby Shillito

and also included Hugh Dixon, Paulette Griffiths-Jude, Ivelyn Harris, Glenroy

Lattery, Cecilia Logan, Genevieve McDaniel, Oswald Morgan, Steadman Noble,

Michelle Peters, Vivienne Scott and Karen Simms.

Kyrgyz Republic: The study team was led by Janna Rysakova and also in-

cluded Bakhtiyar Abdykadyrov, Janyl Abdyralieva, Gulnara Bakieva, Mariam

Edilova, Takhir Hamdamov, Sagyn Kaimova, Esenkan Osmonaliev, Nurmamat

Saparbaev, Nurdin Satarov, Turdububu Shamuratova, Lira Tantabaeva and Kunduz

Ukubaeva.

Malawi: The study team was led by Stanley W. Khaila, Peter M. Mvula

and John M. Kadzandira, and also included Moreen Bapu, Blessings Chinsinga,

Augustine Fatch, Annie Kumpita, Brenda Mapemba, Dennis Mfune, Esnat

Mkandawire, Slyvia Mpando, Ndaga Mulaga, Rodrick Mwamvani, Judith

Mwandumba, James Mwera, Edward Kwisongole, Lilian Saka, Grace Thakwalakwa

and Susan Tuwe.

Nigeria: The study team was led by James Zacha, D. Shehu, T. Odebiyi, N.

Nweze, G. B. Ayoola, O. I. Aina and B. Mamman, and overall coordination was

provided by Foluso Okunmadewa, Olukemi Williams and Dan Owen.

Russia: The study team was led by Alexey Levinson, Olga Stouchevskaya,

Oxana Bocharova and Anton Lerner, and also included Lyubov Alexandrova, Vera

Gromova and Yulia Koltsova.

Somaliland: The study team was led by Sam Joseph and included Ahmed

Adan Mohamed, Haroon A. Yusuf, Omer Edleh Suleiman and Robin Le Mare. All

field work, initial analysis and reporting were conducted by members of communi-

ty-based organizations from Sanaag and Togdheer.


296

Sri Lanka: The study team was led by Jayatissa Samaranayake and

Chmindra Weerackodi and included Chitra Abeygunasekera, Neil Armstrong,

Wimal Dissanayake, S. Ganesh, M. P. Jayathilake, Menaka Kandasamy, S.

Karthikiyini, R. M. C. Kumarihamy, N. R. Liyanage, Iranganie Magedaragamage,

P. S. Muthucumarana, K. K. Ranjan, Samaraj, D. P. L. Walter Silva, M.

Sumanaweera, S. Sureshwaran, Chandra Sureshwaran, Lionel Thilakeratne

and Ranganathan Umakanthan.

Thailand: The study team was led by Srawooth Paitoonpong and included

Sureeratna Lakanavichian, Watthana Sugunnasil, Anchana A. Naranong, Bantorn

Ondam, Thippawan Keawmesri and Prinyarat Leangcharoen.

Uzbekistan: The national study team was led by Alisher Ilkhamov and also

included regional team leaders Dulya Gulyamova, Arustan Joldasov, Khasan

Nazarov and Igor Pogrebov. The regional team members included Erkin Alimjan-

uly, Mavlyuda Ashtuhtarova, Muqaddas Azizova, Hayat Bahromov, Shamurad

Bahromov, Salimash Baimagambetova, Sara Beares Comeau, Nigar Davletbayeva,

Zainiddin Khodjayev, Suyun Muhammedov, Sali Sadykov, Munisa Sharipova,

Theresa Truax, Saken Zhulamanov, Sanym Zholdasova, Tamara Zhulamanova and

Sadriddin Yadgorov.

Vietnam: The study was led by Carolyn Turk and included ActionAid

Vietnam, Oxfam (Great Britain), Sweden Mountain Rural Development Programme

and Save the Children Fund (United Kingdom). Other collaborators included the

People’s Committees for the study of wards, communes, districts and provinces;

Hanoi Research; Training Centre for Community Development; the Long An

Community Health Centre; Social Science Institute; the Social Development

Research Centre; the Youth Research Institute; and the Open University.

Zambia: The study team was led by John Milimo and included Mukwangule

Chikama, Fusya Y. Goma, Membe S. Ian, Mable Milimo, Mutinta Mudenda,

Chikama Mukwangole, Angela Mulenga, Felix Mulenga, Sikazwe Mulenga,

Zyongwe Nancy Mutinta, Edward Mwanza, George Nkhata, Mulenga C. Sikazwe,

Willnoad Sunga and Nancy M. Zyongwe.

Others who participated in methodological discussions and provided assis-

tance with identifying country researchers, administration, training and other sup-

port included Maria Lourdes Abundo, Nisha Agrawal, Nilufar Ahmad, Graciela

Hernández Alarcón, Joachim von Amsberg, Katherine Bain, Mark Baird, Nicole

Ball, Bhuvan Bhatnagar, Jeanine Braithwaite, Karen Brock, Sudarshan Canagarajah,

Sandra Cesilini, Joelle Chassard, John Clark, Atreyee Cordeiro, Anis Dani, Monica

Das Gupta, Tony Dogbe, Nora Dudwick, Peter Rhodes Easley, Janet Entwistle,

Lionel Demery, Ghada El-Mootaz, Sarah Forster, Vicente Fretes-Cibils, George

Gattoni, John Gaventa, Hafez M. H. Ghanem, Agnelo Gomes, Gita Gopal,

Christiaan Grootaert, Isabel Guerrero, Peter Harrold, Norman Hicks, Indrawati


297

Josodipeoro, Kamal Kar, Jubran Paul Kanaan, Eyerusalem Kebede, Ramesh

Khadka, Ron Kim, Jeni Klugman, Valerie Kozel, Reider Kvam, Edwin Lim, Kinuthia

Macharia, Mwajuma Masaiganah, William Maloney, Kofi Marrah, Katherine

Marshall, Alexandra Martínez, Jimmy Mascarenhas, Kimberley McClean, Deborah

Newitter Mikesell, Mohinder Mudahar, Neela Mukherjee, Miranda Munro,

Martien van Nieuwkoop, Andrew Norton, Thomas O’Brien, Gillermo Perry, Jessica

Poppele, Lant Hayward Pritchett, Caroline Robb, Jorge Uquillas Rodas, Peter

Rundell, Alaa Saber, Ritika Sahai, Mallika Samaranayake, Ron Sawyer, Kinnon

Scott, Shekhar Shah, Andrea Silverman, Alice Sindzingre, Kamal Singh, Surjit Singh,

William James Smith, David Steel, Roger Sullivan, Magdalena Syposz, Laura Tagle,

Rajesh Tandon, Pamornrat Tansanguanwong, David Tuschneider, Zafiris Tzannatos,

Shizu Uphadya, Per Egil Wam, Anna Maria Wetterberg and Ellen Wratten.

The process of global synthesis began at a workshop held in New Delhi in June

1999, which brought together the team leaders from 20 of the study countries for a

week of intensive discussions. Team leaders shared their draft national reports and

field experiences, which helped to start the analysis of global patterns and findings.

At the World Bank supporting research and content analysis were conducted

by Dina Mesbah-Khavari and Rachel Wheeler and research assistance was provided

by Sarah Guroff, Kristin Hirsch, Chia-Hsin Hu, Jennifer Nelson, Veronica Nyhan

Jones and Talat Shah. At IDS supporting research and content analysis were con-

ducted by Karen Brock and research assistance provided by Katherine Pasteur, Anna

Robinson-Pant, Damien Thuriaux and Kimberly Vilar.

Valuable feedback on an earlier draft was given by participants in a review

workshop hosted by DFID in London. Detailed written comments were provided by

Stephen Devereux, Claudia Fumo, Jacqueline Grant, Arjan de Haan, Jeremy

Holland, Robin Le Mare, Rosemary McGee, Ian Scoones, Toby Shillito and

Howard White. Valuable written comments were also received from Anthony

Bebbington, John Blaxall, William Easterly, Alisher Ilkahamov, Ernst Lutz,

Nilanjana Mukherjee, Susie Orbach, Carrie Turk, Norman Uphoff, Michael Walton,

and Michael Ward.

Several people played invaluable roles in the final editing of the book. They

included John Blaxall, Jeff Porro and Audrey Liounis. Copyediting was done by

Kristin Rusch and Rebecca Kary. The conference version of the book was formatted

by Barbara Harrick. The production was managed by the Office of the Publisher at

the World Bank.

Finally, and above all, no acknowledgment or recognition can be adequate

for the thousands of poor people who sacrificed their time to share their experiences

and whose voices are represented here. It is therefore to them that this book is

dedicated.


298

Appendix 2. Study Countries and Sites

REGION AND CRITERIA FOR SITES AND NUMBER OF COUNTRY SAMPLE SELECTION DISCUSSION GROUPS

Egypt

Ethiopia

Ghana

Nine sites were selectedwith high levels ofpoverty and to cover dif-ferent geographic, envi-ronmental and livelihoodconditions.

Ten sites were selectedfrom three different re-gions of the country,based on agroecology(high or low land), prox-imity of site to a mainroad and whether thearea was urban or rural.

Nine sites were selected based on pover-ty and geographic crite-ria, and where the re-searchers had previouslyworked or had contactsto facilitate entry intothe community.

Urban: El Mataria (DakahliyaGovernorate); Foua (Kafr El SheikhGovernorate). Rural: Bedsa (GizaGovernorate); Beni Amer (MinyaGovernorate); Borg Meghezel (Kafr El-Sheikh Governorate); Dahshour (GizaGovernorate); El Gawaber (DakahliyaGovernorate); Sidkia (AswanGovernorate); Zawyet Sultan (MinyaGovernorate).

9 Sites, 44 Discussion Groups

East Shewa, Oromia Region. Urban:Kebele 11 (Debre Zeit Town, Wereda 2).Rural: Dibdibe Wajtu; Kajima; KukuraDembi. Addis Ababa, Region 14. Urban:Kebele 23 (Wereda 11, Zone 4); Kebele 30(Wereda 3, Zone 1). Dessie Zuria, DebubWello Zone, Amhara Region. Urban:Kebele 11. Rural: Gerardo; Kalina; MittiKolo.


Coastal Ecological Zone. Urban: Teshie(Accra). Rural: Doryumu (Dangbe WestDistrict). Middle Belt. Urban: AtonsuBokro (Kumasi). Rural: Twabidi (Ahafo-Ano North District). Transition Zone.Rural: Asukawkaw (Kete Krachi District);Babatokuma (Kintampo District).Northern Savannah Zone. Rural: Adaboya(Bongo District); Dobile Yirkpong(Regional Capital); Tabe Ere (LawraDistrict).


Africa and the Middle East


Malawi

Nigeria

Somaliland

Zambia

299

Ten sites from 10 dis-tricts were selected basedon agricultural historyand livelihood sources.In each district, actualsites were selected afterconsulting with districtdevelopment officers, dis-trict commissioners andagricultural officers.

Sixteen sites were select-ed purposively on thebasis of regional, ethnic-cultural, religious andgeographic diversity, andthe possibility of pro-gram or project follow-up.

The communities wereselected to include a di-versity of urban andrural sites, geographicand natural resourceconditions, agriculturalactivities (pastoral,agropastoral, differentspecies of livestock,farming), clan composi-tion and social services.

Based on poverty data,the study was carried outin 12 of the poorestareas in the country.

Urban: Chemusa (Blantyre); Masasa(Mzuzu); Phwetekere (Lilongwe). Rural:Chitambi (Mulanje District); Khwalala(Nkhata-Bay District); Kowerani Kuphera(Dowa District); Madana (NtcheuDistrict); Mbwadzulu (Mangochi District);Mtamba (Chiradzulu District); Nampeya(Machiga District).


Urban: Ayekale Odoogun (Kwara State);Dawaki (Gombe State); EliekeRumuokoro (River State); Gusau(Zamfara State); Ikara (Kaduna State);Mbamoi (Adamawa State); UmuobaRoad-Aba Waterside (Abia State);Ughoton (Delta State). Rural: Atan (OyoState); Bagel (Bauchi State); Bamikemo(Ondo State); Bonugu (Federal CapitalTerritory) Ikot Idem (Akwa Ibom State);Jimowa (Sokoto State); Okpuje (EnuguState); Tse-Akiishi (Benue State).


Sanaag Region. Urban: El Afweyne;Erigavo. Rural: Bihin; Buq; Daanweyne;Dagaar; Marawade; Sufdhere.Togdheer Region. Urban: Burao; Daami;Yirowe. Rural: Ali-Esse; Duruqsi; Eil-bil-ille; Haqayo Malaas; Kaba-dheere; Qoyta;Yo’ub-Yabooh.

18 Sites, 401 people included inDiscussion Groups in Sanaag, 29Discussion Groups in Togdheer

Lusaka (urban): Kanyama; Linda;Ng’ombe Compound. Luanshya (urban):Roan Mpatamatu; Mikomfwa; TwashukaCompound. Chinsali District (rural):Ilondola; Mundu; Musanya. SerenjeDistrict (rural): Chief Kabamba;Muchinka; Nchimishi.




300

Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bulgaria

Kyrgyz Republic

The selection of sites wasbased on geographic distri-bution and the need to bal-ance rural and urban areas.Researchers also sought toinclude medium-size townsin which a specific industry(now closed or at reducedcapacity) had dominatedthe area and employmentoptions. In addition,refugees were representedeither through the choice ofsites or through specialgroups.

Site selection focused ongeographic distribution,ethnicity and poverty lev-els. Nine sites were selectedto include three villages,three big cities and threerelatively small towns.Each region is character-ized by high levels of un-employment.

The three poorest regionswere selected for the study.Two of the regions are inthe north (Talas and Naryn)and one is located in thesouth (Jalal Abad). Eight Bishkek City. rural and two urban siteswere selected based on loca-tion of markets and roads,population (to include big,medium and small villages),levels of poverty, presenceof NGOs that could sup-port the study team, andgeographic diversity.

Federation. Urban: Sarajevo; Mostar West;Vares; Zenica. Rural: Capljina; Polje bi-jela. Republika Srpska. Urban: Bijeljina.Rural: Sekovici. Refugee Camp: Bratunac(Glogova).


Villages: Razgrad (Municipality of Lom);Kalaidzhi (Lovech District); Sredno Selo(Lovech District). Towns: Dimitrovgrad;Etropole; Kalofer. Cities: Jugen (Plovdiv);Krasna Poliana (Sofia); Varna.

Special Groups included: Roma heroinusers in Varna, Nurses in Sofia andHomeless in Sofia.

9 Sites plus 3 Special Groups, 121Discussion Groups

Jalal Abad Region. Urban: Kok Yangak. Rural: Achy; Tash-Bulak.Naryn Region. Rural: Ak Kiya; Bashi;Uchkun. Talas Region. Rural: Beisheke;Kenesh; Urmaral.




301

Russia

Uzbekistan

Latin America and the Caribbean

Argentina

The sites span seven re-gions and were selectedbased on poverty levelsand to ensure geographicand urban-rural diversity.The research team also vis-ited a refugee communityin Moscow.

Sites from three regions ofthe country were selectedbased on geographic andethnic diversity and pover-ty levels. In addition, smallgroup discussions wereheld with three specialgroups: students and fe-male daily wage workersin Tashkent and Roma inQoqand City.

Selection of the municipal-ities and communities wasbased on poverty indica-tors and geographic distri-bution. All five urban sitesand one of the three ruralsite are from the Provinceof Buenos Aires, whichcontains roughly a quarterof the country’s popula-tion.

Urban: Dzerzhinsk (9th District);Ekaterinburg (El’mash Municipality);Ivanovo (8th District); Magadan (3rdDistrict); Novy Gorodok (KemerovoRegion); Teikovo (Ivanovo Region). Rural:Belasovka (Semyonovsky); Orgakin(Kalmykia); Ozerny (Ivanovo Region).

Special Group: A refugee community inMoscow

9 Sites plus 1 Special Group, 75 Discussion Groups

Tashkent City and Province. Urban:Olmalyq; Ulugbek. Rural: Oitamgaly(Oqqurghon District). Karakalpkstan (anautonomous republic within the territoryof the Republic of Uzbekistan). Urban:Muynak city. Rural: Takhtakupyr;Turtkul. Ferghana Valley. Urban: Dangara(Ferghana Province). Rural: Dilqushod(Andijan province); Oq Oltyn (Andijanprovince).

3 Special Groups: Tashkent: Students, andFemale Mardikorlars (daily wage labor-ers); Qoqand city: Roma (Gypsies)

9 Sites plus 3 Special Groups, 75 Discussion Groups

Santiago del Estero Province. Rural: LosJuríes (General Taboaba District); VillaAtamisqui (Atamisqui District). BuenosAires Province. Urban: Barrio Sol y Verde(José C. Paz Municipality); Dock Sud(Avellaneda Municipality); FlorencioVarela (Florencio Varela Municipality); LaMatanza (La Matanza Municipality);Moreno (Moreno Municipality). Rural:Isla Talavera (Zárate Municipality).

8 Sites, 714 people participated in Discussion Groups



Bolivia

Brazil

Ecuador

302

Eight sites were selectedbased on poverty indica-tors, ethnicity (more than60 percent of Bolivia is indigenous) and geographicdiversity.

All of the sites are urban.The selection was influ-enced by the World Bank’songoing projects and devel-opment of an urban strate-gy. The sites were selectedfrom three Brazilian citiesbased on geographic diver-sity, unemployment andpoverty levels, and the levelof community organization.All sites are or were favelas,or squatter settlements.

Nine sites were selected onthe basis of geographic di-versity, poverty indicators,and ethnic groups.

Urban: Barrio Las Pascuas (Tarija); BarrioNuestra Señora de Guadalupe(Cochabamba); Barrio Universitario ArioAlto (Cochabamba). Rural: Collpapucho(Aroma Province); Fuerte Santiago,(O’Connor Province); Horenco (CercadoProvince); Río la Sal (O’Connor Province).Rural-Urban: Las Gamgas (Departamentode Santa Cruz).


Recife: Bode (Pina); Borborema; Entra aPulso; Morro da Conceição; PadreJordano; Vila União. Itabuna: NovaCalifórnia; Novo Horizonte. Santo André:Sacadura Cabral; Vila Junqueira.


Urban: Atucucho (Quito-Pichincha);Barrio Nuevas Brisas del Mar(Esmeraldas-Esmeraldas); Isla Trinitaria(Guayaquil-Guayas). Rural: Asociación 10de Agosto (Napo ); Caguanapamba y elJuncal (Cañar); La Calera (Imbabura);Tumbatú/Tablas, Chota (Imbabura);Voluntad de Dios (Sucumbíos). Rural andUrban: Paján (Manabí).

9 Sites, 537 people participated in Discussion Groups



Jamaica

South and East Asia

Bangladesh

India

303

Nine sites (five rural andfour urban) were select-ed based on geographicdiversity, levels of pover-ty and, where possible,linkages with ongoingprojects and research toensure follow up.Further site selection wasinfluenced by context-specific poverty prob-lems such as land tenure,housing, isolation andunemployment.

The selection of 10 siteswas done purposively onthe basis of geographicdiversity, sociologicaland environmental fac-tors, poverty levels, andthe presence of NGOsthat could facilitate theresearch and follow-up.The sample includeseight subdistricts andtwo urban slums.

The study was conduct-ed in the states of Biharand Andhra Pradesh.Sites were selected on thebasis of social, demo-graphic, occupationaland environmental char-acteristics. An overridingcriterion was to selectplaces that offered thepossibility of program orproject follow-up.

Urban sites: Bower Bank (Kingston);Cassava Piece (Kingston); Railway Lane(Montego Bay); Thompson Pen (SpanishTown). Rural Sites: Accompong (MaroonState); Duckensfield (St. Thomas Parish);Freeman’s Hall (Quashie River Sink);Little Bay ( Westmoreland); Millbank(Portland).

9 Sites, 1,265 people participated in Discussion Groups

Urban: Chittagong City (Bastuhara Slum,Chittagong District); Mohammadpur(Battala Slum, Dhaka City). Peri-Urban:Dhamrai (Hiranadi Kulla Slum,Manikganj District). Rural: Char KukriMukri-Charfession (Bhola District);Dewangonj (Jamalpur District);Gowainghat (Sylhet District); Khaliajuri(Kishoreganj District); Madaripur(Madaripur District); Nachol (Chapai-Nababganj District); Ulipur (KurigramDistrict).


Bihar. Urban: Patna (State Capital). Peri-Urban: Geruwa (East SinghbhoomDistrict). Rural: Manjhar (Gaya District);Netarhat (Palamu District); Sohrai(Jhanjharpur District). Andhra Pradesh.Urban: Hyderabad (State Capital). Peri-Urban: Konada (Vizianagaram District).Rural: Dorapalli (Kurnool District);Jaggaram (Khammam District); PeddaKothapalli (Srikakulam District).




Indonesia

Sri Lanka

304

Twelve sites were selectedbased on geographic distri-bution, environmental fac-tors and poverty levels.Focus was on the island ofJava because it has thelargest number and highestconcentration of the coun-try’s poor and is the regionhit hardest by the economiccrisis. In order to havesome representation of therest of the country, theNusa Tenggara islandswere selected. They havelivelihood patterns andgeoclimatic features thatare very different fromJava.

A purposive sample waschosen from the main agro-ecological zones of thecountry, namely dry, inter-mediate, wet highland, wetlowland and the coastalzones. To capture thepoverty conditions in thewar-affected areas, four vil-lages were chosen from thegovernment-controlledparts of the North andEast.

West Java Province. Urban: Harapan Jaya(Bekasi District); Pegambiran (CirebonDistrict). Rural: Galih Pakuwon (GarutDistrict); Padamukti (Bandung District). Central Java. Urban: Semanggi (SurakartaDistrict). Rural: Genengsari (GroboganDistrict). East Java. Urban: Tanjungrejo(Malang District). Rural: Banaran(Ponorogo District). Nusa Tenggara Barat.Urban: Ampenan Utara (MataramDistrict). Nusa Tenggara Timur. Semi-Urban: Kawangu (Sumba Timur District).Rural: Renggarasi (Sikka District);Waikanabu (Sumba Timur District).


Rural: Aswedduma (Kurunegala District);Elhena/Ganegoda (Gampaha District);Ihalagama (Anuradhapura District);Kagama/Katiyawa (AnuradhapuraDistrict); Kehelpannala (Kegalle District);Kohombana (Ampara District);Kotiyagoda (Moneragala District);Mahanagapura (Hambantota District);Meegahagoda (Galle District);Munamalgasvewa (Puttalam District);Samalankulam (Vauniya District);Thrikadallur (Trincomalee District);Udayatharakai (Jaffna District); Vellur(Trincomalee District); Viyalagoda(Ratnapura District); Weerapandiyana(Puttalam District). Semi-urban/Coastal:Sisilasagama (Hambantota District);Thiruneetukerny (Batticaloa District);Wewala (Galle District).

19 Sites



Thailand

Vietnam

305

Sites were selected based oneconomic, geographic andsociological indicators,poverty levels and the exis-tence of government pro-jects for helping the poor.

Study sites were chosen tocapture the views of poorhouseholds in a range ofcircumstances, which in-cluded: an ethnic minorityupland area (Lao Cai), apoor coastal area (HaTinh), poor communes inthe Mekong Delta (TraVinh) and poor communi-ties in Vietnam’s biggestcity (Ho Chi Minh City).

Bangkok and vicinity. Urban:Ruamsamakee. Rural: Nakorn Patom(Bang-auh Village, Bangsen District).Central Region. Rural: Baan Kang Sadao(Wang Namyen District); Baan Ta PakChee (Khao Chakan District). SouthernRegion. Urban: Kaoseng. Rural: BaanChai Pru (Pak Payoon District).Northeastern Region. Rural: Baan PakWan (Ban Pai District).


Ho Chi Minh City: Binh Thanh District;District 6; District 8. Ha Tinh Province:Cam Xuyen District; Can Loc District; HaTinh District; Huong Son District; Ky AnhDistrict; Thach Ha District. Tra VinhProvince: Chau Thanh District; Duyen HaiDistrict. Lao Cai Province: Bao ThangDistrict; Muong Khuong District.

40 Sites were visited in the districts indi-cated above, A minimum of 180Discussion Groups took part in the study.



Appendix 3. Overview of Study Themes and Methods

The study is organized around four main themes. Each theme is briefly explained

below and is followed by a matrix that provides a checklist of study issues and methods for

fieldwork. This is based on the Methodology Guide that was used by the local research teams.

The full document reviews the principal methods used in the study and is available on the

Voices of the Poor Web Site at http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/voices.

Exploring Wellbeing

The concept of wellbeing is broader than poverty. Researchers were asked to explore

the concept of wellbeing, particularly to understand poor people’s definition of wellbeing, the

kinds of factors they include in their definitions of wellbeing, and their understanding of the

concepts of vulnerability, risk and social exclusion. Three broad questions are explored:

a. How do people define wellbeing or a good quality of life and illbeing or a bad qual-

ity of life?

b. How do people perceive security, risk, vulnerability, opportunities, social exclusion,

and crime and conflict? How have these changed over time?

c. How do households and individuals cope with decline in wellbeing and how do

these coping strategies in turn affect their lives?

Priorities of the Poor

This study aims to explore poor people’s perceptions of their problems and concerns

along with their prioritization. Issues include:

a. What problems are faced by the different groups (according to age, gender, social

hierarchy and economic wellbeing) within the community? What problems are faced

by the poor?

b. How do the different groups prioritize their problems in terms of the most pressing

needs?

c. Have these problems changed over the years or have they remained the same? What

are people’s hopes and fears for the future?

Institutional Analysis

The purpose is to understand the role that different institutions play in different as-

pects of people’s lives. Issues include:

a. Which institutions are important in poor people’s lives?

b. How do people rate or assess these institutions?

c. Do people feel that they have any control or influence over these institutions?

d. Which institutions support people in coping with crisis?

306


Gender Relations

This thematic focus attempts to understand whether there have been any changes in

gender relations within the household and the community. Specific issues include:

a. What are the existing gender relations within the household? Are women better or

worse off today (1) as compared to the past and (2) as compared to men?

b. What are the existing gender relations within the community? Are women better or

worse off today (1) as compared to the past and (2) as compared to men?

c. Are there differences in gender relations among different groups within the com-

munity?

Methods Used to Explore Study Themes

A mix of participatory verbal and visual techniques were used to facilitate group dis-

cussions and interviews with the community members. The Methodology Guide provides de-

tailed explanations of the tools as well as illustrative examples of how they can be used.

Table A3.1 (which draws from pages 9–15 of the Methodology Guide) lists the methods and

topics used to facilitate discussion and analysis by the study participants.

307

1. EXPLORING WELLBEING

Methods: small group discussions, wellbeing ranking, scoring, cause-impact analysis,

trend analysis, in-depth interviews with individuals or households.

1.1 How do people define wellbeing or a good quality of life and illbeing or a bad

quality of life?

4 Local definitions of wellbeing, deprivation, illbeing, vulnerability and

poverty. Since these terms do not translate easily in local languages, it is

better to start by asking the local people for their own terminology and

definitions that explain quality of life. Local terminology and definitions

must be included in the analysis. Different groups within the same commu-

nity could be using different terms or phrases for the same subject. All

these need to be recorded.

4 A listing of criteria on the basis of which households or individuals are

differentiated and placed in different categories.

Table A3.1 Checklist of Issues and Methods

THEMES AND ISSUES


308

4 Different wellbeing groups/categories of households/individuals, as identified

by the local people. Allow the community to come up with their own cate-

gories. Do not impose ideas. There is no fixed number of categories that a

community can come up with. Usually these vary between three to six cate-

gories, but there could be more. Characteristics (or criteria) of individuals/

households in each of these categories should be clearly recorded.

4 Proportion of households/individuals in each of these categories. This could

be exact numbers or indicative scores (out of 100, or any predetermined

fixed maximum score). This will give an idea about the proportion of poor

or deprived people in a community.

1.2 How do people perceive security, risk, vulnerability, opportunities, social

exclusion and crime and conflict? How have these changed over time?

Having discussed people’s definition of wellbeing and poverty/illbeing, explore the

following themes:

4 Risk, security and vulnerability

4 Opportunities and social and economic mobility

4 Social exclusion

4 Social cohesion, crime, conflict and tension

The following themes and issues need to be explored in depth to understand the

different aspects of wellbeing:

a. Risk, security and vulnerability

4 Does security or insecurity figure in people’s definition of wellbeing?

4 How do people define security?

4 Are some households secure and others insecure? How do they differentiate

between the two?

4 What makes households insecure or at greater risk?

4 Has insecurity increased or decreased? Why?

4 What are the main kinds of shocks that people have faced?

4 Are some individuals/households more insecure than others in the same

community?

4 Are some people better able to cope with sudden shocks to sources of liveli-

hoods? Why and how?

THEMES AND ISSUES


309

b. Opportunities, social and economic mobility

4 Do people feel that opportunities for economic and social mobility have

increased? Decreased? Why and for whom?

4 What are the consequences of these changes?

4 Who or which group(s) has benefited the most? Which groups have been

unable to take advantage of opportunities or have been negatively affected?

Why?

4 Is it possible for people to move out of poverty?

4 What is needed to enable people to move out of poverty?

4 What needs to change for the poor to have greater economic and social

opportunities? Is this likely?

c. Social exclusion

4 Are some people/groups left out of society, or looked down upon or exclud-

ed from active participation in community life or decisionmaking?

4 Who gets left out, and on what basis? Why?

4 What is the impact of such exclusion or being left out?

4 Is it possible for those excluded to ever become included?

4 What determines the likelihood of this change?

4 Are there differences in power between those included and excluded?

4 What makes some people powerful and others not?

d. Social cohesion, crime, conflict

4 How do people define social cohesion?

4 Is there more or less of social unity and sense of belonging than before?

Why?

4 Is there more or less crime and conflict than in the past, or has it stayed the

same? Why?

4 Are there conflicts between groups in the community? Which groups? Why?

4 Have intergroup conflicts increased or decreased? Why? How?

4 Does anyone benefit from the increased violence? Can the situation be

changed? How?

THEMES AND ISSUES


310

1.3 How do households and individuals cope with decline in wellbeing and how do

these coping strategies in turn affect their lives?

4 Whether there have been any changes in the number and types of wellbeing

categories, and/or whether the proportion of people/households in each of

them has increased/decreased over the last 10 years.

4 Whether the criteria for determining the categories have changed over the

years.

4 What has changed? What caused the changes? How has it affected the lives

of the people? Have people become better or worse off? Is there a “typology

of deprivation”—sudden, seasonal, structural, cyclic, chronic?

4 How have people coped with these changes?

4 Are there any foreseeable changes in the future? What and how?

1.4 Individual case studies

In-depth discussion/interviews with

4One poor woman.

4One poor man.

4One woman and/or man who has fallen into poverty.

4One woman and/or man who used to be poor but has moved out of poverty.

2. PROBLEMS AND PRIORITIES

Methods: small group discussions; ranking, scoring, listing, trend analysis.

2.1 Listing of problems faced by the different groups within the community, and

their prioritization.

2.2 Are there differences in problems and priorities being experienced by different

groups of people within the community (e.g., according to age, gender, social

hierarchy and economic wellbeing)? Identify the problems faced by the poor.

2.3 Have these problems changed over the years or have they remained the same?

What are poor people’s hopes and fears (visions) for the future?

THEMES AND ISSUES


311

2.4 Which of these problems do they think they can solve themselves and which re-

quire external support?

3. INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

Methods: small group discussions, listing, scoring, ranking and two mini-institutional

profiles.

3.1 Which institutions are important in poor people’s lives?

a. What are the most important formal, informal, government, nongovernment

and market institutions within or outside the community that affect poor

people’s lives positively or negatively? Why are these judged to be impor-

tant? Are there any gender differences?

b. Which government and nongovernment institutions have the most positive

or negative impact on men and women? Why? Give examples of poor

people’s experiences. Are there any gender differences?

3.2 How do people rate these institutions?

a. How do poor people rate these institutions in terms of trust and confidence

that they place on them? Why? Give examples of why people rate particular

institutions high or low. Are there any gender differences?

b. How do they rate the effectiveness of these institutions? What factors do

they consider to judge effectiveness? Give examples. Are there any gender

differences? Explain.

3.3 Do poor people feel that have any control or influence over these institutions?

a. Which institutions do poor people think they have some influence over?

b. Which institutions would they like to have more control and influence

over?

c. Do some people/groups have some influence over these institutions and

others are left out? Who gets left out?

d. Profile two institutions in some depth.

THEMES AND ISSUES


312

3.4 Coping with crisis

This issue deals with understanding safety nets, informal or formal insurance,

or availability and outreach of government programs.

a. During times of financial/economic crisis, because of loss of property, jobs,

or livelihood, poor crops, disease, environmental crisis, or poor health or

death, how do poor people cope? What do they do? How do these affect

their lives?

b. What institutions, formal or informal, do poor people turn to during times

of financial crisis?

c. Do they mention any government programs? Give details.

d. Are these programs reaching them?

e. What are their recommendations for change or improvement or for new

programs if none exist?

f. What features should this program have?

g. Do they mention any NGO programs?

h. Do they mention any informal social networks?

i. Are there any gender differences?

j. If almost everyone in the community is affected by some event (e.g., floods,

droughts or earthquakes), how does the community cope?

4. GENDER RELATIONS

Methods: small group discussions; scoring and trend analysis.

4.1 Are poor women better off today as compared to the past?

Are there any changes in

a. Women’s and men’s responsibilities within the household? Why?

b. Women’s and men’s responsibilities in the community? Why?

c. Women’s and men’s role in the decisionmaking process within the household?

Why?

d. Women’s and men’s role in the decisionmaking process in the community?

Why?

e. Violence against women within the household? Why?

f. Violence against women within the community? Why?

g. Do women feel they have more/less power

today (with their definition of power)? Why?

THEMES AND ISSUES


313

4.2 Are there differences in gender relations among different groups within the

community?

a. Are some women better off than other women in the same community

(with their definition of better off)?

b. Have the changes in gender relations been different for different groups of

women in the community?

THEMES AND ISSUES


Appendix 4. About the Authors

Deepa Narayan is the Lead Social Development Specialist for the World

Bank’s Poverty Group in the Poverty Reduction and Economic Development

Network. She has spent 25 years working on poverty policies, research and pro-

grams. She has lived in communities in Africa, South Asia and East Asia working

with civil society, national governments and international organizations. She has

written extensively on participatory development, community-driven development

and social capital. Her recent publications include Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone

Hear Us?; Bonds and Bridges: Poverty and Social Capital; Participatory

Development Toolkit; and Design of Community Based Development.

Robert Chambers is a Research Associate of the Institute of Development

Studies at the University of Sussex, United Kingdom. Much of his practical and

research experience outside the United Kingdom has been in East Africa and South

Asia. His books include Managing Rural Development: Ideas and Experience from

East Africa, Rural Development: Putting the Last First, Challenging the Professions,

and Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. His main current work is on the

development and spread of participatory approaches, behaviors and methods, and

on perceptions of poverty, illbeing and wellbeing.

Meera K. Shah is a development consultant and trainer. She is involved in

developing and promoting participatory approaches and processes in natural

resources management, local institutional development, postconflict and disaster

rehabilitation, policy research and advocacy, gender analysis, and monitoring and

evaluation. Previously she worked with the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme

(AKRSP), India, where she helped pioneer, with others, participatory rural appraisal

methodology. Shah has co-edited The Myth of Community: Gender Issues in

Participatory Development and Embracing Participation in Development: Wisdom

From the Field; and authored Listening to Young Voices: Facilitating Participatory

Appraisals on Reproductive Health with Adolescents.

Patti Petesch freelances for foundations, think tanks, NGOs and international

development organizations. She has published studies and conducted evaluations on

aid effectiveness and coordination, the poverty and environment nexus, civil society

participation, and NGO campaigns to reform the international financial institutions.

Petesch was previously a staff associate at the Overseas Development Council with

responsibilities for research and outreach on environmental and poverty issues. She

is the author of North-South Environmental Strategies, Costs and Bargains and co-

author of Sustaining the Earth: The Role of Multilateral Development Institutions.

314


Documents

APPENDICES - World Banksiteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVERTY/Resources/335642-1124115102975/... · Yulian Konstantinov, and also included Kristina Andonova, Gyulbie Dalova, Vera