Educating out of Poverty? A Synthesis Report on Ghana, India ... - DfID

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Box 3.1: Country Definitions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Poverty</strong> Chapter 3: <strong>Poverty</strong>, Skills and Development <strong>Poverty</strong> Assessment exercises in Rwanda and Tanzania revealed very interesting and highly nuanced local definitions <strong>of</strong> poverty. In Rwanda the Participatory <strong>Poverty</strong> Assessment conducted in 1999 divided households into 6 categories: – Umutindi nyakujya – those in abject poverty – Umutindi – the very poor – Umukene – the poor – Umukene wifasgije – the resourceful poor – Umukungu – the food rich – Umukire – the money rich For each <strong>of</strong> these categories particular characteristics are observed. These view poverty primarily in relation to economic and social factors – access to land and livestock, considered to be the main assets <strong>of</strong> households, access to paid employment, and access to education and healthcare. These definitions imply that access to social services is determined by a household’s economic status above all else. In Tanzania, two terms are used to define poverty: – Umaskini, which has a broad meaning, going well beyond financial poverty to imply a lack <strong>of</strong> ability to utilise resources as well as a sense <strong>of</strong> being unfortunate and deserving pity. – Ufukara refers more specifically to lack <strong>of</strong> income, or lack <strong>of</strong> basic needs, but is less commonly used than umaskini. Poor people are generally characterised by communities as those who can only afford to eat once a day, have few or no possessions, cannot afford health services and are <strong>of</strong>ten sick (Narayan, 1997). However, we need to recognise that how the international community conceive <strong>of</strong> poverty may be a long way away from how people actually think <strong>of</strong> themselves. For instance, Malawi may be classified by <strong>of</strong>ficial figures as a country where 65% <strong>of</strong> the population <strong>of</strong> some 14 million are beneath the poverty line, and Kenya has been analysed as having 53% <strong>of</strong> its rural and 50% <strong>of</strong> its urban populations under the Kenyan statistical <strong>of</strong>fice definition <strong>of</strong> poverty (GoK/Central Bureau <strong>of</strong> Statistics, 2005). But whether those who have been determined as poor think <strong>of</strong> themselves as such is an entirely different question. 21 For instance, the term ‘chronic poverty’ has been applied to a series <strong>of</strong> research initiatives supported by DFID. One <strong>of</strong> these has been located in Kenya, and yet for a very large number <strong>of</strong> Kenyans, the very notion <strong>of</strong> ‘chronic poverty’, or long-term, almost inescapable poverty, is not socially acceptable. There is a very powerful popular tradition <strong>of</strong> believing that “poverty does not have deep roots” and that therefore “wealth creation is in everyone’s hands”. 21 The World Bank Voices <strong>of</strong> the Poor study tries to bring <strong>out</strong> definitions <strong>of</strong> poverty from poor people around the world (see Narayan, Patel, Schafft, Rademacher, Koch-Schulte, 2000; Narayan, Chambers, Shah, Petesch, 2000; Narayan and Petesch, 2002). Arguably, the results are still an external construction <strong>of</strong> in-country poverty levels and gradations. DFID 29
<strong>Educating</strong> <strong>out</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Poverty</strong>? A <strong>Synthesis</strong> <strong>Report</strong> on Ghana, India, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and S<strong>out</strong>h Africa A similar situation prevails in Tanzania where there appears to be a difference in attitude to those classified as ‘poor’ and those classed as ‘very poor’ in the report on the World Bank’s PPA (Narayan, 1997). Whilst the poor are looked on with great sympathy as hardworking folk who remain poor in spite <strong>of</strong> their labours, the very poor are looked down on as those who are poor by choice, stupid fools who rely on others and are not engaged in any productive activity themselves. There is little sympathy for those who simply rely on others for their needs, as expressed by the Kiswahili proverb: “Mtumai cha nduguye hufa hali masikini” (One who relies on his relatives will die poor). The very poor category also tends to include the mentally or physically disabled. PPAs and other surveys have consistently found that people consider poverty to involve much more than simply whether a person has money or not (GoURT/ RAWGPM, 2004). When asked what one needs in order not to be poor, answers included material wellbeing, bodily wellbeing, social wellbeing, security and freedom <strong>of</strong> choice. Research into the views <strong>of</strong> children and y<strong>out</strong>h ab<strong>out</strong> poverty (Massesa, 2004) found that they associated being poor with lack <strong>of</strong> money to buy basic things, lack <strong>of</strong> food, shelter, clothes, medical care, not being able to go to school at all or getting a poor education. Box 3.2 highlights popular perceptions <strong>of</strong> poverty in relation to education and employment. Across the countries studied, similar patterns in the incidence <strong>of</strong> poverty can be observed. The most obvious <strong>of</strong> these is the rural-urban disparity in poverty 22 with a much higher incidence <strong>of</strong> poverty in rural areas in all the countries studied. But the country studies also showed considerable regional differences within countries. For example, in Ghana levels <strong>of</strong> extreme poverty are worst in the rural and urban savannah areas, at 59% and 27% respectively, and in the rural coastal areas (26%). Another similarity is in the high incidence <strong>of</strong> poverty amongst women and agricultural workers. In Tanzania, for example, poverty was more prevalent among femaleheaded households as female heads tended to have less land and less education. However findings also indicated that women were more likely than men to engage in income generating activities such as trading or piecework. In Rwanda, consumption – or income – poverty is highest amongst those households whose main activity is agricultural, with poverty levels higher among those who are reliant on agricultural wage labour than those who are farming on their own account. Indeed, 94.4% <strong>of</strong> the poor fall into this category (GoR/Minec<strong>of</strong>in, 2002: 8). Likewise in Ghana, poverty appears to be “primarily an agricultural phenomenon and largely in the informal sector” (GoG, 2003a: 28), with poverty highest among food crop farmers. 20 In India, the poverty line is actually defined separately for rural and urban areas, and for different states, reflecting differences in purchasing power across the country. 30 DFID
Page 1 and 2: Researching the Issues 2007 70 <str
Page 3 and 4: Educating
Page 49: Educating
Page 101 and 102:
Educating
Page 103 and 104:
Educating
Page 105 and 106:
Educating
Page 107 and 108:
Educating
Page 109 and 110:
Educating
Page 111 and 112:
Educating
Page 113 and 114:
Educating
Page 115 and 116:
Educating
Page 117 and 118:
Educating
Page 119 and 120:
Educating
Page 121 and 122:
Educating
Page 123 and 124:
Educating
Page 125 and 126:
Educating
Page 127 and 128:
Educating
Page 129 and 130:
Educating
Page 131 and 132:
Educating
Page 133 and 134:
Educating
Page 135 and 136:
Educating
Page 137 and 138:
Educating
Page 139 and 140:
Educating
Page 141 and 142:
Educating
Page 143 and 144:
Educating
Page 145 and 146:
Educating
Page 147 and 148:
Educating
Page 149 and 150:
Educating
show all

Educating out of Poverty? A Synthesis Report on Ghana, India ... - DfID

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?