[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qeh/qehwps/qehwps62.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Participatory Methods in the Analysis of Poverty: A Critical Review

Author

Listed:
  • Caterina Ruggeri Laderchi
Abstract
This paper reviews and analyses the literature on participatory methods in poverty analysis. The popularity of participatory poverty assessments has greatly increased in the last decade, and a growing number of development agents is adopting some form of participatory methodology. This spread however seems to be possible even without a shared understanding of what participation stands for. This paper starts by introducing the broad lines of the debate on participation, before focusing more specifically on participatory methods in poverty analysis. After having discussed the tools as well as the insights they provide, some recent evidence comparing participatory and non-participatory methods is presented. Such literature allow to highlight both the strengths and the weaknesses of participatory assessments, as well as opening the way for new approaches integrating elements of both. In the last analysis, however, the challenge to the non-extractive nature of the methodology, posed by the transposition of participatory techniques from the project context in which they were developed to the policy one, remains serious and poses questions on what 'listening to the voices of the poor' means.

Suggested Citation

  • Caterina Ruggeri Laderchi, "undated". "Participatory Methods in the Analysis of Poverty: A Critical Review," QEH Working Papers qehwps62, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
    • Handle: RePEc:qeh:qehwps:qehwps62
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://workingpapers.qeh.ox.ac.uk/RePEc/qeh/qehwps/qehwps62.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sarah White & Jethro Pettit, 2004. "Participatory Approaches and the Measurement of Human Well-being," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2004-57, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    2. Widjajanti Suhayo & Akhmadi & Hastuti & Rizky Filaili & Sri Budiati & Wawan Munawar, 2005. "Developing a Poverty Map for Indonesia (A Tool for Better Targeting in Poverty Reduction and Social Protection Programs)," Development Economics Working Papers 22541, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    3. Ginette Azcona, 2009. "Migration in Participatory Poverty Assessments: A Review," Human Development Research Papers (2009 to present) HDRP-2009-56, Human Development Report Office (HDRO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), revised Oct 2009.
    4. Laura Camfield & Gina Crivello & Martin Woodhead, 2009. "Wellbeing Research in Developing Countries: Reviewing the Role of Qualitative Methods," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 90(1), pages 5-31, January.
    5. Palash Kamruzzaman, 2013. "Civil society or ‘comprador class’, participation or parroting?," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 13(1), pages 31-49, January.
    6. Chowdhury, Tamgid Ahmed & Mukhopadhaya, Pundarik, 2012. "Assessment of multidimensional poverty and effectiveness of microfinance-driven government and NGO projects in the rural Bangladesh," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 500-512.
    7. Palash Kamruzzaman, 2020. "Exploring the Nexus Between Participation and Empowerment," Journal of Development Policy and Practice, , vol. 5(1), pages 32-53, January.
    8. Paul Shaffer, 2008. "New Thinking on Poverty: Implications for Globalisation and Poverty Reduction Strategies," Working Papers 65, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs.
    9. Caterina Ruggeri Laderchi & Ruhi Saith & Frances Stewart, 2003. "Does it Matter that we do not Agree on the Definition of Poverty? A Comparison of Four Approaches," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 243-274.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:qeh:qehwps:qehwps62. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: IT Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/qehoxuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.