Enabling poor rural people
to overcome poverty
The main lesson to be learned from the case studies is that development initiatives and projects need to take into account the variations in the constraints, perceptions and priorities of different communities and in the various social groups within them. The assumptions and generalizations made by planners concerning the development options they consider feasible for the area or region to which these communities belong often do not reflect these variations. The variations can have a major impact in terms of who will benefit and how they will benefit and about who may actually be harmed by certain externally induced development initiatives. For the purpose of project design, the feasibility of technical development options must be assessed through focused and participatory research – both technical and socio-anthropological – in sample communities.
More specifically, the study highlights the need to analyse and address the actual roles of women in production and decision-making. These roles are important even when they are not recognized or are not visible (as is often the case in conservative societies). The case studies provide further evidence that women’s involvement in production and, above all, decision-making is greater in traditional subsistence societies than it is in those societies that are more exposed to the market economy, although, informally, women in both cases influence decisions affecting the survival and well-being of the household. In all cases, decision-making patterns within the household are complex and do not, in fact, correspond to the formal and socially defined gender division of labour. Moreover, they vary from one community to another. Even the mobility of women, which is usually limited in certain Muslim societies where the principle of women’s ‘modesty’ is strongly upheld, can vary from place to place and from time to time, mainly for reasons of survival and subsistence, but also for ethnic and sociocultural reasons.
It is necessary to recognize that, in subsistence economies, the dynamics of economic, social and cultural change differ from the corresponding dynamics in more monetized or cash-crop-oriented societies. In communities undergoing a process of change, the logic behind both sets of dynamics are present and must be recognized when ‘modernization’ is introduced, as must also the importance of traditional social networks and values, especially in prevalently subsistence economies. It is clear that, in the development of programmes and in project design, multiple options must be offered to poor communities that tend to rely on a variety of survival strategies so as to reduce risk.
As the case studies show, the differences in perceptions between communities and planners regarding the causes of and solutions to environmental degradation can be very great. In order to achieve people’s participation in environmental protection, it is therefore essential to involve people in the analysis of causes and solutions and to build on their knowledge. The possible impact of environmental protection measures conceived by planners on poorer communities and social groups, especially those facing labour constraints, need to be assessed.
The case studies also provide evidence of the risks involved when organizational structures are imposed from the outside and of how, unless special efforts are made, frequently only the richer sections of the communities manage to take advantage of modern organizations such as cooperatives and range users associations. Finally, the research illustrates the importance of organizing people’s participation and reducing overdependency on the state in order to promote sustainable and equitable development.