Journal of Social Economics Research

Published by: Conscientia Beam
Online ISSN: 2312-6264
Print ISSN: 2312-6329
Quick Submission    Login/Submit/Track

No. 6

Fiscal Decentralization and Poverty Reduction: Citizens View

Pages: 118-128
Find References

Finding References


Fiscal Decentralization and Poverty Reduction: Citizens View

Search :
Google Scholor
Search :
Microsoft Academic Search
Cite

Citation: 2

Edem Maxwell Azila-Gbettor , Harrison Paul Adjimah , Serlom Kwame Tibu

Export to    BibTeX   |   EndNote   |   RIS

  1. Ahmad, E. and G. Brosio, 2006. Handbook of fiscal federalism. New York: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  2. Appiah, K., L. Demery and G. Laryea-Adjei, 2000. Poverty in a changing environment. In Aryeetey, E., J. Harrigan, and M. Nissanke, (eds) Economic reforms in Ghana: The miracle and the mirage. Oxford: James Currey.
  3. Aryeetey, E., G. Owusu and E.J. Mensah, 2009. An analysis of poverty and regional inequalities in Ghana, GDN Working Paper Series 27, Washington/New Dehli: GDN.
  4. Asfaw, A., 2007. Fiscal decentralization and infant mortality: Empirical evidence from rural India. The Journal of Developing Areas, 41(1): 17-35.
  5. Ayee, J.R.A., 2000. Decentralization and good governance in Ghana, Unpublished Paper of May 2000 Prepared for the Canadian High Commission, Accra, Ghana.
  6. Blair, H., 2000. Participation and accountability at the periphery: Democratic local governance in six countries. World Development, 28(1): 21–39.
  7. Boex, J. and P. Tidemand, 2008. Intergovernmental funding flows and local budget execution in Tanzania. Royal Netherlands Embassy, Dar es Salaam.
  8. Bossuyt, J., 2000. Decentralization and poverty reduction: Elaborating the linkages, ECDPM policy management brief No. 12. Maastricht: ECDPM.
  9. Bossuyt, J. and J. Gould, 2000. Decentralisation and poverty reduction: Elaborating the linkages, policy management brief No. 12. Maastricht: ECDPM.
  10. Braathen, E., 2008. Decentralization and poverty reduction: A review of the linkages in Tanzania and the international literature. Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) Report 22b Discussion.
  11. Crawford, G., 2008. Decentralization and the limits to poverty reduction: Findings from Ghana. Oxford Development Studies, 36(2): 235-258.
  12. Crawford, G. and C. Hartmann, 2008. Decentralisation in Africa: A pathway out of poverty and conflict? Norad Report 22b and Discussion, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation. Oslo, Norway.
  13. Crook, R. and J. Manor, 1998. Democracy and decentralization in South-East Asia and West Africa: participation, accountability and performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Crook, R. and A. Sverrisson, 2001. Decentralization and poverty-alleviation in developing countries: A comparative analysis or, Is West Bengal unique? IDS Working Paper 130. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.
  15. Crook, R.C., 2003. Decentralisation and poverty reduction in Africa: The politics of local-central relations. Public Administration and Development, 23(1): 77-88.
  16. Falletti, T.G., 2005. A Sequential theory of decentralization: Latin American cases in comparative. Journal of American Political Science Review, 99(22): 326-346.
  17. Francis, P. and R. James, 2003. Balancing rural poverty reduction and citizen participation: The contradictions of Uganda’s decentralization program. World Bank.
  18. Fynn, K., 2011. District assemblies common fund. Joint decentralization review mission, Ministry of local government/EU delegation to Ghana.Washington, D.C: World Bank.
  19. Ghana Statistical Service (GSS), 2007. Pattern and trends of poverty in Ghana 1991-2006. Accra: GSS.
  20. Ghana Statistical Service (GSS), 2013. Non-monetary poverty in Ghana. Accra: GSS.
  21. GoG/NDPC, 2002. Ghana poverty reduction strategy (GPRSI), 2001-2003. Accra: NDPC.
  22. GoG/NDPC, 2010. Medium-term national development policy framework. Ghana shared growth development Agenda (GSGDA), 2010-2013. Accra: NDPC.
  23. Green, J. and N. Thorogood, 2004. Qualitative methods for health research. London: Sage.
  24. GSS, 2007. Pattern and trends of poverty in Ghana 1991-2006. Accra: GSS.
  25. Jette, C., 2005. Democratic decentralization and poverty reduction: The bolivian case. UNDP Opinion Paper, Oslo Governance Centre.
  26. Jutting, J., E. Corsi, C. Kaufmann, I. McDonnell, H. Osterrieder, N. Pinaud and L. Wegner, 2005. What makes decentralisation in developing countries pro- poor? European Journal of Development Research, 17(4): 626-648.
  27. Jutting, J., E. Corsi, C. Kaufmann, I. McDonnell, H. Osterrieder, N. Pinaud and L. Wegner, 2005. What makes decentralisation in developing countries pro- poor? European Journal of Development Research, 17(4): 626-648.
  28. Jutting, J., C. Kaufmann, I. McDonnell, H. Osterrieder, N. Pinaud and L. Wegner, 2004. Decentralisation and poverty reduction in developing countries: Exploring the impact, OECD development centre Working Paper No. 236. Paris: OECD.
  29. Kanbur, R. and P. Shaffer, 2006. . Epistemology, normative theory and poverty analysis: Implications for q-squared in practice. Working Paper 2006, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
  30. Kiggundu, M.N., 2000. Decentralization. In Mukandala, R. (ed), African public administration. Harare: African Association of Political Science.
  31. Krueger, R.A., 1988. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. UK: Sage.
  32. Levy, P.S. and S. Lemeshow, 2008. Sampling of populations: Methods and applications. New York: Wiley & Sons.
  33. Manor, J., 1999. The political economy of democratic decentralization. Washington D.C: World Bank.
  34. Maxwell, S., 1999. The meaning and measurement of poverty. London: Overseas Development Institute Poverty Brie?ngs.
  35. McDonagh-Philp, D. and A. Bruseberg, 2000. The use of focus groups in design research: A literature review. In: Scrivener, S. A. R., L.T. Ball, and A. Woodcock (eds.), Co-designing 2000.  Coventry: Adjunct Proceedings. pp: 47-52.
  36. Moore, M. and J. Putzel, 1999. Thinking strategically about politics and poverty, IDS Working Paper No. 101.
  37. Morgan, D.L., 1988. Focus group as qualitative research. UK: Sage.
  38. Moser, C., 2004. Rights, power, and poverty reduction. In Alsop, R., (ed.) Power, rights and poverty: Concepts and connections. Washington DC: World Bank.
  39. Nolan, B. and C.T. Whelan, 2010. Using non-monetary deprivation indicators to analyse poverty and social exclusion: Lessons from Europe? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(2): 305-325.
  40. Oates, W.E., 1999. An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(3): 1120-1149.
  41. Osei-Akoto, I., R.D. Osei, W. Quarmine and G.A.N. Adiah, 2007. Public spending at the district level in Ghana. Ghana strategy support program (GSSP) Background Paper No. GSSP 0008
  42. Owusu, G. and P.W.K. Yankson, 2007. Poverty in Ghana is basically a rural phenomenon: Are we underestimating urban poverty. Ghana Journal of Development Studies, 4(1): 87-105.
  43. Psacharopoulos, G., 1991. The economic impact of education: Lessons for policy makers. California: ICS Press.
  44. Republic of Ghana, 1993. Ghana, republic of  the district assemblies common fund act, (Act 255).
  45. Rondinelli, D.A., 1981. Government decentralization in comparative perspective: Theory and practice in developing countries.Types of decentralization. International Review of Administration Science, 47(2): 133 - 145.
  46. Scheaffer, R.L., W. Mendenhall and L. Ott, 2006. Elementary survey sampling. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.
  47. Semidei, C., M.V.R. De Wickzen and T.V. Van Zanten, 1996. Analysis of decentralization in the health sector of paraguay at the departmental level, Technical Report No.3, Partnerships for Health Reform, Bethesda, Maryland.
  48. Sen, A., 1999. Development as freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
  49. Skira, M., 2006. Fiscal decentralization and poverty, department of economics summer internship program. Andrew young school of policy studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia.
  50. Steiner, S., 2007. Decentralisation and poverty: Conceptual framework and application to Uganda. Public Administration and Development, 27(2): 175-185.
  51. Stewart, D.W. and P.N. Shamdasani, 1990. Focus groups: Theory and practices. UK: Sage.
  52. Todaro, P.M. and S.C. Smith, 2009. Economic development Harlow: Pearson Education.
  53. Twum-Baah, K.A., 2000. Poverty reduction and social rights. Accra: Ghana Statistical Service.
  54. UN-Habitat, 2009. Urban indicators guidelines: Monitoring the habitat Agenda and the millennium development goals- slums target. Nairobi: Un-Habitat.
  55. VanZyl, J., T. Barbosa, A. Parker and L. Sonn, 1995. Decentralized rural development and enhanced community participation: A case-study from Northeast Brazil, policy research Working Paper, No. 1498, Agriculture and Natural Resources Department, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
  56. Vedeld, T., 2003. Democratic decentralisation and poverty reduction: Exploring the linkages. Forum for Development Studies, 30(2): 159-204.
  57. Von Braun, J. and U. Grote, 2002. Does decentralization serve the poor? In Ahmad, E. and V. Tanzi,  (ed.) Managing fiscal decentralization. London: Routledge
  58. Wolman, H., 1990. Decentralization: What it is and why should we care.  In Bennet, R.J., 1990. Decentralization: Local governments and markets. London: Clarendon Press.
  59. World Bank, 2001. World development report: Attacking poverty. Washington, DC: World Bank.
No any video found for this article.
Edem Maxwell Azila-Gbettor , Harrison Paul Adjimah , Serlom Kwame Tibu (2014). Fiscal Decentralization and Poverty Reduction: Citizens View. Journal of Social Economics Research, 1(6): 118-128. DOI:
This study intends to corroborate the positive theoretical relationship between fiscal decentralization and poverty reduction (Crook and Manor, 1998; Moore and Putzel, 1999; World Bank, 2001) base on non-monetary measurement. A qualitative research method was applied for the study. Focus group discussions was conducted using one-hundred and thirty (130) stakeholders in the community divided into five (5) area councils. The study revealed participants clear understanding of poverty. There was however, a limited support from the findings on the theoretical construct on the positive relation between fiscal decentralization and poverty reduction using non-monetary measurement. It was therefore recommended authorities must tackle both economic and social dimensions in any policy definition in order to achieve success at poverty reduction.
Contribution/ Originality

The Sustainable Livelihoods Index: A Tool To Assess the Ability and Preparedness of the Rural Poor in Receiving Entrepreneurial Project

Pages: 108-117
Find References

Finding References


The Sustainable Livelihoods Index: A Tool To Assess the Ability and Preparedness of the Rural Poor in Receiving Entrepreneurial Project

Search :
Google Scholor
Search :
Microsoft Academic Search
Cite

Citation: 8

Roslina Kamaruddin , Shamzaeffa Samsudin

Export to    BibTeX   |   EndNote   |   RIS

  1. Ashley, C. and D. Carney, 1999. Lessons from early experience. London: DFID.
  2. Bebbington, A., 1999. Capital and capabilities: A framework for analysing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Development, 27(12): 2021-2044.
  3. Brocklesby, M.A. and E.E. Fisher, 2003. Community development in sustainable livelihoods approaches: An introduction. Oxford University Press and Community Development Journal, 38(3): 185-198.
  4. Carney, D., 1998. Implementing the sustainable rural livelihoods approach. In D. Carney, (Ed)., Sustainable rural livelihoods: What contribution can we make? London: DFID.
  5. Chambers, R. and G.G. Conway, 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st Century. IDS Discussion Paper No. 296, IDS, Brighton, UK.
  6. Chamhuri, S., 2009. Poverty eradication and inequality distribution of income. In Nor Aini Hj. Idris & Ishak Yussof (Eds.). Malaysian economy: Towards balanced development. Bangi: National University of Malaysia.
  7. Department for International Development (DFID), 1999. Sustainable rural livelihoods guidance sheets. London: Department for International Development.
  8. EPU, 2006. Ninth Malaysia plan 2006-2010. Malaysia: Prime Minister`s Department, Putrajaya.
  9. EPU (Economic Planning Unit) Malaysia, 2010. Tenth Malaysia plan 2011-2015. Malaysia: Prime Minister`s Department, Putrajaya.
  10. Hahn, M.B., M.R.M.R. Anne and O.F.O.F. Stanley, 2009. The livelihood vulnerability index: A  pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change, a case study in Mozambique. Centreer for Sustainability and the Global Environment, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
  11. IISD, 2013. What is sustainable development? Environmental, Economic and Social Well-Being for Today and Tomorrow. Available from http://www.iisd.org/sd/ [Accessed August 20, 2013].
  12. Lindenberg, M., 2002. Measuring household livelihood security at the family and community level in the developing world. World Development, 30(2): 301-318.
  13. Rai, S.D., M.S. Sharma, M.S. Prachi and P.K.P.K. Malhotra, 2008. Development of livelihood index for different agro-climatic zones of iIndia. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 21(July-December): 173-182.
  14. Sanzidur, R. and A.A. Shaheen, 2010. Determinants of livelihood security in poor settlements in Bbangladesh. International Working Paper Series, Paper No. 10/01.
  15. Scoones, I., 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper No. 72, IDS: Brighton UK.
  16. Zulkarnain, A.H. and A.A. Isahaque, 2013. Poverty reduction policies in Malaysia: Trends, strategies and challenges. Asian Culture and History, 5(2): 48-56.
No any video found for this article.
Roslina Kamaruddin , Shamzaeffa Samsudin (2014). The Sustainable Livelihoods Index: A Tool To Assess the Ability and Preparedness of the Rural Poor in Receiving Entrepreneurial Project. Journal of Social Economics Research, 1(6): 108-117. DOI:
This paper describes the Sustainable Livelihoods Index (SLI) as a useful tool in assessing the livelihood elements of the rural poor households. Income data alone may not fully reflect the suitability of the hardcore poor in receiving government assistance in the form of entrepreneurial projects. In this case rendered projects do not take into account the ability and preparedness of the poor in receiving the projects. The main objective of this study is to measure comprehensively all the livelihood elements of the rural poor households through developing a Sustainable Livelihood Index (SLI). This index was based on Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) framework. A total of 22 livelihood assets and outcomes indicators were identified from the data set and broadly grouped into five groups of assets namely human, physical, natural, social, financial assets and 2 groups of livelihoods outcomes which are food security and health status. Then, an aggregate SLI for each household was constructed by averaging all the seven groups of livelihood assets and outcomes indices with an equal weight. Overall, about 73% of considered households were attained an SLI below than 0.5, with a mean of 0.47. With regard to household income that has been used as a poverty measurement, the study found that the Sustainable Livelihood Index (SLI) was moved in tandem with the total of household income. There are 90.91% of the households in hardcore poor group were obtained SLI below 0.5 indicating that households with a low income will also have a low SLI. Although income and SLI were moved in the same direction, this paper suggests the use of SLI as a more analytically rigorous tool to assess the ability and preparedness of the rural poor than the regular use of household income level alone.  Besides it may help the local authorities to broaden their scope in a manageable way as to ensure the sustainability of a given project.  
Contribution/ Originality