Diachronic Analysis of Poverty - Essay Example

Diachronic Analysis of Poverty Brief Overview of the article. The article explains poverty as the central concept of development. Green(2006) argues that the manner in which poverty is represented and understood is likely to influence the boundaries f development. The article further explains various definitions of poverty by different authors from the 1970s to the 2000s. it also gives the methods of selecting the core definitions osf poverty in the analysis, the results of the findings, conceptualization of poverty in the, 1970s,1980s, 1990s and the millennium, discussions on the conceptualization and the conclusion of the whole article. Summary of the Methods From the 578 documents reviewed in the process of selecting the core definitions of poverty , three broad categories were utilized in the screening of the documents: the main among the had to relate to poverty,secondly,each document had to contain a unique and original definition of poverty, and finaly, the authorship to correspond to the key actors involved that is the researcher, donors, government and NGOs. To uncover the deeper layers of meaning within definitions and changes, the diachronic analysis disaggregated topics, themes and frames within the definitions. Huckin (2002) states that each definition was first dissagregated into basic component parts or topics , once they were identified they were grouped according to their semantic meaning for example topics such as housing, assets and clothes were grouped according material assets or possessions while topics suchs as food, nutrition, and life expectancy were categorized as physical factors. The definitions varied in their length and complexity. Some defitions were formed by a single theme while in more length definitions, the themes were embedded in one another. Main findings and Arguments From the findings, majority of definitions of poverty were sourced in documents written by development agencies and researchers with fewer non- governmental organizations and national government. One of the reason for this as argued by Edwards and Hulme (1992) reveal that governments and NGOs are largely the implementers of development praxis. Secondly, NGOs and government literature often repeated definitions offered by both researchers and donors, this literature was least original and therefore least represented. Gill (1970) argues that NGOs programmes in the past were more independent and did not mirror donor intersts today for example during the 1970s, NGOs were less interested in poverty per se than disaster mitigation and family relief as stated by Gill (1970), Twedt (1998) and Maxwell (2001). The highest number of themes per definition was offered in 1970s. Seers (1971) argues that during that the 1990s the belief that poverty was simply a function of economic disparity began to be challenged. Furthermore, Baulch (2006) explains that during the 1990s with the introduction of the new poverty agenda, poverty regained a central position within development and therefore definitions became richer. The conceptualization analysis reveal seven key themes that recurred across the definition of poverty under the study , in the 1970s the focus was on physical and material factors and economic factors mentioned in the minority of definitions. In 1980s social and economic factors rose. In 1990s, social factors declined and economic facors rose to match those of 1970s. In 2000s the focus of the definitions became poor rather than poverty thus in 2000s the definitions had returned to the descriptive and largely unproblematic concepts of the 1970s. Engagement with counter- perspective to that outlined in the chosen article In the 1970s , physical and material factors comprise 50% of all the themes in the definitions. This shows that poverty is largely described in relation to meeting the most basic level of human existence hence equating poverty to the notion of subsistence. Ravallion (1998) argues that during this decade poverty was measured largely in monetary terms with poverty lines being the main tool todifferentiate between poor and non- poor. In the 1980s there was a shift where two trends were apparent first there was a decrease in describing poverty as a material need and second economic, institutional and political factors rose in prominence while social factors declined. Moyes (1981) states that definitions in this decade focusec not only on the wider causes of poverty, which attributed to the manner in which communities and countries were arranged but also on the historical exploitation that developing countries suffered. In the 1990s, minimum standard of living was a popular feature of the definitions. Further, in the 2000s definitions can be divided into two main groups, first it is influenced by the alternate and participatory paradigms of the 1980s where poverty is portrayed at the individual level utilizing language which enjoins the reader to sympathise with the individual involved. The second group of definitions stressed the complexity of poverty. The two trends reflect what was already apparentin the definitions of the 1990s. These descriptive definitions of poverty in the 2000s may have been impacted by the millennium development goals (MDGs). However, the above findings raise questions regarding to what extend the discourse of poverty adheres to how the poor describe their own poverty. In conclusion, from the analysis it is clear that poverty is a hinderance to development and has an effect in human development and therefore proper measures should be undertaken to curb this menace especially in developing countries. References Baulch, R 2006, “The new Poverty agenda: A Disputed consent, Editorial”, IDS Bulletin, Vol. 37, pp. 82- 90. Edwards, M and Hulme, D 1992, Making a Difference. NGOs and Developmentin changing world, Earthscanpublications, London. Green, M 2006, Representing Poverty and attacking Representations: Perspectives on Poverty from social Anthropology. Gill, P 1970, Drops in the Ocean: The work of Oxfam, 1960- 1970, Macdonald, London. Huckin, T 2002, ‘ Textual Silence and the Discourse of Homelessness’, Discourse and Society, Vol. 13, pp. 347-372. Moyes, A 1981, One in Ten and The very Poor, Oxfam, Oxford. Ravallion, M 1998, Poverty Lines and Practice, Living Standard measurements working paper 133, world Bank, Washington DC. Seers, D 1971, “Rich Countries and Poor Development” in, D. Seers and L. Joy, Eds. A Dividend world, Penguin Books, London. Read More