Explore the vast range of titles available.

The second edition of this book outline show to include the poor using the Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA) method. This method was developed by the World Bank in partnerships with NGOs, governments, and academic institutions, and has been implemented in over 60 countries worldwide duringthe last decade. This book also draws on new PPA case examples. Joint publication with the World Bank.

Participatory Poverty Assessments (PPAs) use participatory research methods to understand poverty from the perspective of the poor by focusing on their realities, needs, and priorities. The principle of a PPA is to ensure that the intended beneficiaries have some control over the research process. Communities share their knowledge and are involved in analyzing the results. This book proposes a threefold classification of PPAs based on their varying impacts: 1) deepening our understanding of poverty; 2) influencing policy; and 3) strengthening policy implementation. There is no single model for PPAs. However, this book suggests some minimum standards and good practice for participatory policy research that aims to affect policy change. PPAs are highlighting the potentially powerful role the poor can play in analyzing poverty, developing interventions for its reduction, and assessing the impact of projects and policies. The challenge for the Bank and the rest of the development community is to effectively integrate the perspectives and values of the poor into the process of policy and project formulation and implementation.

This book focuses on the World Bank's experience with Participatory Poverty Assessments (PPAs). Some practitioners have argued that a number of World Bank PPAs should not be included because they were extractive, did not influence policy, and were not participatory. However, both good and bad practice PPAs is included in this analysis to facilitate learning from past experiences. Participatory poverty assessments are showing the World Bank and other outside observers of poverty that are not the only poverty experts. Poor people have a long overlooked capacity to contribute to the analysis of poverty-and without their insights to know only part of the reality of poverty, its causes, and the survival strategies of the poor. The objective of a comprehensive poverty analysis, therefore, should be to conduct participatory research and household surveys interactively, so that they enhance each other. If a PPA is conducted after the household survey, the results will explain, challenge, reinforce, or shed new light on household survey data. The results of the household survey can also, of course, explain, challenge, or reinforce the PPA. If the PPA is conducted before the household survey, the PPA results could assist in generating hypotheses, shaping the design of the household survey, and developing survey questions appropriate for the respondents. Ideally, this should be an ongoing process whereby both PPAs and household surveys are conducted periodically and feed into each other. The results of past PPAs indicate that when they are used in conjunction with household surveys, the final assessment is a much fuller analysis of the varying dimensions of poverty, and the policy recommendations are more relevant and informed.

The objective of this paper is to present some early experiences of poverty and social impact analysis (PSIA) from the PRGF-supported programs in the African Department. The paper illustrates that many staff country reports have taken a first step toward PSIA by making more explicit the links between poverty and policies. Various examples highlight that even though relationships can be complex and analysis, as a result, may not be definitive, it is possible to assess some of the potential poverty effects even in countries with limited data, and therefore contribute to a more informed policy debate and design. The paper concludes that PSIA can help design policies that are more pro-poor, better define appropriate compensatory and complementary measures where appropriate, and support country ownership of reforms by promoting a public debate on trade-offs between policy choices. In light of this, the paper proposes that PRGF policy advice would benefit from more systematic PSIA and that staff country reports could report more on the potential policy trade-offs and poverty outcomes based on PSIA.

In formulating poverty reduction strategies, policymakers have begun consulting the poor directly through participatory poverty assessments (PPAs), a methodology developed during the 1990s by governments, nongovernmental organizations, academic institutions, and donors. Although many methods have long existed for consulting the poor on the development of projects, PPAs are different in that their findings are intended to be used in national policymaking. A PPA uses a variety of flexible methods that combine visual techniques and verbal techniques and emphasizes exercises that facilitate information sharing, analysis, and action. Participatory policymaking is based on incorporating information gathered from local communities in a broader policy dialogue that includes a cross section of civic groups. The process and findings of participatory research are relevant to poverty reduction strategies at four stages: 1. poverty analysis, 2. formulation and dissemination, 3. monitoring, and 4. evaluation of outcomes.

The second edition of this book outline show to include the poor using the Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA) method. This method was developed by the World Bank in partnerships with NGOs, governments, and academic institutions, and has been implemented in over 60 countries worldwide duringthe last decade. This book also draws on new PPA case examples. Joint publication with the World Bank

This book focuses on the World Bank's experience with Participatory Poverty Assessments (PPAs). Some practitioners have argued that a number of World Bank PPAs should not be included because they were extractive, did not influence policy, and were not participatory. However, both good and bad practice PPAs is included in this analysis to facilitate learning from past experiences. Participatory poverty assessments are showing the World Bank and other outside observers of poverty that are not the only poverty experts. Poor people have a long overlooked capacity to contribute to the analysis of poverty-and without their insights to know only part of the reality of poverty, its causes, and the survival strategies of the poor. The objective of a comprehensive poverty analysis, therefore, should be to conduct participatory research and household surveys interactively, so that they enhance each other. If a PPA is conducted after the household survey, the results will explain, challenge, reinforce, or shed new light on household survey data. The results of the household survey can also, of course, explain, challenge, or reinforce the PPA. If the PPA is conducted before the household survey, the PPA results could assist in generating hypotheses, shaping the design of the household survey, and developing survey questions appropriate for the respondents. Ideally, this should be an ongoing process whereby both PPAs and household surveys are conducted periodically and feed into each other. The results of past PPAs indicate that when they are used in conjunction with household surveys, the final assessment is a much fuller analysis of the varying dimensions of poverty, and the policy recommendations are more relevant and informed.