TY  - PRO
AU  - Hallman,K.
AU  - Begum,S.
AU  - Lewis,D.
AU  - Quisumbing,A.
AU  - Watson,D.J.
ED  - Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT), Mexico DF (Mexico)
ED  - International Conference on Impacts of Agricultural Research and Development
TI  - Impact of proved vegetable and fishpond technologies on poverty in bangladesh
SN  - 970-648-076-5
U1  - 338.91 
PY  - 2003///
CY  - Mexico, DF (Mexico)
PB  - CIMMYT
KW  - Bangladesh
KW  - Credit policies
KW  - Fish ponds
KW  - Integrated control
KW  - Poverty
KW  - AGROVOC
KW  - Rural population
KW  - Social policies
KW  - Technology transfer
KW  - Training programmes
KW  - Vegetables
KW  - CIMMYT
N1  - Abstract only
N2  - gricultural programs on poverty. Poverty is conceived here to encompass not only income and expenditure, but also vulnerability and capabilities. Issues not easily addressed in a quantitative study-such as perceptions of poverty, livelihoods strategies, the institutional setting, and technology dissemination pathways-are informed by qualitative data collection. In this paper we report on: (1) Mapping of "well-being" concepts derived from an independent countrywide participatory poverty assessment onto the existing household survey data for the purpose of determining where survey households fall along a participant- defined global "well-being" spectrum. These well- being categories form the basis for selection of 54 focus groups: 3 male and 3 female groups from middle, poor, and "hard core” poor households, respectively, in 3 villages in each of 3 study sites. (2) Using quantitative data on myriad community characteristics, the credibility of the counterfactual design of the quantitative survey is assessed. This is to ensure that NGOs did not purposefully select villages for introduction of the technologies where they may have been more likely to be successful as such a situation would contaminate the validity of the control sample. (3) Assessing how various livelihood assets influence membership in NGOs and how they help shape adoption of the agricultural technologies. Findings will be drawn from focus group discussions and analysis of a census of households in each site and the household survey data. (4) Describing the vulnerability of contexts of households as reported in the focus groups. (5) Characterizing how the technologies fit into livelihood strategies of households. This will include findings from the focus groups and from the construction of income source portfolios for “adopter” versus “likely adopter” households using the survey data. (6) Documenting the impact of agricultural extension programs and technologies on the empowerment of women and other disadvantaged groups, via focus group results and analysis of the survey data. (7) Demonstrating how technologies were described by participants in focus groups to contribute to their overall well being and comparing the livelihood outcomes of “adopter" versus “likely adopter” households using the survey data. In both instances, traditional and broader concepts of poverty are considered
ER  -