000			04066nam a22004937a 4500
001			G77109
003			MX-TxCIM
005			20211006072329.0
008			121211s ||||f| 0 p|p||0|| |
020			_a970-648-076-5
040			_aMX-TxCIM
072		0	_aA50
072		0	_aE73
082	0	4	_a338.91 _bWAT
100	1		_aHallman, K. _uInternational conference on impacts of agricultural research and development: Why has impact assessment research not made more of a difference?
110	0		_aCentro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT), Mexico DF (Mexico)
111	2		_aInternational Conference on Impacts of Agricultural Research and Development _cSan José (Costa Rica) _d4-7 Feb 2002
245	0	0	_aImpact of proved vegetable and fishpond technologies on poverty in bangladesh
260			_aMexico, DF (Mexico) _bCIMMYT : _c2003
300			_ap. 51
340			_aPrinted
500			_aAbstract only
520			_agricultural 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.
546			_aEnglish
591			_a0310|R01CIMPU|AGRIS 0301|AL-Economics Program
593			_aJuan Carlos Mendieta
595			_aCPC
650	1	0	_aBangladesh
650	1	0	_aCredit policies
650	1	0	_aFish ponds
650	1	0	_aIntegrated control
650	1	7	_aPoverty _gAGROVOC _2 _91215
650	1	0	_aRural population
650	1	0	_aSocial policies
650	1	0	_aTechnology transfer
650	1	0	_aTraining programmes
650	1	0	_aVegetables
653	0		_aCIMMYT
700	1		_aBegum, S., _ecoaut.
700	1		_aLewis, D., _ecoaut.
700	1		_aQuisumbing, A., _ecoaut.
700	1		_9960 _aWatson, D.J. _gResearch & Partnership Program _8INT3479 _eed.
942			_cPRO
999			_c6858 _d6858