rural poverty in mexico: assets and livelihood strategies among … · 2010-09-15 · rural poverty...

Rural poverty in Mexico: assets and livelihood strategiesamong the Mayas of Yucatan

Nigel Poole1�, Remi Gauthier2 and Aliza Mizrahi3

1SOAS Centre for Development, Policy and Environment, and London International Development Centre, Universityof London, UK; 2Agra CEAS Consulting, Centre for European Agricultural Studies, Imperial College London – WyeCampus, Wye, Kent, UK; and 3Independent Consultant, Calle 49 no. 481, Merida, Mexico

Understanding poverty and sustainability needs livelihood studies that acknowledge heterogeneity atthe community and household level. This is particularly true for Latin America where inequality andethnicity are important aspects of poverty and sustainability. This paper is a detailed examination ofthe natural resources, socio-economic assets and livelihood strategies of two Mayan communities ofthe Mexican State of Yucatan. There were three fundamental objectives: to elucidate the people’sperceptions of poverty, to analyse their resource use and livelihood strategies, and to suggest waysin which access to markets can reduce poverty and enhance sustainable development. Usingqualitative and quantitative methodologies, the dominance of certain successful strategies are madeclear. First, milpa – the traditional system of maize production – is a way of life for the Mayas. Secureaccess to maize-producing land is a valuable asset, partly because it also attracts governmentsubsidies. Second, ownership of small livestock is also part of Mayan life. Ownership of other assetssuch as beehives gives access to (relatively) lucrative product markets. Third, active agribusinessmarketing also requires assets: ownership of transport services; finance to assemble and sellproducts such as forest fruits, honey and maize; business skills and an ability to create commerciallinkages to traders. Appropriate interventions for different wealth groups are suggested to enhancesustainable development of the communities.

Keywords: poverty, Mexico, natural resource assets, livelihood strategies, indigenous, market access

Introduction: poverty, inequality,ethnicity and sustainability in LatinAmerica

Poverty, inequality and ethnicity

Global poverty is most intractable in marginal ruralcommunities where geographical remotenessaffects the quality of public services and privateopportunities, cultural barriers reduce the qualityof governance and civic participation, and afragile natural resource base is subject to

unsustainable economic and ecological exploita-tion. Latterly, the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs) have catalyzed interest in global povertyreduction to, inter alia, ‘eradicate extremepoverty and hunger’ (Goal 1). This interest ispartly attributable to the simplicity of the ‘onedollar a day’ target, which has the considerableattractions of ease of communication andcomprehension.

Simplicity is sometimes problematic. To halve‘the proportion of the population living on lessthan $1 per day’ (1993 PPP)1 is only Indicator 1of the MDG poverty target. Indicators 2 and 3are more nuanced approaches to assessing� Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 5(4) 2007, Pages 315–330

# 2007 Earthscan www.earthscanjournals.com

poverty because they embrace elements of inequal-ity and not just (more or less) absolute poverty.Inequality matters, even in countries not usuallyconsidered to be poor,2 and justifies attention toIndicators 2 and 3 as well as the current popularMDG indicator (Poole, 2005b).

Of the major regions of the world, inequality inincome distribution is greatest in Latin America,and poverty is intractable (Besley & Burgess,2003; Chen & Ravallion, 2004; Wolfensohn &Bourguignon, 2004; World Bank, 1990). Povertyand inequality in Latin America, as in otherregions, are closely linked to another phenomenon,ethnicity. Reviewing Mexico’s progress towardsthe MDGs, Fuentes and Montes (2004) reiteratedthe stark regional disparities and north–southdivide in terms of education, infrastructure andpoverty, with the indigenous groups worse off inrespect of poverty, illiteracy levels, gender equityand basic infrastructure. In regions of intractablerural poverty with a resource base subject to unsus-tainable exploitation, indigenous peoples are over-represented (World Bank Institute Poverty andGrowth Blog, no date). Achieving sustainabilityand international development goals in such areasrequires, inter alia, substantial livelihood invest-ments. ‘The extent and persistence of poverty inmany ways depends on whether poverty amongindigenous peoples can be reduced by 2015’(IFAD, no date).

Poverty, ethnicity and sustainability

Eradicating poverty must be linked to otherimperatives. It is Goal 7 of the MDGs thataddresses sustainability, specifically Target 9: to‘integrate the principles of sustainable developmentinto country policies and programmes and reversethe loss of environmental resources’. While thereis no explicit linkage between Goals 1 and 7, thelinkages between development, resource use andthe sustainability literature can be traced backthrough the Brundtland Commission (World Com-mission on Environment and Development, 1987)to the 1972 UN Conference on the HumanEnvironment (Organisation for EconomicCo-operation and Development and UnitedNations Development Programme, 2002). Thereis now a substantial literature on the concept of sus-tainability not only in relation to the natural

environment but also in relation to the socialenvironment, and particularly concerning peopleswhose livelihoods are intimately connected withthe conservation and use of natural resources.This research output also covers regions of intract-able rural poverty with a resource base subject tounsustainable exploitation, and where indigenousor tribal peoples are over-represented (WorldBank Institute Poverty and Growth Blog, no date).

Poverty, livelihoods, markets, policies andpeople are all linked to the sustainability literature.For example, Nath et al. (2006) examined how theshifting cultivation practices of tribal people in theChittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh contribute tothe people’s livelihoods, and noted the ineffective-ness of previous public policies to promote liveli-hoods and sustainable resource use. Workingamong tribal peoples in southern India, Shaankeret al. (2004) argued that the ecological costs tofragile ecosystems of livelihood gains for the poorcan be attenuated by policy approaches whichthemselves must be informed by an understandingof the sociocultural context of the people and ofthe economics of market operations into whichnatural resource products are sold. Sustainabilityissues among innovating Latin American commu-nities were addressed by Nicklin et al. (2006)who examined supply chains for lupin in Ecuadorto assess the agronomic and livelihood benefitsfor poor producers. Haggar et al. (2005) evaluatedthe economic and technical opportunities for agro-forestry in three communities in the southernYucatan Peninsula of Mexico and found thatthere was no single optimum production strategybut that sustainable options depended onlocation-specific variables and also on individualfarmer characteristics.

Research on poverty, sustainability and the‘ethnic gap’ in Latin America is timely (Poole,2005b), not least because of the strong politicaldimension (Andolina, 2003; Tilley, 2002; vanCott, 2003; Washbrook, 2005). The indigenousZapatista uprising in Mexico during the 1990shighlighted dramatically the need for empower-ment, inclusion and equitable socio-economic andsustainable development policies. According to Vil-lafuerte Solıs (2005: 480), there has been no dis-cernible political development since, and the mostvulnerable sectors of the population ‘currentlyhave little prospect of an improvement in their


316 N. POOLE ET AL.

impoverished living standards’. This article pre-sents new knowledge from a study of poverty andheterogeneity, natural resource use, livelihoods,markets and policies among agricultural andforest-dependent indigenous Mayan communitiesin Yucatan, Mexico.

Aggregate studies and the need fordisaggregation

Studies of poverty and inequality in Latin Americahave tended to take an aggregate view. Forexample, de Janvry and Sadoulet (2000) analyzedhousehold income and household-level asset datafrom Mexican ejidos to show the role of assets inexplaining income sources and rural poverty.Uncontroversial results showed that rural incomesand poverty are explained by the asset endowmentsand the contexts where assets are used. It is evidentthat ‘contexts’ need disaggregating, and that therewould be advantages from a richer data set tocapture the variations in terms of range of assets,subsistence and income sources, cultural and phys-ical barriers and potential strategies. Nevertheless,on the basis of the results, they suggested fourexit paths from rural poverty:

(1) Migration: exit from rural areas to the non-poor urban economy.

(2) Agriculture: the traditional development pathfor rural people endowed with natural, socialand institutional assets above a critical levelwho can engage with the wider economy.

(3) Pluriactivity: diversification that combinesagriculture with off-farm incomes.

(4) Assistance: alternative approaches include:

. one-time transfers to assist the poor out of alow level equilibrium;

. transfers of resources to move the chronicallypoor into ‘sustained welfare’; and

. safety nets to combat the effects of shockssuch as personal, natural and economicdisasters.

On poverty exit strategies, Martınez (2004) cast acritical eye over the situation of the Andean campe-sino ( ¼ indigenous) population in the globalizingeconomy and criticized de Janvry and Sadoulet’s(2000) model of exit strategies for the Latin

American poor for its unrealistic assumption thatthere is a proactive and enlightened state with pol-icies of effective decentralization and empower-ment of rural society. Moreover, he argued thatmarket opportunities will be exploited – probablyunsustainably – through powerful external econ-omic forces. A local perspective requires a moresolid analysis of the resources, of the dynamics ofchange, of conflicts associated with rural peoples’own initiatives, and of tensions arising from theunequal capital endowments between rural popu-lations and the surrounding society.

On context, an important outcome of workamong the poor in Central America has been thehigh priority the people themselves gave to the pro-duction of food crops for home consumption,because of the high opportunity cost of subsistencecompared with risky commercial production inregions of high transaction costs (Wadsworthet al., 2004). For marginalized regions andpeoples facing high transactions costs and entrybarriers, the prospects for successful integrationinto the wider – not to say global – economy, areproblematic. Policies may need to be targeted atthe local economy, with an institutional frame-work that nurtures the local ‘infant markets’ and‘infant economies’, and an emphasis on interven-tions based on a deep understanding of localconditions (Poole, 2004, 2005b; Poole & PenroseBuckley, 2006).

Disaggregated studies

A fuller understanding of the local context is likelyto suggest a number of hypotheses about povertyexit strategies: for example, alternative pathwaysmay not be equally available to apparently similarcommunities; there is no single appropriatepathway for all households within a given commu-nity; and a single pathway can have differentialeffects within a given household. A range of strat-egies for more or less ‘prosperous’ and ‘marginal’regions is called for (Wadsworth et al., 2004).

Disaggregated studies are needed that uncoverinstitutional and other parameters of poverty anddrivers of growth at a local level, using country-specific and sub-national data (Besley & Burgess,2003; Ravallion, 2004). Notwithstanding the useof local poverty lines for assessing absolutepoverty – which is nothing new (Ravallion et al.,


RURAL POVERTY IN MEXICO 317

1991) – people are likely to have their own percep-tions of poverty, including natural resource assetsand strategies. These also need to be teased outand evaluated at a local level, not least becausethey will influence the feasibility of and choiceamong poverty exit strategies. Hentschel andWaters’ (2002) work in four Ecuadorian highlandscommunities is one such ‘contextual’ village studythat investigated and acknowledged inter- andintra-village heterogeneity. This study in Mexicoadds to this literature.

The research context: sites and people

This paper reports a detailed examination ofpoverty and livelihood strategies of the forest-margin dwelling Mayan people of the south-eastern Mexican State of Yucatan. There werethree fundamental objectives – conceptual, empiri-cal and policy – to the investigation: to elucidatethe people’s perceptions of poverty, to analysetheir livelihood strategies and natural resourceuse, and to suggest ways in which market accessfor natural resource products can reduce poverty.The paper proceeds by giving an account of theresearch context, followed by an outline of themethodology next, the exploratory analyses, multi-variate tests for data consistency and validation ofthe poverty concepts and the final discussion andimplications.

The research was conducted in the Mayan villagesof Mahas and Poop, Municipality of Tixcacalcupul,between 1999 and 2002. The Mayan peoples areamong the most vulnerable of Mexican populationgroups. Despite their poverty, these communitiesare noted for their strong social cohesion, manifestin the highly functional community institutions,such as reciprocal labour relations, inter-genera-tional socialization and strong cultural and linguisticidentity (de Frece, 2006).

Historically, the Yucatan Peninsula has beenpoorly linked to the rest of Mexico. Integrationhas accelerated in the last two decades, spurredby international tourism. Roads are asphalted,but distances to commercial centres are appreciableand public transport services are poor, such thatthe study communities are somewhat isolated(Table 1). From Merida, the State capital, toMahas and Poop is a distance of approximately220 km.

Agriculture in the Yucatan Peninsula dates backto at least 2000 BC (Edwards, 1986). Vegetation isdry tropical forest, soils are scarce and shallow, andclimate is dry sub-humid, with mean annual rain-fall around 1100 mm, but highly variable fromyear to year. Social organization and land tenureare based on the ejido system, whereby membersare given usufruct rights to plots of agriculturalland and communal rights to non-agriculturalland (forest and pasture). The structure of theejido is democratic and members are either signa-tories to the act of establishment (certificados) orare their descendants (usufructuarios). The ejidoswere established in 1954 (Poop) and 1962(Mahas) respectively.

Historically, the Mayan peoples developed ahighly sophisticated natural resource managementsystem (Gomez-Pompa, 1987; Gomez-Pompa &Kaus, 1990). The people are still farmer/harvester/collectors for whom the natural forestand milpa (small-scale slash and burn maize culti-vation system mixed with beans, squash, rootcrops, and fruits) constitute the principal naturallivelihood resources and activities, and have astrong cultural significance. Five types of landtenure are recognized:

(1) The home garden, or solar, is private land, andproducts can be sold without constraint.

(2) The milpa is ejido land, primarily for maizecultivation, for which there is a government

Table 1 Distances between local and regional sites

From To km

Merida State capital Valladolid Municipal capital 159

Valladolid Municipal capital Mahas Study village 49

Mahas Study village Poop Study village 8


318 N. POOLE ET AL.

subsidy of about $6503 per hectare per year;effectively, milpa is private land.

(3) Cana (or canada) is milpa but after one year ofcultivation – therefore less productive – andattracts a slightly lower per hectare subsidy ofabout $550.

(4) In both villages, the communities have set asideprivate land for agroforestry – not commonelsewhere – that they call the parcela.

(5) The forest land is communal – firewood,timber and non-timber forest products(NTFPs) can be collected for private use butthe community assembly must agree commer-cial use of any forest products. In Poop areserve has been set aside, to be maintainedfree of exploitation.

Tree- and forest resources are culturally and econ-omically significant, and households use timberfrom forest sources for construction and firewood.Among the NTFPs that generate cash incomes, themost important are honey, fruits and huano (grass)for thatching. Medicinal plants are also importantfor subsistence (Gauthier & Poole, 2003).

Research methodology

Investigations were conducted in four stages. First,an initial participatory appraisal was conducted tointroduce the research to the communities whilegathering information about the community insti-tutions, social structures, issues and physicallayout. Activity calendars, community resourcemapping, institutional mapping using Venn dia-grams and semi-structured interviews were con-ducted during this phase. Both Maya and Spanishlanguages were used.

Second, a wealth ranking exercise was conductedin Mahas and Poop by researchers from the Univer-sidad Autonoma de Yucatan using the process out-lined in Grandin (1988). Wealth ranking is aparticipatory technique the results of which canbe compared with quantitative measures to testthe robustness of the relationship between theself-assessment and simple quantitative indicators.Results were presented to the communities forverification by both communities, compared andcombined to give a consolidated wealth rankingto facilitate comparison between the communities.

Third, a two-stage questionnaire survey wasimplemented in each village covering householdlivelihoods. This survey constituted the main partof the livelihoods study by providing baselinedata on 25% of families in each of the commu-nities. Twenty-six families were interviewed inMahas, and 25 families in Poop.

The final phase of the research was used to verifythe data obtained by discussing preliminary resultswith the communities. One family was found to bea relatively ‘wealthy’ outlier and this case wasinvestigated in greater depth by informal interview.Informal interviews were also conducted with theintermediaries who purchase forest products inthe region.

Triangulation and representativeness

Subsequently, intercommunity comparisons weremade between Mahas and Poop and neighbouringvillages to confirm the representativeness ofMahas and Poop in relation to other settlementsin the ‘Mayan zone’ of the Yucatan peninsula (theneighbouring Mayan indigenous communities andthe adjacent predominantly indigenous municipali-ties of Tepich and Tihosuco in Quintana RooState). Two sources of data were used: secondarysocio-economic data collected at the level of thelocal municipality for nine villages; and data fromthe latest INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadıstica,Geografıa e Informacion) census were analysed(INEGI, 2000).

Data analysis

Exploratory analysis of the data was conductedusing descriptive and analytical procedures withinSPSS including boxplots, cross-tabulations andone-way ANOVA to understand the nature ofwealth, poverty and livelihood strategies. AMann–Whitney U-test was used to compare thewealth strata data of the two communities.Further analyses used multivariate techniques ofcluster, factor and regression analysis to validatethe data and concepts.

A series of three multivariate analyses wasconducted to assess the explanatory value of thewealth ranking concept and its consistency withthe primary data set focused on incomes:



(1) Cluster analysis was used to classify 51 house-holds from the two communities on the basis often variables of income source data. The clustermembership and profiles were then comparedwith the wealth ranking self-assessment.

(2) Data reduction was undertaken through aseries of factor analyses of 34 socio-economicvariables to identify the underlying livelihoodand income strategies of the samples ofvillagers from the two communities.

(3) Finally, regression analysis was conducted onwealth ranking data and the livelihood andincome factors identified in stage 2 to test thevalidity of the factors in relation to the commu-nity poverty self-assessment.

Results of the exploratory analyses

Wealth ranking

The wealth ranking criteria defined by the villagersof Poop reflect people’s household asset base andeconomic strategies in terms of: quality ofhousing; access to private land in addition tocommunity-managed lands; other physical assets(e.g. livestock ownership); involvement in diverseeconomic activities such as local employment andmigration; the level of self-sufficiency in the staplefood, maize; and demographics (age, gender, edu-cation and knowledge of health and diseases)(Table 2). In Mahas the community chose to usea reduced set of criteria that excluded healthknowledge. Also, they included another higherwealth level (‘well-off’) and excluded the extremelypoor category. For subsequent analysis, the Poopdata for very poor and extremely poor wereaggregated.

Livelihood survey results

Twenty-six families were interviewed in Mahas,and twenty-five families in Poop. Respondentswere distributed among wealth strata as shown inTable 3.

The well-off stratum was included in the analysiseven though it only represented one ‘outlier’ family.Among the characteristics that set this family apartwere that the wife had two husbands, the house-hold owned 50 ha of private land purchased from

a neighbouring ejido, owned a pickup truck andmanaged a successful village retail outlet and awholesaling business assembling local produceand transporting it to urban markets.

A Mann–Whitney U-test to compare the wealthstrata data of both communities showed no signifi-cant difference between the communities (U ¼290.5, p ¼ 0.37) such that the two communitiesare similar in terms of wealth strata distribution,and suggesting that the differences which occur arefound within communities: thus, intra-communityheterogeneity is important.

Cash income

There are two principal reasons among others forasserting that poverty cannot simply be measuredby cash income. First, people use a range of econ-omic, social and physical indicators to assess levelsof wealth and poverty (Table 2); and second, non-cash sources of subsistence may be significant.Nevertheless, cash income is important for practicalreasons; poor people need cash for a range ofexpenses, and also for statistical reasons, cashincomes are often taken to be a proxy, albeitimperfect, for poverty.

The validity of this proximate indicator wasfound to be robust: cross-tabulation of total cashincome and wealth ranking showed a significantrelationship (p ¼ 0.007), and a one way ANOVAtest gave a significant difference between meanincome levels for wealth groups. The boxplot(Figure 1) indicates the median, the quartiles,and extreme values for cash incomes for bothvillages, excluding the well-off family fromMahas whose income was in excess of $151,000(Mexican).

In addition to material and productive assets andsocial assets, factors such as household size anddemographic structure, and family lifecycle affectperceptions about wealth. A concept of social andeconomic ‘stability’ captures significant attributesof a broader concept of ‘poverty’: the need tomigrate for employment, the need to hire labourfor essential agricultural activities, the need to selland buy maize (an item of greater cultural signifi-cance than other food products) impose constraintsand reduce choices in ways that affect well-being ina negative sense (Table 2).


320 N. POOLE ET AL.

Table

2Wea

lthrank

ingcrite

riade

fined

byPoo

pco

mmun

ity(n¼

86)

Wea

lthrank

ing

Num

ber

of

families

Children

Hous

ing

Hea

lthan

ddisea

sekn

owledge

Family

labour

force

Eco

nomic

activ

ities

Milp

aan

dag

roforestry

plots

Live

stock

Hone

yproduc

tion

Slig

htly

better-off

Exten

ded

family

20Children

are

grow

nup

andhe

lp

Mas

onry

orbloc

ksCon

crete

orsh

eet

roof

Cem

ent

floor

More

know

ledg

eof

health

and

few

health

prob

lems

Sufficient

labo

urforce,

they

hire

peop

leto

help

them

inmilp

a

Agriculture

(milp

aan

dag

roforestry)

Live

stoc

kCraftw

ork

Apicu

lture

Bric

klay

erCha

uffeur

Tailo

r

Milp

a(4–5ha

)Sells

omemaize

Agrofores

try

Cattle

(1–3

head

)3–5pigs

20–30

poultry

5families

Poor

Nuc

lear

family

31Som

eyo

ung

child

ren

Som

eof

bloc

ksan

dsh

eets

Som

eof

woo

dan

dthatch

edroof

Cem

ent

floor

Som

ekn

owledg

eof

health,s

ome

dise

ases

Sufficient

labo

urforce,

somework

forothe

rs.

Som

emigrate

tempo

rarily

Agriculture

(milp

aan

dag

roforestry)

Live

stoc

kCraftw

ork

Workfor

othe

rsMigrate

Milp

a(3–4ha

)Dono

tsell

maize

Agrofores

try

2–3pigs

10–20

poultry

3families

Very

poor

Nuc

lear

family

31Sev

eral

youn

gch

ildren

Mos

tlyof

woo

d,roof

thatch

edor

ofsh

eets

Earth

floor

Little

know

ledg

eof

health,a

loto

fdise

ase

prob

lems

Hav

eto

work

alot

Man

yyo

ung

child

ren

unab

leto

work.

Tempo

rary

loca

lem

ploy

men

tMigrate

tempo

rarily

Agriculture

(milp

aan

dag

roforestry)

Animal

bree

ding

Craftw

ork

Migrate

Milp

a(2–3ha

)Buy

maize

Agrofores

try

1–2pigs

5–10

poultry

2families

Extremely

poor

(old

peop

le,

widow

s,sing

lewom

en)

4No

child

ren

atho

me,

orve

ryyo

ung

child

ren

Woo

d,thatch

edroof

orsh

eet

Earth

floor

Very

little

know

ledg

eof

health,a

loto

fdise

ase

prob

lems

Limite

dlabo

urforce

Agriculture

Animal

bree

ding

Milp

a(little)

Buy

maize

Noag

roforestry

3–6po

ultry

Non

e



Diversity of resources and income sources

For the economies of the communities as a whole,there is a dominant role of government subsidiesfor agriculture based on the area of land clearanceand maize production, and of cash employment inthe peoples’ cash generation strategies (Figure 2a).Maize sales from the milpa, NTFPs (principallyhoney production), crafts and livestock follow inimportance.

Disaggregation by economic activity revealsmarkedly different patterns of income sourcesbetween wealth groups (Figure 2b–e). For thesmall group of very poor (n ¼ 6) the cash incomeprofile highlights the large contribution of govern-ment subsidies, comprising half the total. Crafts,livestock sales and NTFPs are next in importance.Income from employment is notably small com-pared with the aggregate results. Other activitieseach contribute only a small amount.

For the large group of poor (n ¼ 40), employ-ment most of all, and subsidies, constitute themajor sources of cash income. Other activities indi-vidually contribute little.

Sources of cash income for the small group ofslightly better-off households (n ¼ 4) are muchmore varied. Government subsidies linked tomaize production again are significant, but aremore or less matched by sales of maize from themilpa, retailing goods through a shop, paidlabour and honey collection. The other activitiesin the livelihood portfolio contribute little cashincome.

The single well-off family had a radically differ-ent income profile. Agricultural subsidies and saleof agricultural products together contribute asmuch as the retailing activities in the community.However, the main difference is from incomethrough the commercial activities of transportand trading (of NTFPs).

Data consistency and validation:multivariate analyses

Cluster analysis

The purpose of the analysis was to understand thesignificance of the different cash income variables,and to assess the similarity between an objectiveclassification of the sample and the self-reportedwealth ranking classification.

Following the wealth ranking categorisation offour levels suggested by the communities, a four-cluster solution was imposed by the K-Meansnon-hierarchical method on cash income datagiving the results presented in Table 4. The levelof significance indicates those variables whichbest discriminated between cases. Sources contri-buting more than 50% of cash income were paidlabour (cluster 2), and subsidies (cluster 4). Clus-ters 1 and 3 enjoyed cash income from morediverse sources.

Cluster characterization and validationThe characteristics of the four clusters were:

(1) Highly diversified households with significanttrading activities.

(2) Households highly dependent on paid employ-ment and subsidies.

Table 3 Households interviewed by wealth strata

Wealth strata Number of families

Mahas Poop

Very poor 3 3

Poor 19 21

Slightlybetter-off

3 1

Well-off 1 0

Figure 1 Cash income ($ Mexican) and wealth ranking


322 N. POOLE ET AL.

Figure 2 (a) Cash income sources: all cases. (b) Cash income sources: very poor (n ¼ 6). (c) Cash income sources: poor(n ¼ 40). (d) Cash income sources: slightly better-off (n ¼ 4). (e) Cash income sources: well-off (n ¼ 1)



(3) Households somewhat dependent on paidemployment and subsidies, supplemented byother rural enterprises and craft production).

(4) Households very highly dependent on subsi-dies, with other income from paid employmentand NTFPs.

Cross-tabulation of wealth ranking against thefour-clusters (Table 5) compared the actualcounts with the counts expected from the theoreti-cal x2 distribution, and gave the following result: ahigher than expected representation of the poor incluster 2, and a higher than expected representationof very poor in clusters 3 and 4; conversely, therewere fewer than expected very poor in cluster2. Statistical analysis of the cross-tabulation usingthe x2 distribution was not valid because of thesmall sample size. Nevertheless, the pattern whichemerged reinforced the notion of the dependenceof the poor and of the very poor on paid

employment and/or subsidies, and on minor ruralenterprises.

Factor analysis

Factor analysis using the principal componentextraction technique was conducted on 34 vari-ables of social characteristics, assets, trading activi-ties and income sources for the total of 51households. The cut-off for retaining factors waseigenvalues .1. Variables were all metric exceptfor education level of head of family (five levelsfrom no education to completed secondary edu-cation) and number of beehives owned (fourlevels); and cash incomes derived from differentsources (normalized to percentages). The analysiswas conducted first using no rotation, and thenusing varimax rotation, with ten components iso-lated in each case. A high cut-off point of 0.700 forthe significance of factor loadings was used because

Table 4 Four cluster solution for diversity of cash income sources (n ¼ 51)

Proportion of income derived from different sources (%)

Cluster

Cas

esin

each

clus

ter

Paidlabour

Live

stock

Sho

p

Tran

sport

Crafts

NTF

Ps

Timber

Home

garden

fruits

Sub

sidy

Milp

aproduc

ts

1 3 4 1 24 16 0 25 0 0 9 20

2 26 53 2 0 0 5 4 0 1 29 5

3 6 25 7 0 0 25 6 0 0 32 4

4 16 14 5 1 0 3 11 2 1 55 8

Significance 0.000 0.233 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.505 0.878 0.000 0.032

Table 5 Cross-tabulation of cluster membership and wealth ranking

Wealth ranking Cluster number

1 2 3 4

Well-off Actual count 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Expected count 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.3

Slightly better-off Actual count 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0


Poor Actual count 0.0 26.0 3.0 11.0


Very poor Actual count 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0



324 N. POOLE ET AL.

of the small sample size (Hair et al., 1998). TheKaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling ade-quacy (0.514) was low but the Bartlett test of spheri-city (significant at 99.9% level) suggested that thedata set was appropriate for factor analysis. Thesame analyses were conducted on the sample exclud-ing the outlier ‘well-off’ Mahas family (n ¼ 50).

The rotated factors presented a more discrimi-nating analysis of the data, with the greatestvariation accounted for by (a) agribusiness; (b)participation in the maize economy; (c) honeyproduction and trading. Factor characterizationsare presented in Table 6. The first five factorsaccounted for 50.8% of the variation.

This factor analysis method of data reduction tounderstand the underlying structure gave resultswhich were consistent with the wealth conceptsunderlying the wealth ranking procedure andadded credence to the self-reporting approach toanalysing livelihoods. The emergence of thefactors isolated approximated to the predominantstrategies of the groups ranked in decreasingwealth/increasing poverty, and therefore gave agood insight into wealth creation.

Regression analysis

The validity of the factor analysis was tested by con-ducting a regression of the poverty self-assessmentby the wealth ranking procedure on the first fivefactors (accounting for 50.8% of the variation,Table 6). Use of the ordered probit model is theappropriate approach to take where the dependentand independent variables (or some of them) arecategorical. The ordered probit results are pre-sented in Table 7. The relationships betweenwealth ranking and factors 1–3 (agribusiness,maize and honey) were found to be significant(p , 0.05). This result reinforced the validity ofthe cluster analysis which identified a group ofbetter-off households with diverse trading charac-teristics, differentiated from others who were lessengaged in markets.

Discussion and implications

Livelihood strategies and assets

Wealth ranking has served as a good proxy forunderstanding and assessing levels of poverty, reflect-ing not only the wealth–poverty self-perceptions ofthe communities, but also demonstrating a strongrelationship between self-assessment and the resultsfrom analyses of the primary livelihood data. It isthe endowment with productive economic assets,primarily agricultural and forest resources, as wellas the strategies of individuals and the incentivesand opportunities created through the externalenvironment, that together determine the economicoutcomes. The dominance of certain successfulstrategies seems clear. First, notwithstanding theongoing debate about the sustainability of slashand burn practices in respect of soil and biodiversityconservation (de Frece, 2006; Eastmond & Faust,2006) milpa is a way of life for the Mayas. Besidesthe cultural significance of milpa, secure access tomaize-producing land is a valuable asset and towork it is a viable strategy. Lack of land is associatedwith poverty not only because land enables maize tobe produced and sold commercially, but because thearea devoted to maize also attracts governmentsubsidies.

Second, ownership of small livestock is also partof Mayan life, assets which are both culturally and

Table 6 Factor characterization (n ¼ 50)

Varianceexplained

(%)

Characterization

Factor 1 15.84 Income from agribusinesstrading and transport

Factor 2 13.15 Participation in the maizeeconomy

Factor 3 8.27 Income from honeyproduction and sale

Factor 4 7.16 Livestock ownership –pigs

Factor 5 6.38 Livestock ownership –ducks and horses

Factor 6 5.61 Agriculture and youngcattle

Factor 7 5.20 Income from homegarden fruits andmigration

Factor 8 4.37 Income from shop

Factor 9 4.14 Livestock ownership –chickens

Factor10

3.73 Livestock ownership –cows



economically important. Livestock enterprises notonly can be integrated into sustainable productionsystems in Mexico, but are a critical means foranimal genetic resource conservation per se(Drucker & Anderson, 2005). Moreover, ownershipof beehives gives entry into the (relatively) lucrativeactivity of honey production as well as providingimportant forest eco-services. Usufruct rights tofruit trees can be viewed similarly as ‘ecologicaland economic win-wins’ (Shaanker et al., 2004).

Third, on markets, the characteristics of the (a)outlier household, (b) the household membershipof the ‘trading’ cluster and (c) the identification ofthe dominant ‘agribusiness’ factor all reiteratethat engagement with diverse markets is associatedwith the upper scales of the wealth ranking. Theoutlier ‘well-off’ household demonstrates thataccess to markets is a function of assets: ownershipof transport services; finance to assemble and sellproducts such as forest fruits, honey and maize;and ‘leverage’ assets that enable successful market-ing, such as skills to run a wholesale/retail enter-prise and to create commercial linkages tomarkets and other traders. It is this leveragewhich adds the value to the honey and forestfruits which are produced and collected by otherpoorer people. Such local market linkages areessential for economic sustainability, and the exist-ing community-based natural resource manage-ment institutions, such as the actual tenurial andusufruct arrangements in Mahas and Poop, cur-rently provide safeguards against over-exploitationby the ‘trading’ cluster members and resourcedegradation through slash and burn milpa.

Poverty-exit strategies?

The analyses have been more opaque about thepoor and very poor, who are identified as thoselacking the assets and opportunities of the ‘better-off’. Most poor households derive very small cashincomes from a range of rural activities withlimited natural resource impacts. Nevertheless,poverty is associated with extreme dependence onmaize subsidies linked to milpa. The maizeeconomy serves poor households as a criticalsafety net, not just because of the subsistenceelement, but also because of the vital subsidy com-ponent that makes up so much of their cashincome. This contrasts with the way the maizeeconomy serves the better-off, as a commercialenterprise providing not just subsidies and subsis-tence but also the cash income that comes fromtrading milpa products.

As subsidies are a ‘safety net’, so too is paidemployment something of a default strategy forthe poor: it is the lack of other opportunities thatcompels households to engage in the labourmarket either locally or through migration toother regions. What differentiates the verypoorest from the poor households is the lack ofincome from employment.

Barriers to exit?

The extent to which engaging in markets is a feas-ible poverty exit strategy raises more complicatedquestions. What factors determine engagementwith markets? In order to understand better the

Table 7 Regression analysis of wealth ranking and factor analysis

Ordered probit estimates Number of obs ¼ 50

LR chi2(5) ¼ 30.21

Prob . chi2 ¼ 0

Log likelihood 216.643679 Pseudo R2 ¼ 0.4758

wealthra j Coef. Std. err. z p . jzj 95% Conf. interval

fac1_1 j 22.144344 1.068304 22.01 0.045 24.238181 20.050507

fac2_1 j 21.139244 0.471205 22.42 0.016 22.062788 20.215701

fac3_1 j 20.741412 0.328991 22.25 0.024 21.336222 20.096602

fac4_1 j 20.024113 0.276434 20.09 0.930 20.565914 0.517688

fac5_1 j 0.386520 0.221240 1.75 0.081 20.047103 0.820143


326 N. POOLE ET AL.

asset-type barriers to market access, factor analyseswere conducted including demographic variablesfrom the wealth ranking criteria such as depen-dency ratios and certain ‘non-productive’ assetssuch as house type, and complementary assetssuch as education level. These variables had littleexplanatory power which is why they are unre-ported here. The value of wealth ranking, whichis its descriptive richness (Table 2), is also its weak-ness, because it has failed to distinguish betweenthe causes and consequences of poverty, and failsto give pointers to how assets are acquired.

The temporal perspective affects how one evalu-ates household characteristics, which may be asmuch a short-term consequence, as well as thelong-term cause of poverty. Although demographydid not explain access to markets, some demo-graphic limitations and resulting time and energypressures are fundamental barriers for the pooresthouseholds: a low rate of economically activepersons, poor quality housing and services, loweducation level of household heads and high depen-dency ratios are likely to have an effect on povertythat is transmitted from one generation to the next.Thus, socio-demographic variables are related towealth and poverty as both cause and consequencethrough generational effects. For these remote andnatural resource-dependent communities, interven-tions such as the provision of business developmentservices will not help the poorest engage in moreremunerative livelihood strategies unless or untildistributional issues affecting fundamental pro-ductive livelihood assets are addressed. Land isone such asset; hives are another, and possiblyfruit trees. While the poorest have so few assets,their direct impact on, and potential contributionto, resource sustainability is minimal, and theircontribution to natural resource exploitationtakes effect through the labour market.

The existence of asset thresholds mean thatmarkets work better for the village trading entre-preneurs with economic capital who were foundto be better off than their poor suppliers. Neverthe-less, ‘trickledown’ apparently works, inasmuch asthe traders are the market-linkage mechanismwhereby there are any commercial returns at allto the poorest, and their relative wealth creates aneconomic multiplier effect, for example throughemployment creation. Even where traders arefew, they should not be vilified, therefore, but

considered as necessary supply chain linkages pro-viding market coordination in the absence of stan-dard competitive market arrangements (Dorwardet al., 2003). A policy of raising the level of pro-ductive assets rather than of constraining the strat-egies of local traders is an approach to businessdevelopment that will more likely lead to betteroverall returns to communities. The competitivethreat to the poor and small-scale enterprise arisesnot from within the local economy but frombeyond, from the wider market environment, andthrough traders from outside the communities. Itis arguable that the ‘infant local economy’ mayneed some sort of institutional protection andpolicy support, or a ‘shark net’, to allow localsmall enterprises to gain competitive scale beforebeing subject to economic pressures from large-scale traders from outside the locality (Poole,2005a). Such institutions are relevant for theejido, and through appropriate advocacy could bescaled up to the municipality level.

Engagement in labour markets is not a panacea. Ina continent where remittances are massively import-ant at the macro- and micro-level, social and culturalobstacles predispose these communities againstmigration. There is little support for engagement indistant labour markets as a preferred livelihoodstrategy, at least for now; rather, ‘wealth’ approxi-mates more closely to ‘stability’ and successfulintegration into the local natural resources-basedeconomy. As long as culture and identity create apersistent barrier to entry into wider labourmarkets, a cautious and nuanced view of the costsand benefits of migration is necessary (Hildebrandt& McKenzie, 2005).

This research did not aim to study the changes inthe cultural milieu of the Mayan communities.Nevertheless, anecdotal data from observation ofthe people, and evidence from other studies (deFrece, 2006) suggest that there is an acceleratingprocess of encounter and conflict between tra-ditional Mayan values and external cultural press-ures arising from the mass media, schooling and asearch for economic and social opportunities(Poole & Alvarez Siman, 2006). There are genderand generation dimensions to this apparentchoice of mestizaje – assimilation. The process ofintegration into the enveloping ‘western’ marketeconomy in reality can also be one of culturaldisintegration. This impending ‘clash of cultures’



will affect both concepts and levels of poverty,inter alia.

Interventions and exit paths?

Anti-poverty programmes fall within the compe-tence of government and various non-governmentalorganizations. For the different wealth groups inMahas and Poop, Table 8 summarizes currentstrategies and those which are likely to be feasiblewithin the expected household constraints, andwhich can be incorporated into local targetingprogrammes.

For the well-off and slightly better-off, interven-tions suppose primarily information and adviceaimed at creating greater multiplier effects in thecommunities. Consideration can also be given tocreating a greater market for consumer goods andservices (such as household utilities and informationtechnology facilities) that might create incentives forincreasing output and improvements to the qualityof life of the poor. Traders should be subject tolocal institutions to restrain unsustainable exploita-tion of natural resources.

For the poor and very poor, options are fewer butmore critical, most of all the government maize sub-sidies. There is no expectation that these paymentswill become means-targeted, and anyway, theyalready constitute an (albeit imperfect and indirect)transfer to labour employed in agricultural pro-duction. Support to rural activities supposes not

just information and advice, but time-bound trans-fers and loans to create a broader asset base, andlong-term support to overcome the othermanifestations of persistent inter-generationalpoverty.

Finally, it is worth reiterating that nationaland regional inequalities are not all that need tobe taken into account in anti-poverty policiesand programmes for sustainable development.In marginalized communities such as Mahasand Poop intra-community heterogeneity willinfluence the impact of policy interventions(Elbers et al., 2004). Addressing the poverty andsustainability issues of the poorest quintile inany similar population will require a detailedunderstanding of people’s assets, strategies, andof the local context, before appropriate sustainabil-ity and poverty exit pathways can be devised andtested.

Notes

1. http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_goals.asp.

2. For example, child poverty in the United States in2003 was above the rates of most industrializedcountries, was substantially higher in rural areas,and was characterized by important regional andethnic disparities (USDA Economic ResearchService, 2005).

3. $ ¼Mexican peso, 2002 values. £1 ¼ $13Mexican or US$1 ¼ $9 Mexican (March 2002).

Table 8 Livelihood strategy matrix

Wealth ranking Livelihood strategies

Critical and current Feasible opportunities

Well-off Diverse forms ofagribusiness

Output marketing and employment-generating activitiesRetail of consumer goods and services

Slightly better-off Diverse agribusinessLocal employment

Output marketing and employment-generating activitiesSupport to develop agricultural productionLocal labour market informationRetail of consumer goods and services

Poor Transfer: maize subsidiesLocal employment

Support to develop honey production, small livestockand craftsLocal labour market information

Very poor Transfer: maize subsidiesSmall household-basedrural enterprises

Support to develop honey production, small livestockand crafts


328 N. POOLE ET AL.

Acknowledgements

This publication is an output from a researchproject funded by the United Kingdom Departmentfor International Development (DFID) for thebenefit of developing countries. The viewsexpressed are not necessarily those of DFID[R7349, Forestry Research Programme].

The collaboration of the Departmento de Biologıaof the Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan andthe NGO Hombre Sobre la Tierra is gratefullyacknowledged.

References

Andolina, R. (2003) The sovereign and its shadow:Constituent assembly and indigenous movement inEcuador. Journal of Latin American Studies 35 (4),721–750.

Besley, T. and Burgess, R. (2003) Halving global poverty.Journal of Economic Perspectives 17 (3), 3–22.

Chen, S. and Ravallion, M. (2004) How have the world’spoor fared since the early 1980s? World Bank PolicyResearch Working Paper 3341. Washington DC:World Bank.

de Frece, A. (2006) Power/knowledge and identity:Development interventions in a Maya village.Unpublished PhD, Centre for Environmental Policy,Wye Campus, Imperial College London, London.

de Janvry, A. and Sadoulet, E. (2000) Rural poverty inLatin America: Determinants and exit paths. FoodPolicy 25 (4), 389–409.

Dorward, A., Poole, N.D., Morrison, J.M., Kydd, J.K.and Urey, I. (2003) Markets, institutions and technol-ogy: Missing links in livelihoods analysis. Develop-ment Policy Review 21 (3), 319–332.

Drucker, A.G. and Anderson, S. (2005) Economic analy-sis of animal genetic resources and the use of ruralappraisal methods: Lessons from Southeast Mexico.International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2(2), 77–97.

Eastmond, A. and Faust, B. (2006) Farmers, fires, andforests: A green alternative to shifting cultivation forconservation of the Maya forest? Landscape andUrban Planning 74 (3–4), 267–284.

Edwards, C. (1986) The human impact on the forest inQuintana Roo, Mexico. Journal of Forest HistoryJuly, 120–127.

Elbers, C., Lanjouw,P., Mistiaen, J.A., Ozler, B. and Simler,K. (2004) On the unequal inequality of poor commu-nities. World Bank Economic Review 18 (3), 401–421.

Fuentes, R. and Montes, A. (2004) Mexico and the mil-lennium development goals at the subnational level.Journal of Human Development 5 (1), 97–120.

Gauthier, R. and Poole, N.D. (2003) Enhancing the rolesof forest fruits in sustaining livelihoods of forestmargin communities. Final Technical Report, ProjectR7349, Department for International DevelopmentForestry Research Programme. Wye, Kent: ImperialCollege London.

Gomez-Pompa, A. (1987) On Mayan silviculture.Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 1 (1), 1–17.

Gomez-Pompa, A. and Kaus, A. (1990) Traditionalmanagement of tropical forests in Mexico. In A.B.Anderson (ed.) Alternative to Deforestation: StepsToward Sustainable Use of the Amazon Rainforest.New York: Columbia University Press.

Grandin, B.E. (1988) Wealth Ranking in SmallholderCommunities: A Field Manual. London: IntermediateTechnology Publications.

Haggar, J., Sosa, M., Dıaz, B., Hernandez, G., Contreras,J.A. and Uc, C. (2005) Adaptation of agroforestrysystems in South-Eastern Mexico through integrationof farmer and bioeconomic evaluations. InternationalJournal of Agricultural Sustainability 2 (3), 154–166.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black,W.C. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey:Prentice-Hall.

Hentschel, J. and Waters, W.F. (2002) Rural poverty inEcuador: Assessing local realities for the developmentof anti-poverty programs. World Development 30(1), 33–47.

Hildebrandt, N. and McKenzie, D.J. (2005) The effects ofmigration on child health in Mexico: 35. PolicyResearch Working Paper. On WWW at http://web.worldbank.org/servlets/ECR?entityID ¼ 000012009_20050429125802&collection¼IMAGEBANK&sitePK¼615158. Accessed September 2007. WashingtonDC: World Bank.

IFAD (No date) Indigenous Peoples and Rural Poverty.On WWW at http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/english/topics/indigenous/index.htm. Accessed 21.05.07.

INEGI (2000) XII Censo General de la Poblacion yVivienda. Principales resultados por localidad. OnWWW at http://www.inegi.gob.mx: Instituto Nacio-nal de Estadıstica, Geografıa e Informacion.

Martınez, L. (2004) El campesino andino y la globaliza-cion a fines del siglo (una mirada sobre el caso ecuator-iano). Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanosy del Caribe 77 (Oct), 25–40.

Nath, T.K., Inoue, M. and Chakma, S. (2006) Shiftingcultivation (jhum) in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Ban-gladesh: Examining its sustainability, rural livelihoodand policy implications. International Journal of Agri-cultural Sustainability 3 (2), 130–142.

Nicklin, C., Rivera, M. and Nelson, R. (2006) Realizingthe potential of an Andean legume: Roles of market-led and research-led innovations. InternationalJournal of Agricultural Sustainability 4 (1), 61–78.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-ment and United Nations Development Programme.(2002) Sustainable Development Strategies: A ResourceBook (358 pp). Paris and New York: OECD and UNDP.



Poole, N.D. (2004) Perennialism and poverty reduction:Knowledge strategies for tree and forest products.Development Policy Review 22 (1), 49–74.

Poole, N.D. (2005a) Making markets work for the ruralpoor (Hacer funcionar los mercados a beneficio de lospobres rurales). Invited paper presented at the inter-national conference Reduccion de la Pobreza en Cen-troamerica: Fortalecimiento de Servicios Tecnicos,Empresariales y Financieros, 11–13 April. Turrialba,Costa Rica: CATIE (Centro Agronomico Tropical deInvestigacion y Ensenanza).

Poole, N.D. (2005b) Poverty, inequality and ethnicity:A note to policy makers on Latin America. Eurochoices4 (3), 44–49.

Poole, N.D. and Alvarez Siman, F. (2006) La tecnologıa,el acceso a la informacion y la insercion social y eco-nomica: el impacto de las telesecundarias en las comu-nidades indıgenas de Chiapas. Paper presented at theSeptimo Foro de Evaluacion Educativa, San LuisPotosı, Mexico, 24–26 October.

Poole, N.D. and Penrose Buckley, C. (2006) Innovationchallenges, constraints and opportunities for the ruralpoor. Background Paper for the International Fundfor Agricultural Development (IFAD), Rome. OnWWW at http://www.ifad.org/events/gc/29/panel/e/poole.pdf. Accessed September 2007. Wye, Kent,UK: Imperial College London.

Ravallion, M., Datt, G. and van de Walle, D. (1991)Quantifying absolute poverty in the developingworld. Review of Income and Wealth 37 (4),345–361.

Ravallion, M. (2004) Pro-poor growth: A primer.Research Working Paper Number 3242: 28. Washing-ton, DC: World Bank.

Shaanker, R.U., Ganeshaiah, K.N., Krishnan, S., Ramya,R., Meera, C., Aravind, N.A., Kumar, A., Rao, D.,Vanraj, G., Ramachandra, J., Gauthier, R., Ghazoul,J., Poole, N.D. and Chinnappa Reddy, B.V. (2004)Livelihood gains and ecological costs of NTFP depen-dence: Assessing the roles of dependence, ecological

knowledge and market structure in three contrastinghuman and ecological settings in south India. Environ-mental Conservation 31 (3), 242–253.

Tilley, V.Q. (2002) New help or new hegemony? Thetransnational indigenous peoples’ movement andBeing Indian’ in El Salvador. Journal of Latin Ameri-can Studies 34 (3), 525–554.

USDA Economic Research Service (2005) Rural Childrenat a Glance. Economic Information Bulletin Number1, March. Washington DC: United States Departmentof Agriculture.

van Cott, D.L. (2003) From exclusion to inclusion: Boli-via’s 2002 elections. Journal of Latin American Studies35 (4), 751–775.

Villafuerte Solıs, D. (2005) Rural Chiapas ten years afterthe armed uprising of 1994: An economic overview.Journal of Peasant Studies 32 (3), 461–483.

Wadsworth, J., Richards, M., Maxwell, S., Baumeister,E., Colindres, I., Laforge, M., Lopez, M., Pino, H.N.,Sauma, J.P. and Walker, I. (2004) Opciones ParaReducir la Pobreza Rural en Centroamerica. San Jose,Costa Rica: Unidad Regional de Asistencia Tecnica.

Washbrook, S. (2005) The Chiapas uprising of1994: Historical antecedents and political conse-quences. Journal of Peasant Studies 32 (3–4),417–449.

Wolfensohn, J.D. and Bourguignon, F. (2004) Develop-ment and poverty reduction: Looking back, lookingahead. Paper prepared for the 2004 Annual Meetingof the World Bank and the IMF, October. WashingtonDC: World Bank.

World Bank (1990) Poverty. World Development Report1990. New York: Oxford University Press.

World Bank Institute Poverty and Growth Blog. (Nodate) Indigenous and Tribal People and PRSPs. OnWWW at http://pgpblog.worldbank.org/indigenous_and_tribal_people_and_prsps. Accessed 21.05.07.

World Commission on Environment and Development.(1987) Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press.


330 N. POOLE ET AL.

rural poverty in mexico: assets and livelihood strategies among … · 2010-09-15 · rural poverty...

Documents