Wealth Ranking Research Articles

Wealth Ranking' in Socio-Economic Research: Substitute or Compliment?

Wealth Ranking' in Socio-Economic Research: Substitute or Compliment?

Socioeconomic stratification by wealth ranking: Is it valid?

This paper validates a Rapid Rural Appraisal wealth-ranking technique using standard socioeconomic indicators from a household survey in rural Bangladesh. Key informants stratified 1,637 households into three wealth groups according to a number of broad criteria and a questionnaire was subsequently administered to each household. Health, demographic and economic variables derived from the questionnaire were found to differ significantly according to wealth group. Analysis supports the construct validity and empirical validity of the wealth-ranking technique as a means of stratifying households by socioeconomic status. The requirements for external validity, as assessed through the comparison of findings with similar studies elsewhere in South Asia, are also satisfied.

Investigating Difference: Applications of Wealth Ranking and Household Survey Approaches among Farming Households in Southern Zimbabwe

ABSTRACTWealth ranking and household survey approaches to understanding wealth stratification are applied in tandem for a sample of farming households in southern Zimbabwe. While conventional surveys usually stratify sample populations according to criteria chosen by the researcher, wealth ranking is based on criteria offered by local people. Patterns of wealth and well‐being over time, between ecological zones and in relation to local indicators are explored with focus groups of men and women. The rankings emerging from these discussions are compared with survey data for the same household sample. The wealth rankings are highly correlated with livestock ownership, farm asset holdings, crop harvests and crop sales. Wealth ranks derived from farmers' analyses are then compared with a cluster analysis of the survey data, with both discrepancies and overlaps discussed. It is concluded that wealth ranking provides an accurate indicator of relative wealth and that ranking can be a useful complementary method to be employed alongside survey assessments. In addition, qualitative discussions during ranking exercises reveal details of the historically, socially and economically constructed understandings of wealth and well‐being of different actors. The conventional assumption that surveys always provide ‘better’ data is thus questioned.

Rapid rural appraisal and participatory research in the Philippines

Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) was conducted in the fishing village of Lakaran, in the municipality of Dumangas, Iloilo province to identify the resources, livelihood, problems, opportunities, and socioeconomic condition of the villagers prior to the conduct of farmer participatory research on mussel farming. RRA tools such as the construction of the village transect, seasonal calendar and wealth ranking were used.

The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) describes a growing family of approaches and methods to enable local people to share, enhance and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to act. PRA has sources in activist participatory research, agroecosystem analysis, applied anthropology, field research on farming systems, and rapid rural appraisal (RRA). In RRA information is more elicited and extracted by outsiders; in PRA it is more shared and owned by local people. Participatory methods include mapping and modeling, transect walks, matrix scoring, seasonal calendars, trend and change analysis, well-being and wealth ranking and grouping, and analytical diagramming. PRA applications include natural resources management, agriculture, poverty and social programs, and health and food security. Dominant behavior by outsiders may explain why it has taken until the 1990s for the analytical capabilities of local people to be better recognized and for PRA to emerge, grow and spread.

Socioeconomic Status, Gender, and Risk of HIV‐1 Infection in a Rural Community in South West Uganda

This report explores the hypothesis that the presence of HIV infection in rural south west Uganda is associated with socioeconomic status and gender. As part of an ethnographic, medical, and serological survey in 15 villages in Masaka district, population 9,950 persons, data were collected on a series of possible socioeconomic indicators. Serological specimens were collected from all consenting individuals for the determination of HIV serostatus. In five selected study villages, there was a good correlation between wealth rankings made by selected local residents and four socioeconomic indices, namely, type of dwelling, available land size, ownership of cattle, and an index of household items. These indices were applied to the full data set to rank the households in all villages. The resulting ranking was matched against HIV‐1 status of household heads and, subsequently, their first‐degree relatives. Analyzing the data from the 15 villages combined, there was evidence from all four indicators that both male and female heads of the poorest households were most likely to be HIV positive. The increased risk of HIV infection of the poor may be due in part to the income‐generating strategies they adopt to survive.

Social discrimination in community forestry: Socio-economic and gender perspectives

A study was carried out to analyze the existing social discrimination among Community Forest User Group (CFUG) members. Two CFUGs representing heterogeneous ethnic groups in Syangja district were selected to examine the participation of CFUG members in Community Forestry (CF) activities, benefit sharing and fund mobilization system. PRA/RRA tools like questionnaire survey, wealth ranking, key informant survey, triangulation, and informal discussion were employed to generate primary data. Statistical parameters such as percentage, mean, ANOVA, and contingency coefficient were used to interpret this data. The perception of local people was measured on the five point Likert scale, and Chi-square test was applied to interpret this result. The participation of the poor, disadvantaged group and women were minimal in CF activities but their presence was more at the time of forest product distribution. Timber had been distributed less to the poor and disadvantaged group (DAG) households than to others. More than 65% CFUG members were unaware about CFUG fund. Their overall perceptions of CF management were not positive. The result clearly demonstrated discrimination between the rich and the poor, male and female, and DAG and non-DAG within the CFUG. Key words: Community forest user group; discrimination; participation; disadvantaged group; poor DOI: 10.3126/banko.v20i2.4799 Banko Janakari Vol.20(2) 2010 pp.26-33