Tool Name: Wealth (Well-Being) Ranking What is it? This tool is a method for collecting and analyzing data on perceptions of wealth differences and inequalities in a community and for identifying and understanding local indicators and criteria of wealth, well-being, and poverty. What can it be used • understanding socioeconomic differences within communities for? • understanding local perceptions of and criteria for wealth, well-being, and inequality in a community • categorizing households or social groups into different locally perceived economic or more general well-being categories • exploring differences in how different people have access to and use resources • identifying target group members before a project, program, or policy is changed or implemented, or to determine the extent to which targeting has proved successful after the event What does it tell • local concepts of wealth, economic, and well-being status you? • economic and well-being profile of a community • social stratification at the community level • ownership of or use rights to productive assets Complementary Social mapping tools Key elements This participatory data generating process uses locally defined criteria for wealth/well- being. Requirements Data/information This tool generates data and information; the only prior information required is for identifying the sampling frame within the community. Time The time is depends on size of the community and the number of households or individuals being ranked. Skills Good participatory facilitation skills and social analytical skills Supporting No software needed software Financial cost This tool will cost $30,000 to $100,000 when conducted as part of a participatory study, depending on the number of communities sampled and the geographical scope of the study. Limitations Wealth ranking gives a static picture and does not easily convey poverty dynamics. A narrow focus on ranking households does not address the distribution of well-being within households (such as by gender or age). Wealth ranking might be a sensitive issue and some might see a participatory or “public” exercise as overly intrusive. References and FAO. The Forest Manager's Guide to Participatory Forest Management: Module 3 . applications The Participatory Process in Forest Management. Forestry Policy and Institutions Branch, Forestry Department. http://www.fcghana.com/pfma_fao/archive_docs/ref_docs/pfm_manager_guide_modu le3.pdf. Jeffries, D., H. Warburton, K. Oppong-Nkrumah, and E. Fredua Antoh. n.d. Wealth Ranking Study of Villages in Peri-urban Areas of Kumasi, Ghana. Collaborative project between the Social and Economic Development Department, Natural Resources Institute and the Statistical Services Centre, The University of Reading. http://www.rdg.ac.uk/ssc/publications/guides/cs6_kuma.pdf. Pakistan Government, Planning Commission. 2004. “Between Hope and Despair.” Pakistan Participatory Poverty Assessment–Sindh and Punjab Reports. Rock, F., ed. 2001. Participatory Land Use Planning (PLUP) in Rural Cambodia, Annex 11. Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction 1 (MLMUPC), Cambodia. http://www.mekonginfo.org/mrc_en/doclib.nsf/0/BA7AA16ECF97B14247256BC90030 DFF1/$FILE/Annex11.html. Sontheimer, S. et al. 1999. Conducting a PRA Training and Modifying PRA Tools to Your Needs. An Example from a Participatory Household Food Security and Nutrition Project in Ethiopia. http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/003/X5996E/X5996E 00.HTM. 2 Wealth (Well-Being) Ranking: Procedures and Examples Time, Materials, and Skills Needed About one hour should be allowed to conduct a wealth-ranking exercise and to ensure that a full discussion occurs with local analysts. Markers/pens and are a large number of cards are required. Notebooks/paper and pens are needed for the note-taker to record the discussion generated during the ranking. The discussion group will include a facilitator, observer/note-taker, and selected local analysts. The facilitator and observer/note-taker should be experienced in both the principles behind the use of participatory tools and methods as well as in their practical use. Knowledge of the social structure of the community is required by the facilitator because community members might consider wealth or poverty to be sensitive issues, which might affect the discussion and analysis. If local analysts or community members are uncomfortable with discussing the exercise, the facilitator should try other methods of investigating local criteria and concepts of well-being that do not involve ranking individual households. Possible Approach The following approach is a general example that can be adapted to suit the local context, views of local analysts, and the research objectives. If a social map has not been produced, then a method using cards can be used; an alternative that might be more suitable in some circumstances is to move straight from social mapping into a wealth ranking (both approaches are described below). Step 1: Select Local Analysts. Identify the groups of people to talk to about their perceptions of wealth criteria and ranking. These decisions will be based on the objectives and depth of information required for the research. For example, separate gender groups might be useful because women and men might have different criteria for determining wealth or well-being status. However, it might be necessary to break down the population into further categories (such as by ethnicity, age, livelihood group, or caste). Groups of five to ten local analysts should reflect any relevant and important social divisions. The information they provide will also allow some cross-checking with different groups at different locations. Step 2: Provide Introductions and Explanations. When working with each group, the facilitator and observer/note-taker should begin by introducing themselves and explaining carefully and clearly the objectives of the discussion. Issues surrounding wealth might be sensitive subjects for local analysts; check that they understand and feel comfortable with what will be discussed. Step 3: Produce a Wealth Ranking A. Without a social map: Ask the local analysts to write the names of all the households living in the community on a card (one name per card) together with any other information that might be significant to a particular enquiry. An official list of all the households in the community might be available; if it is used, make sure that it is double-checked by local analysts because official lists or registers might be incomplete or out of date. (In cases where discretion and confidentiality are required, it is possible to assign a number to each 3 household so that after the analysts have grouped households into different categories, the household can be referred to by a number rather than by a name.) In a large community, where a small group of analysts from one location cannot be expected to retain accurate information about the situation of all the other households, the cards can be divided into smaller groups. Ask the analysts to discuss the criteria that they use in distinguishing between the better and less well-off members of their community. What makes them think that a household is better off or less well-off? Next, ask them to sort the cards in to as many piles as there are wealth categories in the community (using their own criteria), resorting as they go, if necessary. This will usually lead to the cards being sorted into about four or five categories. If, however, the number of categories is smaller, it might be appropriate to ask if any piles could be further subdivided. When the process is complete, ask the analysts to take each pile in turn and explain the broad characteristics held in common by the households falling within it. Also ask about the differences in criteria between piles. Some further resorting might take place in the light of the criteria expressed. If, for the purposes of the investigation, it is important to distinguish between different levels within the target group but the given categories do not fully meet these requirements, it might be appropriate to ask for some more resorting at this stage. It is generally easy to resolve this difficulty when it arises. The final step is to record the category of each household at the bottom of the card. B. After a social map: An alternative procedure, which is potentially quicker and might work better under some circumstances, involves moving directly from a social map into a wealth-ranking exercise. When the location of all the households in a community, or part of a community, have been located on a social map, ask the analysts to name the wealthiest member, then the next wealthiest, and so forth, until they find it difficult to continue. As this is done, each household is given a number and recorded by the analysts, or on a list that they can see. Repeat this procedure with the poorest households, working up from the bottom, until a point is reached where it is no longer possible for analysts to decide or agree on a precise order. Next, ask the analysts to divide the remaining households into categories according to whatever criteria they think are relevant. When the sorting has been completed, ask the analysts to discuss the criteria used to identify the different groups and to record the discussion and results. 4 As a final step, it might sometimes be appropriate to ask analysts, working either from the map or the list, to indicate ownership of key assets (such as livestock or land) by individual households or to identify others by characteristics. Step 4: Analyze a Wealth Ranking. In the analysis of wealth ranking, key questions might include the following: • What are local perceptions of wealth, well-being, and inequality? • What are the local terms for poverty and well-being? How diverse or narrow are they? • What are the socioeconomic groupings in the community and who belongs in which group? • What does one group have that others do not? • How are households currently distributed between the different categories? • Do community decision makers all come from same group/strata? • How might a proposed policy change impact wealth categories and the distribution of individuals, households, or social groups across those categories? It is also possible to relate the classification arrived at for individual households to numerous other types of data (such as loan distribution, training opportunities, illness, or schooling) to see whether these correlate with well-being. If there are several different groups, each group can be asked to present the criteria and categories they used to the others for their reactions and comments. Are there serious disagreements? If so, note these and whether a consensus is reached. However, this discussion might not be appropriate if wealth ranking is a sensitive subject; facilitators should be aware of the local situation and feelings. Step 5: Conclude the Activity. Check again that they know how the information will be used for. Ask the analysts to reflect on the advantages, disadvantages, and the analytical potential of the tool. Thank the local analysts for their time and effort. Points to Remember Good facilitation skills are key. The approach outlined above is a general guide; be flexible and adapt the tool and approach to local contexts and needs. Case Study Example: Well-Being Categories from the Pakistan Participatory Poverty Assessment Local analysts from Punjab Province in the Pakistan Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA) tended to categorize people into four groups: very poor, poor, better-off, and well-off. Specific names for each category existed in each site with differences in terminology sometimes found even between subsites. The local analysts explained the characteristics they used to rank people and households in a well-being ranking. Table 1 shows the aggregation from all the Punjab PPA sites and the social categories of local analysts. 5 Table 1. Aggregated Well-Being Criteria in Punjab Province Well-being category Well-off Better-off Poor Very poor Educated Educated children Large family. Large family. Social characteristics daughters. (sometimes Victims of crime. Unmarried Dominant caste daughters). Unable to fulfill daughters. and clans (Kharals, Can afford dowry. children’s desires. Female household Awans, Laghari). Professional. Single earner. head. Powerful. Cannot entertain Helplessness. Influential. guests. Low caste Easily affords (Kammis). marriage costs. Women. Animals as pets. Disabled. Victims of crime. Orphan. Concrete houses. Own land (in irrigated Some land. Landless. Large fertile areas). Few possessions. No house. landholdings. Water (in barani Small livestock. Few possessions. Gold jewelry. areas). Few or no sons. No sons. Education. Buffaloes and large Low access to Illiterate. Assets Drinking livestock. health care. Chronic illness. water/sanitation. Electricity, gas (urban Low access to Electricity, gas, areas). education. telephone. Access to education Lack of water Tractors. and health care. (barani areas). Water (in barani Access to credit. Many liabilities. areas). Armed forces Employed as Wage labor. Unemployed. Coping and officers. professionals. Migration to other Wage labor. strategies livelihood Factory owners. Overseas migration. areas or cities. Depend on charity. Landlords. Small business/shop. Working women. One meal a day. Purchase jewelry. Purchase jewelry and Train children in Working women. Save for times of save (urban areas). skills. Working children. shock. Educate children. Active in politics. Access to police. No access to No access to institutions, and Access to police Participates in justice. justice. PIP (policies, processes) and justice. decision making. Little voice. No voice. Power and Excluded from No power. authority. decision making. Excluded from social gatherings. Source: Planning and Development Department, Government of the Punjab, Pakistan 2004. Between Hope and Despair, Pakistan Participatory Poverty Assessment–Punjab Report. There were commonalities in the way the very poor were characterized throughout the Punjab sites. The very poor were seen as those who were landless, had no house of their own, were dependent on daily wage labor for income, had large families, barely managed to eat one meal a day, were in debt, received zakat/khairat (charity), and often resorted to begging. Other characteristics included chronic illness, unmarried daughters, no sons, physical disability, and no access to justice. However, there were also characteristics that were perceived by particular social groups. Female local analysts, for example, added additional dimensions such as not having a male head of household and women working to add to household income. Children also had their 6 own perceptions of the poor and poorest, including being nadar (helpless), not being cared for by anyone, and not being able to fulfill the desires of children. The different ways in which local analysts from different social groups perceive and emphasize different well-being criteria is clearly seen in tables 2 and 3, showing the criteria used by poor women, women laborers, and poor male haris and laborers from a poor and better-off subsite in Nawabshah, Sindh Province. These tables emphasize the need for breaking down a population into separate subgroups of local analysts (see Step 1) to understand more clearly how different population subgroups will rank people of households into wealth or well-being categories. Table 2. Criteria of Well-Being, Poorest Subsite, Nawabshah, Sindh Well-off Better-off Poor Very poor Analysis by poor male Owns 15 to 20 acres Owns 2 to 3 acres of Does agri-labor on Is unemployed. haris and laborers of arable land. arable land. farms owned by others. Owns tractor. Has a government job, such as, Master. Owns good home Owns 3or 4 buffaloes Owns 1 buffalo and Does not own any even if it is kutcha. and 2 or 3 goats. 1 goat. livestock. Mani Machi Wala Is unable to make Looks to others for (one who has bread ends meet and is roti (bread) and and fish). often worried. wears tattered clothes. Well-off Better-off Poor Very poor Owns 50 acres of arable land. Owns 9 buffaloes and Owns 2 buffaloes, 2 Owns 1 goat. Does not own any 15 goats. cows, 12 goats. livestock. Owns pucca house. Owns kutcha house. Lives in a kutcha Lives in a mud house or a hut. house. Analysis by women laborers Grows enough food Grows enough food Eats lentils and Works all day and is to meet sustenance to meet sustenance onion. yet unable to feed needs of household. needs of household. self adequately. Eats roti with water and at times goes hungry. Has some savings. Does labor or agri- Works as a laborer, labor takes livestock for grazing, and sells grass as fodder. Owns 15 charpoys Owns good bedding Owns 2 charpoys, Does not have a (string beds). Has and utensils. old bedding, and charpoy (string bed). many beddings, wears hand-me- Owns worn-out rillies utensils, and two down clothes. and tattered clothes. stoves. Owns a bicycle, Owns a cycle. Is barefoot. motorcycle, and a donkey cart. Are able to educate their children. Source: Planning and Development Department, Government of Sindh, Pakistan 2004. Between Hope and Despair, Pakistan Participatory Poverty Assessment–Sindh Report. 7 Table 3. Criteria of Well-Being, Better-Off Subsite, Nawabshah, Sindh Well-off Better-off Poor Very poor Owns 50 to 200 Owns 12 acres of acres of land. land. Has a pucca house, Has a nice house. Has a kutcha house Has house made of TV, and refrigerator. or hut. grass, uses broken Wears tattered utensils, a frayed Analysis by poor male haris and laborers clothes. quilt in winter, and a small rilly. Children go to Children have no school. soap for bathing. Grows enough to Machi Mani Wala Eat meat on Eid or meet household food (one who has fish marriage needs. and bread). ceremonies. Has a lot of money. One or two persons Earns on a daily in the household basis or is have government or unemployed. other jobs and earn up to Rs. 3,000– 4,000. Are not dependent Are not dependent Is dependent on on others. on others. Others charity. readily help them if needed. Is respected and has Landlords abuse decision-making them and suppress powers. their voices. They are criticized by everybody, and they do not receive any marriage proposals. Well-off Better-off Poor Very poor Owns 100 to 200 acres of land. Owns livestock. Analysis by poor women Owns pucca house, Owns pucca house, Owns kutcha house Lives in a kutcha hut car, furniture, motorcycle, shop, or hut. that has no refrigerator. TV, VCR, furniture. Does not own a car. amenities. Eats well. Is able to eat meat Generally eats Is not able to eat once a week. lentils, vegetables. three meals. Dresses well. Dresses well. Wears tattered clothes. Children are Has many children. Is childless. educated. Many dependents; Resorts to begging to one person earns to make ends meet. feed about ten. Is disabled or suffers from some illness. Source: Planning and Development Department, Government of Sindh, Pakistan 2004. Between Hope and Despair, Pakistan Participatory Poverty Assessment–Sindh Report. 8