Participatory Poverty Assessment Effort in Food Security and Extension Policy: Evidence From Indonesia

Participatory Poverty Assessment Effort in Food Security and Extension Policy: Evidence From Indonesia

Muhamad Rusliyadi (Polytechnic of Agricultural Development Yogyakarta-Magelang, Indonesia) and Azaharaini Bin Hj. Mohd. Jamil (University Brunei Darussalam, Brunei)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1042-1.ch024
OnDemand PDF Download:
No Current Special Offers


The impact study assessment aims to evaluate policies and monitor the achievement of targets and the results of a development program such as DMP. The output obtained is information that is an evaluation of how the policy was planned, initiated, and implemented. Participatory monitoring and evaluation analyze the outcome and impact of the DMP Program. PPA seeks to answer the question of whether or not the policy or program is working properly. A participatory approach may improve the outcomes in the form of a new policy model for the future. The output of the PPA process from this study is the agricultural policy formulated in terms of practical ways of approaching poverty problems from a local perspective. The success of alternative policy options applied by local government such as physical, human resources, and institution development at the grassroots level should be adopted at the national level. It should represent the best example of a case of successful program implementation at the grassroots level which can then be used in formulating national policies and strategies.
Chapter Preview


PPA initiates a participatory method that thrives in the viewpoint of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). They become key to mechanisms for advance policy agency by embodiment of the community’s participation. PRA has been seen as a family of approaches and methods to enable local people to share and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, and to plan and to act (Chambers, 1994). It emerged in the early 1990s building on insights and methodological innovations from various study methods. Agro-ecosystem analysis provided the series of diagramming, mapping, scoring, and grading methods of the different natural processes; insight provided by the work of practical and development anthropologists and those of field research in farming systems emphasized villagers’ capability in conducting their own personal analysis; and most notably there was the development of Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) (Ruggeri Laderchi, 2001).

Conservative poverty estimates, together with equally conservative financial and qualification estimates, have been criticized for leading to external enforcement, and for not taking into account the views of poor people themselves. The participatory approach’s purpose is to change this and to enable the people themselves to take part in decisions about what it entails to be poor and the level of poverty (Chambers, 1994, 1997). The implementation of PPA, evolved from PRA, is described as “a rising family unit of approaches and methods to enable local people to distribute, develop and analyze their understanding of living and circumstances, to plan and to effort” (Chambers, 1994). Originally, it was intended for small projects, then the World Bank, to complement to its poverty assessments, scaled up PPA. By 1998, the World Bank’s poverty assessments included a participatory aspect. A widespread multi-country workout (of 23 countries) was similarly incorporated as conditions for the World Development Report, available as Voices of the Poor (Narayan, Chambers, Shah, & Petesch, 2000). According to Cornwall (2000), there are three types of PA: (1) those connected with self-determination and empowerment; (2) those linked with raising the effectiveness of programs; and (3) individuals’ emphasis on common learning. The role of participatory movements as defined by the World Bank, particularly in their poverty assessments, has tended to be compliant. It adopts PPA so that the poor will join forces with programs rather than to modify the pattern of the programs themselves (type 2), and the Voices of the Poor emphasizes the third type.

Key Terms in this Chapter

FVT: The village food team.

NGOs: Non-Governmental Institution.

AG: Affinity Group

PPA: Participatory Poverty Assessment.

GDP: Gross Domestic Product.

RMU: Rice Milling Unit.

PNPM: Program National Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Mandiri (National Program Community Empowerments).

PRA: Participatory Rural Appraisal.

LKD: Lembaga Keuangan Desa (Micro-Financial Village Institutional).

NTFS: Non-Timber Forest Productions.

DMP Program: Desa Mandiri Pangan Program (Food Self Sufficiency Village Program).

NTPFPs: Timber and Non-Timber Forest Products.

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book: