Collective Action and Property Rights for Poverty Reduction
DOI: 10.9783/9780812207873.79
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

4 Shocks, Groups, and Networks in Bukidnon, the Philippines

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On the supply side, agents receiving remittances may be pushed to move away from their main activity or to diversify their agricultural production. On the demand side, they can spend remittances to maintain a minimum level of consumption during precipitation shocks and drought periods (Yang and Choi, 2005; Quisumbing et al ., 2008). The macroeconomic consequences of such behaviors remain undetermined.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the supply side, agents receiving remittances may be pushed to move away from their main activity or to diversify their agricultural production. On the demand side, they can spend remittances to maintain a minimum level of consumption during precipitation shocks and drought periods (Yang and Choi, 2005; Quisumbing et al ., 2008). The macroeconomic consequences of such behaviors remain undetermined.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, international and skilled migrants tend to remit larger amounts of money, compared with regional or unskilled migrants (Deshingkar 2012), suggesting that such migrants may increase the inequality of initial conditions between poorer households and those that are able to educate and finance sending members abroad. Quisumbing, McNiven, and Godquin's (2012) longitudinal study in southern Bukidnon in the Philippines provides an example of how social networks can affect resilience. The 2004 round of a survey conducted by IFPRI and the Research Institute for Mindanao Culture, Xavier University, interviewed parents who were original respondents and households formed by children who no longer lived in their origin villages.…”
Section: Social Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, Shepherd (2007) warns against making business development for the poor part of social policy, because successful marketing often has to prioritize profits over equity or sustainability concerns. Besides, the private sector actors prefer to deal with farmers who have demonstrated capacity for commercial production, which by default often excludes the poorest, who are less likely to form groups in the first place because of the low asset endowments (including lower stocks of social capital), or may be excluded from existing and/or successful groups, especially those formed for economic purposes (Quisumbing, McNiven, & Godquin, 2008; Thorp et al., 2005).…”
Section: Policy Implications: How To Make Collective Action Effectivementioning
confidence: 99%
“…While collective marketing does enable smallholders to raise incomes through participating in more profitable markets, these smallholders may not represent the poorest layers of the rural communities. In fact, there is evidence that the poorest may be disadvantaged in the accumulation of not just physical and human capital, but social capital as well (Quisumbing et al., 2008), precluding them from benefitting from collective marketing. A study of producer associations in Madagascar also found that while group activities did raise returns from marketing, they did not facilitate entry of subsistence farmers into commercial farming (Cadot et al., 2006).…”
Section: Conclusion: Lessons Learnedmentioning
confidence: 99%