The discussion in this chapter has suggested adopting the sustainable livelihoods approach in this study of the causes and manifestation of poverty in urban Sudan, in particular in Khartoum. It has been argued that the sustainable livelihoods approach is a flexible and dynamic approach that focuses on aspects that matter to people most in a holistic manner and provides a tool for understanding the constraints on achieving them.
The approach also takes into account the interrelationships between different forms of vulnerability among the poor and the systems of support available to them to deal with them successfully.
While the sustainable livelihoods approach is one tool for examining the main and common aspects surrounding poverty, it is not the only approach and it has to be adapted to suit local circumstances and overcome some perceived shortcomings. There- fore, while the SL approach’s main elements will guide the study, other issues that are not covered explicitly by the SL framework but impact on poverty will be incorporated in the adapted framework. It has been argued that the presence of assets is not enough for households to build sustainable livelihoods but what is critical is accessibility to these assets, which is largely determined by power and politics. These factors are made explicit within the suggested study framework and it also reflects on the specific characteristics of urban situations taking on board the key contextual factors that are specific to urban areas, treating them as interrelated in the provision of the final out- come of poverty.
Defining the term ‘household’ is seen as an important entry point for the study. Households are complex units of analysis which are formed of members with different interests and goals. Intra-household resource allocation and decision-making are influenced by multiple factors including norms, values, beliefs and relations beyond the household.
Hence there is a need to consider how these factors in turn influence the access of different members to different sources and types of capital.
Research problem
The previous chapters have provided a broad sketch of the constraints within which the urban poor in Sudan pursue their livelihoods. Shifting policy directions have impacted negatively on people’s private and public endowments (their human and physical capital including their access to urban public services). There are indications that some groups have been marginalized (because they are more affected by the above-mentioned changes) while other groups have benefited from intricate networks of kinship and political affiliations. The aim of this study is to understand why some households have been able to escape poverty whilst others remain trapped in poverty or have experienced further decline. This focus entails looking at the way people conduct their livelihood strategies within the constraining effects of the social and natural environment.
Research questions
The main reason for applying the SL approach in Sudan was to investigate the follow- ing questions:
1. Who are the poor and who are the better-off? What capital do they have and how do they construct their livelihoods?
2. What are the key institutions and processes, including rights, that are concerned with providing, and/or denying access?
3. What have been the major changes for people in different periods, and what effect has this had on their livelihood strategies and what factors have shaped these pro- cesses?
Type of data needed to answer these questions
• Assets available to households and individuals within the household: access to and control over main livelihood resources, ways of using these assets and men’s and women’s priorities.
• The way rights influence access to assets, the main assets that are influenced by rights, i.e. physical assets such as housing, economic assets like employment oppor- tunities.
• The operation of power and politics in the livelihood of the poor: the link between institutions and power/exclusion; the mechanisms that restrict or grant people’s access to various resources, the social traits of the excluded individuals, people’s ability to have a role in decision-making, the weight and importance that people attach to rights and citizenship, people’s aspirations, and the way they have been able to engage and make effective demands on the state, kinds of collective actions.
• The rules, regulations and prevailing social attitudes and values, particularly those of powerful actors in society that sabotage an individual’s livelihood strategies. Reconstruction of the experiences of events and changes that have taken and the ways of responding to them, sources of support that households depend on in times of need.
Data collection methods
Field research was undertaken between May and 13 July 2005 in four neighbourhoods in Khartoum. Earlier field research in 2004 provided the basis for a broader under- standing of issues to be further investigated. Some of the case studies from the previous three years and up to July 2007 were also followed up. The selection criteria for communities aimed at monitoring the diversity and dynamic of livelihood activities and possibly comparing patterns. The first step in the field research involved the selection of communities where there were variations in livelihood means and culture. There were eight poor neighbourhoods in and around Greater Khartoum and the study selected four of them.
A visual assessment was made of the eight poor neighbourhoods before selecting the four. A visit was paid to each neighbourhood to note the quality of housing, market- based activities, the availability of health and education facilities, the appearance of the children on the street and the quality of their clothes, population density, service cover- age, exposure to calamities, dominant housing pattern, etc. Although this might seem a cursory appraisal, given the lack of other means to identify which neighbourhood is poorer than others, this form of substantiation seemed necessary. On the basis of this information, four eligible neighbourhoods were selected which represented the ‘poorest’, ‘better-off’ and those ‘in between’ among the eight poor neighbourhoods. The four neighbourhoods selected were Al-Baraka (previously Kartoon Kassala), Mayo, Dar es Salam and Siriha because they represented an interesting diversity in terms of comparative well-being and ethnic make-up. Siriha neighbourhood was selected as it showed considerable socio-economic progress compared to the other three areas despite being the most recently established. Finding it would shed light on how households and communities have managed to improve their well-being. Mayo was selected because it was the city’s poorest neighbourhood despite being one of the oldest. The other two neighbourhoods seemed to fall in the middle between the Siriha and Mayo in terms of well-being. Al Baraka neighbourhood is the oldest neighbourhood among the four, yet the general conditions appeared to be lower than in Dar es Salam. It was hoped that these variations would depict the diverse constraints each community was facing.
The four neighbourhoods are distributed over the three cities of Greater Khartoum on the outskirts of: Khartoum, Khartoum Bahri and Umdurman (see Map 3.1).
The selection of the sample households
Seventy households were selected in each neighbourhood using a stratified sampling technique. Instead of selecting from the neighbourhood as a whole, the selection opted to use geographical divisions (blocks) for each neighbourhood. Abusin (2003: Appendix B) found that using stratified sampling based on geographical location was the most suitable technique for Participatory Poverty Assessments in such areas because of the danger of excluding some households when using a list of inhabitants as a basis for selection. Most importantly, those neighbourhoods are increasingly expanding and newcomers are usually not known to the formal authorities.
Selecting blocks therefore allowed the inclusion of newcomers as well as the poorest who live in ‘illegal’ temporary shacks. The geographical division of each neighbour- hood was as follows: Mayo was divided into 16 blocks, Al Braka 11, Dar es Salam 12 blocks and Siriha 12 blocks. Around a quarter of the blocks from each neighbourhood were selected at random (see Table 6.1). The study then opted to explore the full continuum of well-being levels in the block. Community meetings were held with members of the selected blocks and neighbourhood residents with good community knowledge. These meetings involved diverse groups of the population (men, women, youth, different ethnic groups, power groups). Participants defined what they believed to be the categories of poverty in the community and proposed the terminologies, definitions and meanings of words that express poverty and well-being in their commu- nity. These meetings classified households into four broad levels of well-being: those who are ‘always poor’ (tabaneen) and usually need assistance to cope, the ‘sometimes poor’ or (nus nus), the ‘medium’ (wasat); and the last were the ‘non-poor’ (murtaheen). This classification relied mainly on the type and stability of employment and the dura- tion of poverty. Other factors that people saw as placing households apart from the rest included ownership of a dwelling, affiliation to a powerful network, and having access to electricity (grid or power generator) for lighting.
Table 6.1 Selection of households according to well-being category
Neigh- bourhood Popula- tion 2004 (x1000) Estim. popula- tion per block (x1000) No. of blocks No. of selected blocks No. of selected h’holds from each block No. of selected non-poor house- holds in each block No. of selected sometimes poor h’holds in each block No. of selected ‘medium’ house- holds in each block No. of selected always poor house- holds in each block Mayo 517 32 16 4 16,16, 19,19 2,2,3,3 5,5,5,5, 2,2,3,3 7,7,8,8 Dar es Salam 480 40 12 3 22,23, 25 3,3,4 6,7,7 3,3,4 10,10, 10 Al Baraka 343 3 11 3 22,23, 25 3,3,4 6,7,7 3,3,4 10,10, 10 Siriha 8 0.7 12 3 22,23, 25 3,3,4 6,7,7 3,3,4 10,10, 10
Seventy households, distributed along the line of wealth ranking identified by the community, were randomly selected from each neighbourhood (see Table 6.1). Given that the goal of the study was to understand qualitatively the nature and dynamics of poverty, it was necessary to insert a measure to ensure that respondents represented predominantly the poor, and included some of the poorest of the poor. The division was as follows: 30 households from the ‘always poor’; 20 from the ‘sometimes poor’; 10 households from the ‘medium’; and 10 households from the ‘non poor’.
The methods used for data collection and analysis were participatory, in line with the framework that seeks to understand the opinions of members of the community, and especially poorer men and women, in matters concerning their daily reality and their ideas about ways of addressing these issues. The Participatory Poverty Assessments (PPAs) drew from the lessons learnt from the first PPA and aimed to complement the poverty trends observed in the preliminary study. Various participatory techniques were used including household survey, community survey, focus group discussions and interviews. The interviews and meetings were semi-structured with open-ended questions and topics for discussion prepared in advance. Question were added or omitted as appropriate. Interviews and meetings with local men and women, children and leaders were held in the neighbourhoods selected. The knowledge of individuals whose socio-economic status provided them with a better ability to give a vivid account of poverty was sought through livelihood analysis or life histories, even if these people were no longer residing in the neighbourhood. In-depth life history interviews that provided a retrospective view of trajectories of change were conducted with 40 house- holds representing all the social classes in the four localities. The life history interviews were geared at generating information regarding determinants of certain routes in individuals’ lives and the availability or absence of options. Interviews also included those who were considered to be ‘non-poor’ in order to highlight the main features that differentiate them from the poor and, most importantly, to understand why they were not falling into severe and/or long-term poverty. Officials and leaders of large organiza- tions at district and provincial levels were also interviewed. Secondary data were collected at different levels, notably local statistics and provincial strategy documents. Both qualitative and quantitative data were generated. The collective perceptions and estimates obtained from participants’ life experiences formed the basis for analysis. On- site analysis was made by participants through visual diagrams, maps matrices, calen- dars etc. The analysis did not attempt to aggregate findings from the study areas to the larger population.
The next part of the study presents the empirical analysis and is divided into four chapters. Chapter 7 provides a brief comparative perspective of the study areas and then identifies some of the major policies, institutions and processes operating in the areas, and analyzes the way they shape the poor’s opportunities to make meaningful choice. Chapter 8 highlights livelihood diversity and the different kinds of activities that house- holds undertake. It examines how this mix of activities varies according to a house- hold’s resources and in response to external shocks and stresses. Chapter 9 examines access to resources by households in the different well-being categories and in Chapter 10 life paths provide a retrospective view of trajectories of change and generate infor- mation regarding determinants of certain routes in individuals’ lives and the availability or absence of options. The last chapter summarizes the study’s findings and provides some concluding remarks and policy notes.