• No results found

A poverty alleviation project of the Department of Social Development in Nelson Mandela Bay

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "A poverty alleviation project of the Department of Social Development in Nelson Mandela Bay"

Copied!
77
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

A poverty alleviation project of the Department of Social

Development in Nelson Mandela Bay

By

Nonkosazana Sandra Veveza Supervisor: Ms Mary Brennan

A research report submitted to the Department of Development Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements of a Master of Arts in Development Studies, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan

University

(2)

DECLARATION

I, Nonkosazana Sandra Veveza, declare that the work “A poverty alleviation project of the Department of Social Development in Nelson Mandela Bay” is my work and that all the sources quoted have been acknowledged by complete references.

Signed: __________________________

(3)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Of greatest importance I would like to thank God Almighty for His strengths and His guidance, which has taken me this far. To God be the glory.

I am grateful to my supervisor Ms M. Brennan. Her invaluable advice, constructive comments and continuous encouragement greatly facilitated my work.

My sincere thanks go to the income-generating project in New Brighton for granting me the opportunity to conduct my study. Thank you for opening up and giving me the information I needed. I thank all the respondents of this study, including those who assisted me during the information gathering process. Without your support, honesty and tolerance, it would not have been possible to gather all the required data.

I would further like to thank my manager Mr L. Faltein for encouraging me in my studies, my supervisor Mrs A. Dlali for giving me support and guidance during difficult times. Thanks Majola maka Pumpkin and colleagues at NERINA, Ibhayi Office, for standing in for me whilst I was away focusing on my studies.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my special family, most especially my child Khanya Piet for understanding my busy schedule with my studies. Thanks a lot, my Angel. Thank you to my father Sithembele Veveza for your encouragement and support. I also thank the Almighty Lord for giving me the strength to finish my studies.

(4)

ABSTRACT

Income-generating projects represent one strategy adopted by the Eastern Cape Department of Social Development (DoSD) to alleviate poverty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of an income-generating, or poverty alleviation, project funded by the DoSD in New Brighton, Port Elizabeth, in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. A sample of ten respondents was drawn from the project. The sampling method of this study was purposive sampling. Data was gathered through semi-structured questionnaires. Related literature focusing on income-generating projects for poverty alleviation was reviewed. Various recommendations have been made, based on the findings of the study. The findings of the study indicated the need for regular visits from Department officials to conduct monitoring and evaluation. Project members also need training in financial management as they cannot manage their finances. The research findings indicated clearly that strategies used by the Department were not effective enough to achieve the desired goals of an income-generating project.

(5)

Table of Contents

DECLARATION ... 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... 3

ABSTRACT ... 4

1. CHAPTER ONE – Background and Problem Statement ... 7

1.1 Introduction ... 7

1.2 The legacies of colonialism and apartheid ... 7

1.3 Progress during post-apartheid era ... 8

1.3.1 Reconstruction and Development Programme ... 9

1.3.2 Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) ... 10

1.3.3 The White Paper for Social Welfare (1997) ... 12

1.3.4 The PGDP Strategy Framework 2004 – 2014 ... 13

1.4 Problem Statement ... 14

1.5 Rationale ... 15

1.6 Conclusion ... 15

1.7 Outline of the study ... 15

2. CHAPTER TWO – Literature Review... 17

2.1 Poverty and its meaning ... 17

2.2 The measurement of poverty ... 20

2.3 Critical trends in poverty in the Eastern Cape ... 22

2.4 Poverty alleviation/reduction/eradication programmes ... 22

2.5 Understanding Community Development ... 24

2.5.1 The Dynamics of Development ... 26

2.5.2 Community participation ... 29

2.6 Role of institutions in development ... 34

2.6.1 Government as a Development Institution ... 35

2.7 Monitoring and Evaluation ... 36

2.7.1 What is Monitoring? ... 36

2.7.2 Monitoring tools ... 37

2.8 Evaluation in community development ... 37

2.8.1 Various Evaluation Methods ... 39

2.9 Conclusion ... 41

3. CHAPTER THREE – Study Area and Research Methodology ... 42

3.1 Study area... 42

3.2 Research methodology ... 44

3.3 Research process ... 44

3.4 Targeted population ... 45

3.4.1 Description of the sample ... 45

3.5 Major research techniques ... 46

3.5.1 Procedure of data collection ... 46

(6)

4.2 Funding Model ... 50

4.3 Project Information ... 52

4.3.1 Name and location of the project ... 52

4.3.2 History of the project ... 52

4.3.3 Project Objectives ... 52

4.3.4 Project Performance and sustainability ... 53

4.3.5 Leadership and governance ... 53

4.3.6 Training ... 54

4.3.7 Resources ... 54

4.3.8 Project Costs ... 54

4.3.9 Challenges ... 54

4.4 Summary of the study ... 56

5. CHAPTER FIVE – Findings, Recommendations and Conclusions ... 57

5.1 Introduction ... 57

5.2 Summary of findings ... 57

5.2.1 Findings of the study ... 57

5.2.2 Findings in relation to critical question posed in the problem statement……….59

5.3 Concluding comment ... 60

5.4 Recommendations ... 60

5.4.1 Recommendations for Income-Generating Projects ... 62

5.4.2 Recommendations for practice ... 62

5.4.3 Recommendation for future research ... 63

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 68

RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRES ... 71

Annexure A – Questionnaire for Officials ... 71

(7)

1. CHAPTER ONE – Background and Problem Statement

1.1 Introduction

In South Africa no political democracy can survive and flourish if the majority of our people remain in poverty, without land, without their basic needs being met and without tangible prospects for a better life. Attacking poverty and deprivation will, therefore, be the first priority of the democratic Government (African National Congress 1994, p.5).

This section will attempt to provide a historical and policy background as a context within which to place the more specific discussion of poverty and poverty reduction. First and foremost, South Africa’s historical circumstances have shaped the present relationship of poverty and opportunities along racial lines. Disadvantaged groups were systematically left with relatively little land and other resources, were not afforded education of a quality comparable to that of whites, and were compelled to adopt coping strategies, such as spatially divided households, which have left a complicated and painful social legacy.

1.2 The legacies of colonialism and apartheid

The most significant factor which distinguished South Africa from other African countries is its experience of colonialism and apartheid. This holds no less true for the cause and incidence of its poverty. According to Terreblanche (2002, p.371), “all attempts at relieving the terrible predicament in which the poorest half of the population finds itself today will fail if the legacy of the pre-1994 period is not thoroughly recorded and studied”. European colonization began in the 17th century with Dutch and Huguenot settlement in the Cape. Initially the impact of white settlement was mainly limited to the Cape, and mainly at the expense of Khoi Khoi pastoralists (Ross 1999). With the expansion of white settlement to the north and east, plus the arrival of British settlers in Xhosaland and Natal as an outgrowth of British imperialism, pressure on Bantu-speaking African groups became increasingly tense. The most direct aspects of this pressure were dispossession of land by whites, through which Africans were forced to retreat to

(8)

1986). The discovery of diamonds and gold completely changed the situation; there was a growing demand for black mineworkers to work in the mines. Various white governments introduced laws and policies to facilitate the supply of this labour.

Terreblanche also argues that:

“Colonialism during the Dutch and British periods (1652 – 1910) severely disrupted and impoverished indigenous population groups, but the range and penetration and exploitation during the periods of segregation (1900 – 1948) and apartheid (1948 –1994) were undoubtedly more severe from a social and cultural point of view and caused more alienation – at least in the ranks of the lower 70 per cent of Africans and, say, the lower 40 per cent of Coloureds” (2002, p.386).

He further argues that:

“A multitude of discriminatory laws prevented Africans from doing skilled and highly paid jobs. They were paid lower wages even if they were employed in the same categories as white. These laws amongst others resulted in an increase in the population trapped in poverty” (2002, p.387).

1.3 Progress during post-apartheid era

In the first decade of our democracy we have witnessed more beneficial change for the majority of the population, than in any other decade in the history of South Africa. Despite this achievement, the biggest single issue facing South Africa remains poverty. It is apparent that the wealth and prosperity created in the last decade has impacted disproportionately on different communities, making the rich richer but not enabling the poor to escape their poverty traps and preventing them from participating more equally in the benefits of a growing economy, thereby exacerbating the inequality in our society and further marginalizing the poor. Recent estimates of people living in poverty indicate that between 18 and 20 million South Africans live in poverty. Eradication of poverty lies at the heart of development practice.

According to Terreblanche:

“When, in 1994, a democratically elected government came to power it inherited a contradictory legacy: the most developed economy in Africa on

(9)

the one hand, and major socio-economic problems on the other. The most serious of these are high rates of unemployment; abject poverty among more than 50 per cent of the population; sharp inequalities in the distribution of income, property and opportunities; and high levels of crime and violence” (2002, p.25).

In order to fight these social and economic ills, the democratically elected government adopted the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP).

1.3.1 Reconstruction and Development Programme

The RDP was a blueprint development policy introduced by the African National Congress (ANC), to guide it in developing policies, especially in reshaping the state of affairs in South Africa. The RDP was based on the following key principles:

 Meeting basic needs  Building the economy  Developing infrastructure  Promoting peace and stability

 Promoting human resource development (HRD)

The RDP resulted in various government departments and associated entities undertaking a multitude of sector-related programmes and projects. Although there was progress in terms of service delivery, it was not sustainable as there was no co-ordination and proper consultation with beneficiaries to ascertain their needs. In most cases, development efforts were duplicated. Government engaged in various strategies to improve the programme and the outcomes of these include:

 The White Paper for Social Welfare (1997)  Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR)

 Eastern Cape Provincial Growth and Development Plan (PGDP), Strategy Framework 2004-2014

(10)

1.3.2 Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR)

The closure of the RDP office in 1996, and the dispersal of its staff to various government departments, coincided with the introduction of the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) programme by the Department of Finance, which was not intrinsically incompatible with the goals of the RDP (Aliber 2003). This constituted the third key government policy document which provided an approach to addressing poverty. GEAR emphasized fiscal restraint, controlling inflation and interest rates, and the relaxation of foreign exchange controls, much to the applause of business leadership. The GEAR strategy, launched by government in 1996, was aimed at job creation and economic growth through reduction in the amount of debt South Africa must pay back each year on loans (deficit reduction). Given that GEAR crucially places higher priority on debt reduction and reducing social spending, it is questionable whether GEAR has addressed the needs of the poorest. According to Aliber (2003) the critics of GEAR (Adelzadeh, Alvillar, and Mather, 1998) considered it an inappropriate approach to solving the country’s most pressing economic problems such as unemployment and poverty.

Kepe (2002) points to the Spatial Development Initiatives as an example of GEAR-related programmes. These have been criticised as lacking an implementation strategy and not being friendly to the rural poor. Given that a series of micro-economic reforms were also introduced alongside GEAR, it is at times difficult to find linear causal relationships. These included liberalization of imports through tariff reduction and encouragement of exports through export marketing assistance (Eastern Cape Provincial Government 2004).

In their analysis of the inherent contradictions between the RDP and GEAR, some critics of GEAR (Kepe 2002; Aliber 2003) go as far as describing the RDP as abandoned or as dead. Within the political leadership in government circles, the RDP and GEAR seem to be considered as two sides of the same coin, with the RDP being alive and working in tandem with GEAR. Government’s view on the matter is that the RDP represents an integrated and sustainable vision for the

(11)

creation of a post–apartheid society, while GEAR is the macro-economic policy which will guide government’s sectoral growth and development programmes aimed at achieving the objectives of the RDP (Mbeki, 1996). Very much on the same line as government, provided a list of programmes that reflect government’s commitment to social spending. These include:

 Building of RDP houses for people;

 Provision of electricity and telephone connections to people in previously under-resourced parts of the country;

 Presidential Lead programmes, such as the provision of free primary health care to children under the age of 6, pregnant and breast-feeding mothers, and the aged;

 The social safety net, including the provision of the Child Support Grant which was introduced in 1998; and

 The Poverty Relief programmes introduced since 1997 for special poverty eradication programmes, over and above the funding allocated to social services.

Despite the robust debates around South Africa’s RDP and macro-economic framework (GEAR) since 1994, there are signs that government is making some inroads in addressing poverty in its broader sense, particularly from the angle of service delivery (Aliber 2003). Various infrastructural programmes have resulted in improved access to safe water for 4 million people, improved sanitation services for over 3 million people, 600 new clinics, over 1 million residential units, and electricity for 1.5 million more households. The same source suggests, however, that the only stated target of GEAR that has been achieved is that of reducing fiscal deficit. Actual annual economic growth, formal sector employment growth, and investment projections have not been in line with GEAR projections, leading to a phenomenon of joblessness around 2000 (Aliber 2003). The causal relationship between these unfortunate developments is a matter of complex debate.

(12)

1.3.3 The White Paper for Social Welfare (1997)

Social welfare in South Africa has undergone radical changes since the establishment of democracy in 1994, and continues to do so. With these radical changes, there has been an increased demand for effective service delivery. Social development has been adopted as a policy framework for social welfare. The focal areas of social development are:

 The eradication of poverty,

 The promotion of job creation, and

 The promotion of social integration (Department of Social Development 2007, p.1).

Social development is positioned as the most appropriate intervention strategy to combat poverty in South Africa. Transformation of social welfare from a residual, remedial and individualistic approach to a developmental approach is aimed at redressing past inequalities and improving the social well-being of the vast majority who are poor. The aim of the national development strategy for the new welfare system is to develop a system which facilitates the development of human capacity and self-reliance in communities (White Paper for Social Welfare 1997). The new paradigm is about moving away from the traditional welfare approach that emphasized charity and handouts rather than developing self-reliance and sustainability. The central theme in this approach is “social development”: a process through which members of a society can increase their personal and institutional capacity to mobilize and manage resources and produce sustainable improvements in their quality of life consistent with their aspirations.

Hence, the White Paper for Social Welfare (1997) states that the goal of developmental social welfare is:

“(A) humane, peaceful, just and caring society which will uphold welfare rights, facilitate the meeting of basic human needs, release people’s creative energies, help them achieve their aspirations, build human capacity and self-reliance, and participate fully in all spheres of social, economic and political life” (White Paper, p.7).

(13)

The Poverty Relief Programme (PRP) was mainly concerned with securing greater and more sustainable livelihoods, removal of poverty as well as meeting basic needs of society.

1.3.4 The PGDP Strategy Framework 2004 – 2014

Government planning guidelines require each community to formulate their developmental vision and mission, identify their needs and resources, and formulate strategies and plans on the basis of these. The Provincial Growth and Development Plan (PGDP) Strategy Framework for the Eastern Cape sets out six strategic objectives for the province over the next ten years. These objectives include systematic poverty eradication, and agrarian transformation and strengthening household food security. It is stated in the PGDP that poverty eradication is an overall strategic objective of the programme, that will target the deep and severe structural poverty of the former homelands and the disproportionate poverty of women, youth and the disabled (PGDP Draft 6, 01 December 2003, p.2).

The Poverty Eradication Programme aims to support the poor to move into sustainable economic activities by unlocking incomes through the implementation of sustainable poverty eradication projects. The PGDP (2003, p.9) also states that “government needs to improve its capacity to lead growth and development in the province, recognizing that local government will have an increasingly important role in promoting local economic development through the implementation of integrated development plans (IDP)”.

From a provincial perspective, agriculture is viewed as a key economic driver towards building the economy, although not to the exclusion of manufacturing and tourism. Part of the argument advanced by the PGDP is that South African agriculture is under-developed by comparison with other middle income countries, and that the development of agriculture is seen to have high potential (Eastern Cape Provincial Government 2004). The PGDP’s long-term targets to

(14)

2014 are outlined as food self-sufficiency in the province and seeking a reduction by 80 percent in the proportion of households living below the poverty line.

1.4 Problem Statement

Swanepoel (2002, p.1) argues that “all over southern Africa, community development practitioners (whom we shall call community workers) face the daunting tasks of ‘helping a community to help itself’, ‘getting a community development project going’ or initiating community-based development”. The programmes that have been devised to address poverty nationally and provincially since the new dispensation have allocated vast amounts of resources and funding to different projects and initiatives. Service delivery backlogs are hampering South Africa’s development. The factors contributing to this problem have to be explored, especially since the problem does not only lie in unavailability of development mechanisms. Programmes, policies and legislation have been introduced to improve on government’s service delivery, specifically in the area of poverty alleviation. These development mechanisms are sound in theory, but have proved difficult to implement effectively in practice.

The Eastern Cape Department of Social Development (DoSD) identified community development programmes as playing a key role in the implementation of poverty reduction projects. The role of such programmes is to facilitate and support strategies for sustainable development projects that create a more enabling environment for communities to plan and manage their own projects. To this end, the DoSD has funded a number of poverty reduction projects across the province through its Poverty Alleviation Programme. However, the major concern is the extent to which these projects have achieved the purpose for which they were funded, and the impact they have had in the fight against poverty. This study seeks to evaluate the impact of one such project which was funded between 2007 and 2008 in Port Elizabeth, in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropole. Critical questions this study will try to answer:

(15)

 Was the project properly managed?  What is the impact of this project?  Was the training offered effective?

 What is the role of government departments in these projects?  Were the funds provided effectively utilized?

1.5 Rationale

On the surface, many of the projects in Nelson Mandela Bay seem to fail or achieve limited success. The research will look deeper into the dynamics of selected projects in order to identify the factors that lead to project success or failure. It is hoped that the experience gained through this analysis can be applied to new or existing projects in an effort to ensure future success.

1.6 Conclusion

This chapter has given a historical background to policies which created racial imbalances as well as policies and programmes which were crafted in order to address past inequalities. The paper also looked at the Eastern Cape PGDP which outlines objectives and key outcomes for poverty eradication that need to be achieved over a ten-year period. The chapter also outlined the research problem and study objectives.

1.7 Outline of the study CHAPTER TWO

This chapter focuses on the literature review and empirical evidence. The literature review focuses on the Poverty Relief and Income-Generating Programme, which aims to eradicate poverty in the province, with specific reference to the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropole.

(16)

CHAPTER THREE

In this chapter, the focus will be on the role of the Department of Social Development and other relevant stakeholders in implementing these programmes, specifically in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropole.

CHAPTER FOUR

This chapter covers the planning and implementation of the Income-Generating Programme in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropole, and the investigation of its intended developmental outcomes of bringing about poverty relief and job creation.

CHAPTER FIVE

This chapter gives an overall conclusion and makes recommendations and suggestions on future research areas.

(17)

2. CHAPTER TWO – Literature Review

2.1 Poverty and its meaning

“Poverty is like illness. It shows itself in different ways in different historical situations, and it has diverse causes. Treatment generally requires careful diagnosis.” (Wilson and Ramphele 1989, p.14).

Any reasonable definition of poverty implies that a significant number of people are living in intolerable conditions where starvation is a constant threat, sickness is a familiar companion and deprivation is a fact of life. Poverty is complex, multi-faceted and profoundly inconvenient, which therefore means, there is no single definition of poverty. Coleman (2001) defines poverty as more than lack of income, but also as being about the lack of opportunities, denial of choices and low achievements in health, education, nutrition and other areas of human development. This is also a sentiment expressed by government, when it argues that non-material dimensions of poverty are as important (Eastern Cape Provincial Government 2004). According to Bhorat, Poswell and Naidoo (2004), “poverty takes on multiple dimensions and in essence describes it as a state of deprivation that prevents an individual from attaining some minimum ‘socially acceptable’ standard of living”.

Chambers (cited in Kepe 2001, p.14) contends that “there are five clusters of disadvantages (or dimensions of poverty) that need to be considered when attempting to analyze poverty”. They are listed as:

(i) Physical poverty proper - a lack of adequate income or assets to generate income;

(ii) Physical weakness - due to under-nutrition, sickness or disability;

(iii) Physical or social isolation - due to peripheral location, lack of access to goods and services, ignorance, and illiteracy;

(iv) Vulnerability - to crisis and risk of becoming even poorer; and

(18)

What is important about the latter conceptualization of poverty is that it has social, economic and political dimensions which need to be addressed concurrently and which, according to May (ed. 1998), are best understood by listening to the perceptions of the poor themselves. Internationally, poverty is frequently defined according to monetary income. In this view, the poor are those who fall short of an income threshold and/or certain amount of expenditure for consumption. However, in South Africa, poverty has been seen in a broader perspective as more than low expenditure. It is seen as denial of the opportunities and choices most basic to human development – to lead a long, healthy, creative life, and to enjoy a decent standard of living, freedom, dignity, self-esteem and respect from others (Stats SA).

The Poverty and Inequality in South Africa report (ed. May 1998) defined poverty

as being characterized by “the inability of individuals, households or communities to command sufficient resources to satisfy a socially acceptable minimum standard of living”. Wilson and Ramphele (1998) identified four reasons why poverty is significant:

 The damage it inflicts upon individuals who must endure it.

 The sheer inefficiency in economic terms, e.g. Hungry children cannot study properly, with millions of rands being wasted on ineffective education.

 The consequences to society, especially where poverty is the manifestation of great inequality, with the possibility that too great an inequality makes human community impossible.

 Poverty is often caused by a deeper malaise, e.g. the processes that generate wealth in a society often impoverish others at the same time. Poverty and being poor are often described by expressions such as “deficiency in, lacking of, scantiness, inferiority, leanness, feebleness”. Wilson and Ramphele (1989) define poverty as “…not knowing where your next meal is going to come from, and always praying that your husband must not lose his job”.

(19)

The findings of the survey conducted by May (ed. 1998) indicate that poverty is perceived by poor South Africans to include alienation from community, food insecurity and crowded homes. Townsend (1987) defines people as deprived if “they lack the type of diet, clothing, housing, household facilities and fuel and environmental, educational, working and social conditions”. Deprivation therefore refers to people’s unmet needs, whereas poverty refers to the lack of resources required to meet those needs. Burkey (1993, pp.17-25) illustrates the interconnectedness of the problems experienced in poverty in a cause-effect relationship.

A vicious circle (Burkey 1993, pp.17-25)

Lack of health facilities Poor health

Low taxation Low production

Low income Disease & malnutrition

(20)

2.2 The measurement of poverty

Poverty is complex, multi-faceted and profoundly inconvenient. Internationally, poverty is frequently defined according to monetary income. According to a 2001 report by the Studies in Poverty and Inequality Institute: “In terms of the 1995 Copenhagen Declaration, South Africa has a commitment to adopt an official measure of poverty and it has not yet done so. Instead, different measures have been developed and used by different researchers as well as different government departments and agencies.”

This lack of consensus on poverty measures has both positive and negative consequences. While the use of different measures has led to dissent, and sometimes confusion, about some of the findings of research on poverty, it is interesting to note that certain government departments have begun to conceptualize and define poverty in ways that reflect its different dimensions, with specific reference to their constitutional mandate. It is also stated in the SPII Report (2007) that “the lack of official measures has also sometimes led to confusion and has certainly fed into the development of differences and contestations around actual levels of poverty in the country”. Meth (2006) as cited in studies in poverty and inequality institute 2001 argues that there are two main aspects of dissent in South Africa: firstly, around the actual conceptualization of poverty, and secondly, relating to both the execution and interpretation of surveys that provide the data for studies into the incidence of poverty. Sometimes this has led to great uncertainty about poverty levels and any changes in the extent and nature of poverty in South Africa.

According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) South African

Human Development Report (2003), income poverty and inequality were found to

have increased during recent years. Despite this, the report also found that, using a national poverty line of R354.00 per month per adult equivalent based on 1995 values, the total percentage of people living in poverty had fallen from 51.1% in 1995 to 48.5% in 2002. Similarly, the total number of people living

(21)

below the World Bank line of US$2 per day had fallen from 24.2% in 1995 to 23.8% in 2002. The total number of people living below US$1 per day (in other words, in destitution), however, was found to have risen from 9.4% to 19.5% between 1995 and 2002. The study also found that, despite a slight drop in the rate of people living in poverty, the total number of poor people had actually risen from 20.2 million to 21.9 million people between 1995 and 2002 (UNDP 2003, p.4).

The SPII Report (2007) also argues that:

“The new emphasis on finding ‘official’ measures of poverty in South Africa therefore can have positive effects but could also bring its own dangers. On the one hand, measures and indicators are vital; they can help take poverty debates beyond rhetoric, and can bring a great deal of concreteness and specificity into discussions that could otherwise be rather ungrounded. On the other, concrete measurement is only one of the ways in which poverty should be understood, there is a degree of inherent complexity that measurement cannot (and should not) dissipate”.

The SPII Report (2007) also stresses that “clarifying what we mean by poverty can also contribute to effective poverty eradication in the following ways:

 “By being able to measure poverty we can also begin to map geographically where poverty is more severe and so direct resources accordingly.

 “By understanding the various dimensions and deprivations experienced by people living in poverty, government can focus its resources on specific programs, such as housing, basic service etc.

 “By having a poverty measure we are able at appropriate intervals to evaluate whether the poverty programs are being effective and moving people out of poverty and improving their well-being both in the short term and over an extended period of time.

 “By placing information about the levels of poverty and the resultant inequality in South Africa in the public domain we can build a national commitment to eradicate poverty that goes beyond government.”

(22)

2.3 Critical trends in poverty in the Eastern Cape

According to the Rapid Assessment of Service Delivery and Socio-Economic

Survey in the Eastern Cape (2007, p.18):

“The survey confirms that poverty is widespread in the Eastern Cape across rural and urban localities, within this, poverty is spatialised and gendered. Households in the former Bantustans have significantly high levels of poverty in relation to income, especially in female headed households”.

In the former homelands there is high reliance on social grants which often constitute critical livelihood resources and often determine whether a household experiences significant food shortages. According to the A Nation in the Making discussion document (2006), “the number of households living below an estimated poverty line of R322 per month rose from 28% in 1995 to 33% in 2000” (The Presidency 2006, p.12).

2.4 Poverty alleviation/reduction/eradication programmes

Most development experts and organizations tend to use the terms alleviation, reduction and eradication interchangeably in relation to poverty, as if they are synonyms, but that is not the case. As defined by Henriot (2002, p.6) , the terms have different meanings:

 “Poverty Alleviation: this is the work of lessening the suffering of the poor, meeting their pressing needs with welfare hand-outs and social security, providing safety nets, dealing with widows, orphans, the elderly and the handicapped. This is basically charitable.

 “Poverty Reduction: this is the task of lowering the numbers of those living below the poverty line and eliminating them from the rolls of the deprived. This involves providing people with jobs which pay wages above poverty line, providing health and education services, providing credit for small business enterprises and other opportunities to rise above the poverty line. This is, basically, commitment to development.

(23)

 “Poverty Eradication: this is the challenge of restructuring society so that there is no longer growing poverty and absolute numbers of the impoverished decrease to minimal exceptional cases. This calls for planning - for setting priorities, for shifts in power, for restructuring society, for radical social and economic changes.”

The strategic purpose of the Poverty Alleviation Programme is to systemically address conditions associated with poverty. “Poverty in South Africa is distributed unevenly amongst the nine provinces, 72% of poor people in rural areas and 76% of all rural areas and 76% of all rural people are poor.”

It is against this background that the Department of Social Development (DoSD) in the Eastern Cape has seen the pressing need to respond to the immediate problems of hunger, malnutrition and poverty in general. The DoSD and its provincial counterparts have had the opportunity to manage and implement a sizeable Poverty Alleviation Programme. The Eastern Cape DoSD’s commitment to the provision of social services that improve quality of life of the disadvantaged in the province is reflected in its aim, which is stated in the Department’s Strategic Plan 2007 - 2011 as follows: “To contribute to the improvement of the quality of life of poor, vulnerable, the needy and the marginalized citizens of the province through a comprehensive, integrated and developmental social service system”. In order to achieve this aim, the DoSD had to formulate strategic, tactical and operational plans, which begin to provide inspiration and guidelines to service providers and stakeholders (EC Department of Social Development Strategic Plan 2007 - 2011, p.2).

Food shortage, the inability of a household to obtain food, is often associated with low income levels or the inability to generate an income. Households that experience food shortages are often made up of family members who do not have jobs, either as a result of retrenchment, or due to a lack of suitable skills and poor education, or a shortage of suitable work opportunities. Self-employment therefore becomes an important option, so as to generate an

(24)

Cape Department of Social Development and Special Programmes to mitigate the effects of poverty through income-generating and food security initiatives.

2.5 Understanding Community Development

In North-Eastern Brazil, Parker (1998) noted that although the resources allocated for rural development were substantial, rural poverty levels remained high. However, with the arrival of new development initiatives characterized by decentralization and participation, there were signs of improvement in the reduction of rural poverty. This approach was based on the view that development that does not involve local communities is unproductive and unsustainable; the community development approach calls for people-centred development. Participation is seen as an ongoing process, through which communities are enabled to influence development initiatives and activities that affect their lives. Development could either occur from the top down, with people being informed of decisions made by the “powers-that–be”, or could take place bottom-up with communities involved in the decision-making process.

Biddle and Biddle (1965, p.78) define community development “as a process by which human beings can become more competent to live with and gain some control over local aspects of a frustrating and changing world”. This definition links up well with what Burkey (1998, p.83) defines as involving

“More than the provision of social services – it involves changes in the awareness, motivation and behaviour of individuals and in the relations between individuals as well as between groups within a society. These changes must come from within the individuals and groups, and cannot be imposed from the outside”.

Community development is a dynamic process of change and growth resulting from collective actions and efforts of individuals and groups who identify themselves as a community and come together to propose, plan and participate in the development of their own lives. The objective of community development is to build healthy, functioning communities. Roodt (1996, p.313) quotes a

(25)

definition given by the Tenth International Conference of Social Work in 1958 which sees Community Development as:

“The conscious process wherein small, geographically contiguous communities are assisted by the more developed community to achieve improved standards of social and economic life. This is done primarily through their own local efforts and through local community participation at all stages of goal selection, mobilisation of resources, and execution of projects, thus enabling these communities to become increasingly self-reliant”.

The above definition works on the assumption that the more developed communities assist the less developed in attaining improved standards of social and economic life. However, the reality is that the initiative to improve standards of living is taken more often than not by the less developed communities themselves, through the charismatic individuals and leaders often referred to as “movers and shakers” within the community. It takes time for the community to accept outsiders. As a community, they are often suspicious of hidden agendas. The United Nations (1971, p.2) defines the concept of community development as the process by which the efforts of the people themselves are united with those of governmental authorities to improve the economic, social and cultural conditions of communities, to integrate these communities into the life of the nation and to enable them to contribute fully to national progress. This complex process is then made up of two essential elements: the participation of the people themselves in efforts to improve their level of living with as much reliance as possible on their own initiative, and the provision of technical and other services in ways which encourage initiative, self-help and mutual help and make these more effective. It is expressed in programmes designed to achieve a wide variety of specific improvements. The above definition puts more emphasis on preparing the community to improve their situation so as in turn to participate in, and contribute towards, achieving national development goals.

This thinking links up well with the argument by Mabogunje (1980) who quotes Dudley Seers as looking at development not only as involving economic growth

(26)

and income inequality among them is reduced. In terms of measurement, Mabogunje (1980) argues that there are three questions which have to be asked about a country’s development:

 What has been happening to poverty?

 What has been happening to unemployment?  .What has been happening to inequality?

If all three of these have declined from high levels, then beyond doubt this has been a period of development for the country concerned. In other words, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for any individual or community to contribute fully towards national progress if there is no attempt or specific programmes set out to address the above conditions.

Biddle and Biddle (1965:78) conclude this argument well when defining community development as:

“(A) process by which human beings can become more competent to live with and gain some control over local aspects of a frustrating and changing world. All in all community development towards this end is seen as a preferred approach to problem-solving. So community development allows even the most shy and timid member of community an opportunity to voice out his or her opinion no matter how unpopular it may turn out to be”. Craig (1998:15) argues that:

“Community development is a method of working with people, a way of working which essentially starts with the needs and aspirations of groups of disadvantaged people in poor localities and which struggles, first of all, to articulate and organise politically around those needs and aspirations, placing them at the front rather than the end of political debate”.

2.5.1 The Dynamics of Development

De Beer and Swanepoel (1997, p.42) confirm that “development is about people, their needs and their circumstances. It therefore becomes a necessity to become conscious of all these aspects when involved in a development programme”. Thaw and Randel (1998, p.3) highlighted some of the constraints and blockages to development as follows:

(27)

 “Political constraints - certain groups deny other groups access to resources, decisions or opportunities; sometimes they purposefully exploit others;

 “Geographic constraints - people living far from the centres of power and production are ignored or forgotten; or an economic view holds that such areas are not investment worthy;

 “Psychological constraints - people themselves might have experienced violence, trauma, exploitation or disregard and do not have the energy or will to change or challenge the status quo”.

De Beer and Swanepoel (1998, p.48) quote Wisner as indicating that needs are a key issue in community development and the process of need definition is political. Gaining access to available resources is also a political act which may cause tension and conflict. The above argument is a clear confirmation that politics play a very vital role, or at least have a bearing on, development and that there is no escaping that they have an influence directly or indirectly in development. De Beer and Swanepoel (1998, p.49) further make reference to Hope as pointing out that the structure of a government should be of a character that encourages responsible political action and facilitates the involvement of a wide cross-section of citizens in the development process. However, even though Hope in the above statement focuses on government as responsible for political control, De Beer and Swanepoel (1998, p.49) take the point further as they state that even communities as individuals have their politics, i.e. local politics, and that these too have an influence in development. Even a small group of women involved in a small project are influenced by the politics of power among themselves. Politics undoubtedly has an influence on development, and political influence can be traced at all levels, be it local, regional or national level. The case of South Africa is an important example in the argument about politics and development. South Africa remains a fragmented society today as a result of a past political strategy formulated in the name of apartheid. Jones (1990, p.259) emphasizes the right of people to share in decision-making processes and

(28)

further argues that if people are given the opportunity to take their own decisions in the development process, this means that they have political power.

Holman (1978) states that “social deprivation requires a redistribution of social resources which will both free the poor from the constraints placed on their behaviour by depriving conditions and will also change their position within the social structure as a whole”. However, Holman (1978) further concedes that the social structure itself is made up of social groupings whose interests are served by the perpetuation of poverty. Holman (1978, p.261) refers to three ends at which political action is directed:

(i) to persuade what might be called the collective middle-class conscience that substantial structural changes are desirable even if they result in some losses to themselves;

(ii) to persuade those sections of the working class which do carry some political punch that the poor do not deserve to be left in poverty; and (iii) to develop a political voice of the poor themselves.

The difficulty in attaining any of the above ends has necessitated, in some cases, the emergence of Community Action (Holman 1978). Bryant (cited in Holman 1978, p.261) defines community action as:

“(A) particular approach to organizing local groups and welfare publics; an approach in which the political impotence or powerlessness of these groups is defined as a central problem and strategies are employed to mobilize them for the representation and a promotion of their collective interests”.

Smith and Anderson in Holman (1978, p.261) define community action as “collective action by people who live near each other who experience either common or similar problems, which are usually those giving rise to a common sense of deprivation”.

Holman (1978, p.261) further identifies three main characteristics of community action. Firstly, a major objective is for the socially deprived to gain greater control over their environment, their neighborhood, their patterns of living. In practice this involves a greater contribution to, say, the manner in which their locality is

(29)

developed, to what happens to their children, to the kind of housing they obtain, to the way in which they are treated by officials, to any changes within the local social services. Holman (1978, p.262), when referring to social services, puts emphasis not simply on improvement, but on improvements made at the instigation of those the services are supposed to serve.

Secondly, the greater control is associated with action by the deprived themselves. Community Action usually occurs outside of statutory bodies. It involves the socially deprived themselves - local residents, welfare recipients, the low paid - defining their own needs, problems and solutions. This contrasts with the usual practice of their wants being defined by those above them in the social structure.

Thirdly, the greater control and grassroots involvement are associated with collective action. The belief is that as individuals separated from each other the deprived have little or no influence in their negotiations for change. It is when they pull together as a united force that an impact is made. Holman (1978, p.262) further emphasizes this point by way of example: “It was reasoned in one project that one tenant refusing to be rehoused into slum property by the local authority would have very little impact. But a hundred tenants declining to move would cause the authority to take notice”.

2.5.2 Community participation

Ralinema (cited in Roodt 1996, from Sachs 1992) argues that “the term participation is a jargon word separate from any context, and has been manipulated by vastly different groups of people to mean entirely different things”. The term participation is open to abuse and has more often been hijacked and manipulated by elites, for example to satisfy particular funding requirements.

Carmen (1996, pp.1-3) blames “Development economics when it continues to refer to three-fifths of the world’s population in negative terms, i.e. the

(30)

technologically backward, the poor and the needy - and to treat them as the problem and targets of adjustment and eradication/alleviation strategies”. Carmen (1996) further points out that “those who are materially and technologically better off, describe themselves as the developed and as owners and shapers of the solution”. The above statement indicates how self-created false impressions could easily lead to the violation of basic human rights, i.e. the right to participate fully in decisions that would ultimately determine the future of one’s life situation. As Keogh (1998, pp.187-196) puts it, “participatory development can be a manipulative tool to engage people in a pre-determined process, an expedient way to achieve results, or an attempt to support a democratic, empowering process”.

Smith (1998, pp.197-204) puts it more kindly, noting that some forms of participation are often criticized as tokenism, giving participants no power. Participation may treat people as objects in self-help schemes that have not been designed by those affected. This is a rather loaded statement as this approach undermines the intelligence and the importance of empowerment in the process. De Beer and Swanepoel (1988) argue that this is a typical example of a top-down, co-opted involvement of people which leaves very little room for their initiative and empowerment. Burbidge (cited in De Beer and Swanepoel 1998) argues that “many forced contributions or the well-known self-help labour contributed to a project can hardly be labeled as participation”.

Carmen (1996) regards the situation as oppressive when human and humanizing functions are inhibited. His argument is that people may be oppressed physically through unemployment, underemployment, insecurity, malnutrition and homelessness. They may be oppressed intellectually by ideologies which ultimately serve vested interests of those who directly or indirectly exploit them. These arguments point to the consequences of people lacking the power to voice their opinion. Smith (1998, pp.197/204) sees this as passive participation which is tokenistic, inauthentic, incorporative and even repressive. One disadvantage of such participation is that it is a technocratic and paternalistic activity which treats

(31)

people as objects or as unpaid hands in self-help schemes that have not been designed by those affected.

It is very interesting to note that most funders regard community participation as an essential dimension of development strategies and yet fail to specify exactly what they mean by participation and how it can be achieved. This often results in vague and ambiguous understanding and evaluation of community participation and its qualitative contribution to project or programme success.

This study will look at how community participation has contributed to the success of certain projects and how lack of community participation has contributed to the collapse of projects

Most funding criteria state that projects that demonstrate community participation and community sensitivity in their design and implementation receive priority, and failure to emphasize and display a participatory approach in a project proposal often leads to rejection by funders. It is not clear how these funders detect whether or not community participation has been incorporated in the design of a project before a proposal is rejected or approved. It is also not clear whether there is a common understanding of the concept of participation between the funder and the so-called beneficiary organization or recipient community.

To illustrate this point further, Burkey (1993, p.57) argues that “participation in project design and decision-making is all too often limited to a few village meetings where the project is explained and the people are asked to give their comments, and where the few comments made are by the school teacher in a language unintelligible to the majority”. In the South African situation these meetings are mostly patriarchal in nature, where women would not be allowed to speak unless permitted by the chief or someone in authority. This makes the concept of community participation incomplete, unless women, along with their families, play a responsible role in both project planning and management. Cernea (cited in Lundy 1999) suggests that “participation is, empowering people

(32)

manage the resources, make decisions, and control the activities that affect their lives”. The key in the above definition is the process of empowerment that takes place and that enables the people or that capacitates them to make decisions and have power to control the activities affecting their situation. This definition connects well with the statement by Carmen (1996) on human and humanizing functions. In other words, participation becomes a human right to enable human growth to take place.

Burkey (1993, p.56) sees “participation as leading to the development of self-confidence, pride, initiative, creativity, responsibility, cooperation”. Without such development within the people themselves, all efforts to alleviate their poverty will be immensely more difficult, if not impossible. This process, whereby people learn to take charge of their own lives and solve their own problems, is the essence of development. In a statement which reaffirms the argument of Burkey (1993) above, Carmen (1996, p.2) criticizes terminology such as “target community” and “beneficiary community”. He points out that development exists where people “act as subjects and are not acted upon as objects, targets and beneficiaries, nor manipulated as participants in designs and projects not of their own participation. There is development where there is space for the flowering of human creativity and the right to invent our own future is reclaimed”.

If participation is genuinely to facilitate human creativity and lead to human growth, it has to be more than a mere mobilization of a labour force for the sake of satisfying a funder’s requirement of local community contribution. It must be more than gathering a large community meeting just to hear about the pre-determined plans of a self-help funding programme by the government or the international community. Burkey (1993) quotes Paulo Freire’s position that “attempting to liberate the oppressed without their reflective participation in the act of liberation is to treat them as objects which must be saved from a burning building; it is to lead them into the populist pitfall and transform them into masses which can be manipulated”.

(33)

From the above statement, the situation could be referred to as nothing more than disaster relief aimed at continued dependency, with no intention of empowering the community towards autonomy. Schurink (1996, p.407) defines empowerment as:

“(T)he process of increasing personal, interpersonal and political power, enabling individuals or collectives to improve their life situation. Empowerment increases the energy, motivation, coping and problem-solving skills, decision-making power, esteem, sufficiency and self-determination of community members. In other words empowerment is a process which increases the level of awareness, assertiveness and the development of self-worth of each individual in the community, a process which ultimately leads to self-reliance”.

Burkey (1993, p.57) argues that:

“The first step in achieving genuine participation is a process in which the rural poor themselves become more aware of their own situation, of the socio-economic reality around them, of their real problems, the causes of these problems, and what measures they themselves can take to begin changing their situation. This process of awakening, raising of levels of consciousness, or conscientiousness, constitutes a process of self-transformation through which people grow and mature as human beings”.

Bringing all of these arguments together suggests that community development should be undertaken with both broad involvement and sensitivity to the necessity of uplifting spiritual and human social functioning when people are faced with social problems, particularly poverty and any form of deprivation. In other words, any project or programme, be it piloted by government, a non-governmental organization or any international development funding agency, can only properly be termed a community development programme or project if it identifies with the elements of community participation as listed and argued by the various development practitioners above.

Coetzee (1996, p.142) summarizes this well when he points out that, “development projects will certainly want to bring about material benefits, but in terms of the comprehensive aims of development, development projects should contribute primarily to increasing the level of human well-being”. He further

(34)

more than they are must aim towards creating opportunities for increased humanness.

2.6 Role of institutions in development

It is not clear from the available literature whether institutions have had a direct influence in the shaping and emergence of community development. However, there is no doubt that community development institutions have a major influence on the direction and the manner in which the concept of community development today is perceived. There is no doubt that the role of institutions in community development is inevitable and that any community development programme or project without effective coordination and cooperation between community development institutions themselves is doomed to failure. De Beer and Swanepoel (1998, p.34) regard institutions as “make or break” for the success or failure of community development. They have categorized institutions into four large segments as reflected in available literature:

 Government Organizations,

 Non-Government Organizations (NGOs),  Community-Based Organisations (CBOs), and

 International Funding, Foreign Aid, or Foreign Funding Organizations and Institutions.

A community development project is a way of providing outside or external support where it is needed. However, a group of people may be capable of bringing about the desired change by themselves, without outside assistance, and can be referred to as self-sufficient. If they are not able, and in fact need support from outside their community, the indication is that there may be a gap between where people find themselves and the desired change they seek. A development project therefore assists in improving the living conditions of people and thereby closes the gap that exists. It has been pointed out in the literature quoted earlier that in development, people make conscious choices to change and improve their situation and as Burkey (1993, p.48) argues, “these changes

(35)

must come from within the individuals and groups and cannot be imposed from the outside”

2.6.1 Government as a Development Institution

The role of government in any country is to guide the direction of development by developing national, provincial, regional and local development policies, plans and programmes. However, these policies and plans must be informed by the active participation of the citizens of the country – for example, through workshops and research – or at least their democratically elected representatives. The absence of such active participation assumes and asserts the myth that people are incapable of identifying and articulating their development needs and priorities. In this regard, development projects designed to support local community needs must also be congruent with the national development programmes or plans of the government otherwise they fall into the trap of not responding to the needs of the deprived.

As Rahman in Craig & Mayo (1995, p.27) says:

“As regards public sector development efforts, they consist in practice, largely of bureaucratic and technocratic approaches to the implementation of projects and programmes in a culture of unbridled corruption, which benefits those directly involved with the processing and implementation of these projects and programmes much more than the people at grassroots”. And it is the financial and social power of those same interests which enables them further to appropriate social resources to augment their private fortunes. However, De Beer and Swanepoel (1998, p.38) compiled a list of traps that specialist government departments often fall into when involved in community development:

(i) The specialist departments and their officers often undermine the importance of community development and give priority to their specialist functions.

(36)

(ii) Community development portfolios are often occupied by the unprofessional and those officers are always the most junior officers in the department.

(iii) Many specialist officers particularly those trained in the humanities, i.e. social workers and teachers perform their specialist functions through community development.

(iv) Community development officers were often given tasks which had very little to do with community development.

2.7 Monitoring and Evaluation

2.7.1 What is Monitoring?

Monitoring consists of recording ongoing assessment of a project’s performance and its environment to support effective management and learning. According to Aaker and Shumaker (1989, p.2):

“Monitoring consists of recording ongoing information for reporting on both finances and progress. Progress and financial reports tell managers what activities have been carried out to date and if the project is proceeding as planned. This is also a helpful way to detect problems and any need for changes in the plan. Monitoring is relatively inexpensive and should be implemented by the project staff as a routine part of their work”.

Svendsen (2000) states that monitoring:

 “Identifies what has changed and what is needed through an ongoing process,

 “Is a management tool that provides you with information needed to make decisions,

 “Enables you to identify what’s working well and what isn’t early on so you can replicate successful actions and seek solutions for difficulties before it’s too late,

 “Helps to ensure effective use of resources,  “Provides an ongoing picture of the activity,

 “Promotes community/group ownership of the project activity,  “Contributes to sustainability and builds capacity, and

(37)

 “Results in individual and group learning”.

2.7.2 Monitoring tools  Records and documents  Site visits and observation  Interviews

 Financial reports  Progress reports

2.8 Evaluation in community development

The emergence of evaluation as a problem-solving tool came about as a result of the need to justify the effectiveness of proposed social programmes and to assess whether they are worthwhile and are efficiently managed. Schalock (1995, p.5) describes programme evaluation as a process that leads to judgments about the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability and cost-benefits of a programme. It is clear from the above description that the aim of programme evaluation is to establish a mechanism to use as a yardstick of whether programme funds have been spent as intended and in ways that lead to desirable results. In other words, programme evaluation should indicate criteria for measuring social outcomes.

Shadish, Cook and Leviton (1991, p.19) maintain that: “Social programmes improve the welfare of individuals, organizations and society. Hence it is useful to assess how much any social program improves welfare, how it does so, and how it can do so more effectively”. It is therefore very important to ensure that clearly agreed-upon criteria are developed for judging the worth of social activities. Mere assertions about the success or failure of social programmes are insufficient unless backed up or supported by evidence. Stecher and Davis (1987:19-20) argue that, “evaluations are formulated by people, and each person approaches an evaluation with his or her own beliefs and expectations”. The above statement

(38)

negates the perception that evaluations are totally objective studies with no interference from individual beliefs and expectations.

Stecher and Davis (1987) further note a distinction between people who are responding only to requirements and those who have a personal interest in the evaluation. The example is made of programme administrators who only embark on evaluation because of a legal requirement. In other words, they allow an evaluation to take place simply because the funding agency requires it, but have no interest whatsoever in the findings and recommendations that will be provided. Their interest and concern is whether the funding source is satisfied. In this situation there is very little commitment and motivation to perform evaluation. Stecher and Davis (1987) list five different approaches to evaluation:

(i) The Experimental approach with emphasis on research design. The focus here is on what effects result from programme activities and whether they can be generalized. The role of an evaluator in this approach is that of an expert/ scientist.

(ii) The Goal-oriented approach with emphasis on goals and objectives. The focus here is on the programme’s goals and objectives and how they can be measured. The role of the evaluator is that of a measurement specialist.

(iii) The Decision-focused approach with emphasis on decision making focusing on which decisions need to be made and what information will be most useful. The evaluator’s role is that of decision support person. (iv) The user-oriented approach with emphasis on information-users and

focusing on the intended information-users and the information that will be most useful. The evaluator acts as a collaborator.

(v) The Responsive Approach with emphasis on personal understanding and focusing on the people that have a stake in the programme and their points of view. The role of the evaluator in this approach is that of a counselor and a facilitator.

References

Related documents

Thirteen chiropractors in the intervention group and nine in the control group (69% response rate) agreed to take part in the mid-study telephone interview. Several practi-

Long term treatment with only metformin and pioglitazone and in combination with irbesartan and ramipril significantly ( P <0.001) reduced elevated serum

повышается также скорость входа протонов в матрикс (рис.. Влияние МрТр на трансмембранный обмен ионов в митохондриях. Открывание МРТР, как уже было показано нами

We illustrate the lateral view of the male genitalia (Figs 9–13), because we consider the aspect of the inferior appendages to provide the clearest and most useful feature for correct

While the present research identified that students receiving more program usage realized greater achievement gains, students receiving the treatment at recommended levels failed