How does literacy contribute to community development?

A Research Paper for LING 584 Principles of Literacy

Presented to Tiny Ray at the Canada Institute of Linguistics

in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of Masters of Linguistics and Exegesis

Vera Wilhelmsen

April 13th 2004

The United nations announced 2003-2012 to be the “decade of literacy” last year.[1] This is what the Secretary-General Kofi Annan says about literacy:

There are more than 860 million illiterate adults in the world today, two-thirds of whom are women. Helping them achieve literacy is not only vital in its own right; it is a prerequisite for reaching the other objectives the world has set itself in the Millennium Declaration. Literacy unlocks the door to learning throughout life, is essential to development and health, and opens the way for democratic participation and active citizenship.[2]

The UN recognizes that literacy is important; in fact it is counted as one of the most important factors in fighting poverty. The Director General of UNESCO Koïchiro Matsuura says: ‘evidence shows that increasing levels of literacy – particularly literacy among women – are a determining factor in reducing infant mortality and fertility rates, and in improving child health.’[3] He also emphasizes the need for literacy programs to be flexible and let the local communities decide how to run the program and the teaching. In this paper I will investigate how literacy helps to further community development, and what factors need to be present in order to make this happen. I will primarily use sources from LinguaLinks, which is SIL International’s own resource library for their workers. I will also use articles and information from the United Nations, in order to get a broader perspective on the issues.

It has been assumed that literacy automatically lead to better living conditions in developing countries.[4] Today many say that it is a necessary, but not sufficient step towards development. For literacy programs to be successful in furthering social and economical development, they need to be sustainable and geared towards community development from the very beginning. If not the project can fall apart when the literacy workers leave, and have no lasting effect on the community.[5] This will be discussed in more detail later in this article.

But literacy programs can and should have a positive effect on the community, and important tools in development in areas such as health, agriculture, economy, political awareness and influence, and education of course. With issues such as gender inequality, exploitation of a minority group or children, malnutrition and other health problems, literacy can help build awareness and empower the people to do something about their own situation.[6]

 Within SIL the term community development has been substituted with the term Intercultural Community Work, in an attempt to better reflect the work they are actually doing around the world.[7] There has been a wish to move away from the traditional view of community development, which has been projects that ‘focus on the introduction of Western technology to an ethnic group in order to improve its standard of living’.[8] The new way of community development, or Intercultural Community Work (ICW), is to emphasize the process of development, by strengthening local leadership and depend on the initiative of the people themselves.[9] This vision is implemented more or less successfully in literacy programs SIL operate all over the world. It has not however been consistently adapted in general usage within the organization, and I will primarily use the term community development in this paper.

This new approach is in line with UNESCO’s strategy, which also have moved from modernization to community-building, enabling people to influence their own lives and circumstances.[10] The role of literacy have changed also, from being a technical skill to becoming ‘a tool that helps learners understand better the political and social forces that impact their lives’.[11]

There are many factors that need to be included in a literacy project that promotes sustainable community development. By looking at some successful projects and how they were implemented, as well as some that did not reach the desired goal, I will point out factors that may have influenced the outcome. Then I will summarize the factors that lead to a healthy community development, as well as some dangers and critiques about using literacy as a tool for development.

Lynip, Lynip and Benett (2004)  reports on a literacy project they evaluated in Papua New Guinea[12]. It was the project that Joy McCarthy and Gwen Gibson started working on in 1982. They had been working in a related dialect for more than 20 years already and it didn’t take much revision before they could start a literacy program in this area. Community development was to be an integrated part of the project, in order to aid in food production and provide sources for income. There was also a health care component in the project, which was to provide minimal medical assistance. The three components were interdependent and based on the felt needs of the local community. Increased food production and incomes would help sustain the literacy program, and the literacy program would produce instruction manuals that were needed for the community development and health care programs.

            For the literacy program there was produced primers and teacher instructions. The authors write: ‘The content of the advanced primers serves as the key motivating factor. These books deal with the people's expressed values: reading Scripture, learning better agricultural techniques, and acquiring health care skills to benefit their families.’[13] They also point to two important factors for the success of the literacy program; that it was started at the initiative of the community itself, and that proper training of teachers and other personnel were provided.

            In order to incorporate the community development program into the literacy program all the teachers were trained in animal husbandry, home industry, and coffee growing. They also oversaw the use of the community development material and teach the people in their village how to use it. The training for this took place at the same time and place as the literacy training for the teachers. There were some challenges in the community as the sense of a common responsibility was not very strong. Therefore the industries that only required one family to participate had a greater chance of success. On the whole the authors of the evaluation relate the success of this component to the variety of industries the group and individuals got to test, on a trial basis. Each entity could thereafter choose an industry that fit their temperament and environment. The fact that the teachers were trained in maintenance while the ownership was shared with other literates also incurred a sense of responsibility, in most cases.

            The health work component came about because student kept missing classes because of illnesses. Primary health care was introduced and became a part of the teacher education. Accordingly, the teacher’s status in the community was increased and establish him as a leader in the community. Health conditions appeared to have improved, according to the authors of the report.

            The Lynips have a few recommendations for improvement and sustainability in the project, but overall they assess the Inoke project to be ‘a model for a broad-based approach to the essential task of adult literacy promotion’ and ‘close to the ideal of the comprehensive literacy health promotion project’.[14] Among their recommendations are efforts to sustain community enthusiasm, to foster a conviction of service in the teachers, to make sure there is adequate supervision by a local governing body, and to make rural development a priority. The project is dependent on local financial support and leadership, and the SIL workers should focus on training leaders and evaluating the different programs.

The author Dennis Olson worked as an ICW specialist with the Aguaruna in Peru in 15 years  from 1967.[15] A bilingual education program was already in place there, and he saw many benefits from this. When he arrived the focus was on adult education and community development issues, as basic literacy skills already was in place. Olson tells this story about the effect of literacy and numeracy in the community:

In the village of Temashnum, a volunteer teacher worked about three hours a day with several adults. After several months many of the adults could read and write, and do simple calculations. At this point in the training, one of the men asked me to get him a platform scale, which I was able to do. On a subsequent visit to the village, I watched as each man brought a sack of rice up to the scale and weighed his rice. One of the men from the adult literacy class wrote down the weight of each sack of rice and calculated what it was worth. When all of the sacks of rice were weighed, I went with the men across the river where they would sell it. I watched with amazement as they brought each sack of rice to the trader from the coast and told him what each one weighed and what it was worth. Without asking any questions, the trader paid each man for his rice based on these calculations.[16]

Literacy clearly protects the minority people from being exploited by outside traders, and equips them to meet the majority culture with confidence.

            Olson stresses the importance of local leadership in this article. He had seen instances where people who looked like good leaders to outsiders but had no respect in the community had been appointed as leaders for different projects or committees. Because they did not have a natural position as a leader in the community they did not do a very good job. Therefore, he says, it is important to find out what kind of leaders the community accepts, and how they structure leadership. After all, having a local leadership is to be preferred, because they know how people think and how to solve problems in the community. They also have established relationships and trust that they can draw on. He points out how important it is that everyone in the leader team, including SIL staff, know what their role is, so that there will not be misunderstandings or problems to carry out the different tasks.

Concerning his role as a ICW specialist Olson maintains that his job is not to come up with all sorts of ideas of improvement, but to listen to the people and help them do something about their own problems.  If there was a problem or an idea that came up he would try to help them to think about the practicalities of it, and lead them to finding the solution to the problem. He would try to see the big picture and to see if the community was ready for the new idea they wanted to try or what wanted to obtain. In doing this he worked with utmost respect for the indigenous leadership, and in line with their way of doing things. Only when the local community has a sense of ownership and control over the development will the project be sustainable and successful.

Carol Porter and Kathleen Bosscher worked as literacy field workers in the Limos literacy project in the Philippines from 1975 to 1977.[17] Their task was to make instructional and supplementary reading materials and begin a literacy program. The article I read focuses on the second part of the task; that of beginning a literacy program.

            The literacy workers had a strategy of involving local citizens in the program. They wanted the program to emerge out of the existing socioeconomic structures, to be locally funded, and that the teachers and supervisors should be local people.[18] The author describes this as requiring cross-cultural acrobatics and wisdom, and admits that the wisdom part might have been lacking in this case.[19] The full title of the article is ‘Local citizen involvement in the Limos Literacy Project: How we tried and failed.’

            The people group Porter and Bosscher were working in were called the Kalingas. About 16000 of them spoke the dialect of Limos-Kalinga, which was the one they were working with. At the time they started working in the area about 30 percent of the people were literate in English or Ilocano, a trade language in the area. But many children did not go to school and adult education was only sparingly conducted.

            In the first phase on the project the field literacy specialists wanted to start a local literacy program. They conducted a test class for their first primer, and they realized that classes took a long time to organize. For this first past they wanted to start four classes and thereby achieve 25% of the total of literates they had set as a goal for the whole project. They wanted to give the responsibility of organizing classes and recruiting and compensating teachers to the  barrio officials, who were the local leaders. This was in order to test whether literacy was a felt need to an imposed value. They also wanted to see how existing government structures viewed and organized a literacy program. The council agreed to organize classes but would not take on the responsibility of recruiting and paying teachers. The official did not think that the people would accept any other teachers than the ‘experts’, and that the councilmen would not be willing to organize classes if they had to pay the teachers also.

After a long time of planning the four classes was in motion and the officials did a good job of encouraging the students and take care of attendance and money for materials. The two literacy experts kept urging the official to find co-teachers, but as the council was unwilling to pay, it did not happen. Seven people finished this first part of the course. In retrospect Bosscher says she thinks they should have paid the local teachers right away, and focused on the principle of local participation over local funding. But eventually people asked who would teach them after they left, and even the council started asking that question after a while.

For the second phase of the literacy project the literacy workers contacted the DEC Superintendent of the province and offered to help start a literacy program. They offered to produce materials for vernacular literacy teaching and to train teachers, while expecting the Department to provide the organisational and financial structure for the program. After some negotiation  they decided on a model where the SIL workers provided the materials and training of teachers, the government officials recruited students and lay teachers and funded the initial stage of the program. They also released a teacher to help as the project coordinator, who was of great assistance to the SIL team.

The question of funding continued to be a problem, and the government officials never came up with any money to pay the teachers. Porter and Bosschier had anticipated that they might have to pay for the first literacy program themselves, but persisted in requesting funding from the DEP and barrio councils. It did not happen, and the SIL team had to pay the teachers themselves. So when the second phase of the project was over, and 52 students had graduated, the Limos literacy program was quietly buried for lack of funds.

Bosschier points out that they did reach their goal for the literacy program, in that more than 50 students graduated from the program. They also had trained local people to teach and coordinate the program. SIL continues to work in the area, so even if this particular project was ended, the literacy work among the Kalingas is not finished yet.

To explain the ‘failure’ of the project when it comes to sustainability and impact in the community Bosschier points to four factors: first of all their objectives were unrealistic given the time limit and constrains they put on the project. Secondly, the ideal notion of having local funding of the project should come second to the goal of having a program at all. The author suggests that paying the teachers for a while might function as a bridge to more local involvement at a later stage. Thirdly, the literacy worker’s knowledge on local politics and authority structure was limited. Bosschier states that ‘insensitivity in interpersonal and cross-cultural relationships prohibited us from tapping existing financial resources’.[20] They did not know how things worked in the Philippines. Lastly, vernacular literacy was an imposed value, not a community value. This is often the case, though,; often the value of vernacular literacy only gradually becomes a ‘genuine authentic community value’. If the SIL team could have stayed longer many things could have been sorted out over time, including a call for local teachers and local funding of the project. The key word for success is community involvement        

From the case studies above there are a few common factors that characterize ‘successful’ literacy programs, from the point of view of community development. The most important factor for a literacy program to work at all is community involvement, as was stated in the evaluation of the Limos literacy program. Malone and Arnove (1998) points to other factors also, such as lack of a strong leadership, lack of ongoing support from their stakeholders,  poor coordination of the efforts, not sufficient teacher training, not enough reading materials and not an established infrastructure for the different components of the program.[21] They also emphasize the importance of the support and value of the people the program is intended to serve. Four factors that promote sustainability are the wise use of human and financial resources, co-operative relationships among supporting agencies, institutionalized infrastructures and opportunities for ongoing education. In the case of the Limos project it is evident that many of these negative factors were present, and the positive ones were lacking.

            In the Inoke project the positive factors were that it was started by the initiative of the local community, and that the teacher had extensive training. SIL stood for most of the infrastructure but by having local committees and financial support from US AID and a Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) grant they managed to build a sustainable literacy program which also had a community development and health care component. There were still challenges of finding funds in the local community, letting the local people do the supervision, and making opportunities for ongoing education.

            The Aguaruna development program was very strong on local leadership. The ICW specialist displayed great insight in the local culture and wisdom in how to make use of human, material and financial resources. There was established a local leadership structure which functioned well once the different entity’s role was defined. The adults who became literate would keep up their reading by using and developing their skills in functional literacy as the community was developing. It was a cooperate effort of the community, and at the same time the different supporting agencies worked well together.

            In an article about different types of leadership Sue Harris also emphasises the importance of local leadership: ‘Community involvement and ownership are essential for the successful implementation of economic and language development projects. The community must be involved in decision making, leadership, and selection of workers for the project.’[22] She also reminds us how expatriates who come to work in a country must show great respect and willingness to adapt to the culture they are serving in. They might have important technical knowledge, but does not have to be in a leadership position. By listening to the local people the specialist can foster community involvement and a sustainable program.

            Literacy programs go hand in hand with community development programs. Mickey Brussow quotes Herb Brussow in saying that ‘literacy is the hub on which other programs revolve’. [23] A very interesting coordination, that was especially strong in the Inoke project, but also in the Aguaruna program, is the fact that literacy workers can ask the students what they want to read about, and thus make relevant and instructional reading materials. By having the students write instruction manuals for subjects they want to know more about is of priceless value for the community, and provides for opportunities for community development and further education. They can also be a great motivation for new readers, and encourage local authorship.[24]

            The discussion on sustainability of literacy programs in LinguaLinks Library states that even though sustainability is an obvious goal for literacy programs, it is often hard to obtain.[25] The challenges usually lie in program management, technical support and financial support. There are many reasons why programs are not sustainable, as already mentioned, and this article emphasise that the reasons are multiple, complex and interrelated. It may have to do with a lack of a felt need, dependence of a certain technical skill that only the outside worker has, or that the program challenges traditional ways of doing things. In such circumstances the program is likely to laps when the expatriate leaves the community. Other reasons might be a lack of external financial support, and no local funding, or that the need the program was designed to meet no longer exists. It is very important that the outsider passes on all the knowledge that is needed to manage the program. The knowledge can be of logistical, technical or organizational kind, and needs to be transferred to the local leadership before the outsider leaves.

            Many donors are aware of the importance of sustainability in a project, and want to make sure it is taken care of. Very few understands, however, the amount of work that is needed to ensure it. But a focus on training the local community and gradually handing the project over to them must be present in all SIL projects. Again, the article points out that extensive training and an intentional process of turning the project over to local leadership is crucial to a sustainable program.

Several critical opinions have been voiced concerning the role of literacy in community development. It has been pointed out that the mass literacy programs from the 70s have not succeeded, and questions have been asked about how effective literacy programs are when it comes to sustainable development.[26] There is also an ongoing debate about what literacy is and what level it has to read in order to produce the desired result.[27] There has also been cautioned to measure success in a mere economic sense, as other aspects such as sustainability in environmental issues also should be factored in.

            There is reason to believe, however that literacy does in fact often enhance people’s living condition, as they are better equipped to get a job, make a decent living and influence their circumstances.[28] As education, health care, land security and livelihood projects make live better for many the motives for literacy must be scrutinized and assessed. Sometimes material development can lead to unwanted behaviour, because the character is not transformed. [29] Village leaders may have a secret agenda of usurping more power when they welcome literacy workers to their village. The prospect of prosperity is intriguing to anyone. Discernment is therefore needed when accepting invitations, and sometimes outsiders have to acknowledge that the people they serve might have their own agenda. This should not stop the work, but is an important factor to be aware of.     

Anne Klaassens Helgerson (2004) reminds the reader that ‘that the relationship between education and development is not simplistic, rather, it is multidimensional with many conflicting and contradictory facets.’[30] Education, including literacy, can both hinder and contribute to development in areas of creation of citizens, political participation, promotion of societal values and the social structure. Therefore the mere presence of an educational system can not automatically be assumed to improve living conditions in a nation.

            When it comes to making citizens, there is a tension between the government’s wish for a united nation and the minority group’s desire to keep their identity. In many countries the double pushing forces of breaking from colonial power and trying to unify a pluralistic nation. The government would in these cases often push  for education in the national language. But individualism and a call for justice and equality might hinder the notion of national unity, at least from the point of view of the government. The question of mother tongue literacy is crucial in this context; if the government pushes for the national language to be the language of instruction, it might hinder development for the minority groups.[31]

            Education, or at least literacy, of usually required in order to participate in political processes. Students are equipped to participate and aware of what options they have. Sometimes, however, if the government controls the education system, the schools can be used for propaganda and create loyal followers instead of active participants.[32]

            Another role of education can be to promote societal values. What values that are passed on depends on the ideological basis of the government. As such it can be seen as a tool for modernisation, and although this is important for development it can have negative effects as well. Klaassens Helgerson writes that ‘some of these effects are the massive imbalances of urbanization, deterioration of traditional values, and the break-up of family structures.’[33] If the changes are not supported by a solid framework if can hinder development instead of promoting it.

            The only link that can be proven between education and economic growth is that educated people usually are more productive.[34] The assumed positive effect on the economy is hard, if not impossible to prove.[35] The ‘human capital theory’, or the concept of ‘cultural capital’, is hard to prove but the basic assumption appears to be correct. [36] Sometimes development programs are based on Western values and structure and does not meet the needs of the local community, and in such cases education might have a negative effect on the economy. Klaassens Helgerson mentions examples of overspending in the education sector, which can only last for a limited period, for then to cause the funding to stop completely.[37]

Other negative effects are inefficiency and irrelevance of the skills taught in school, which might lead to a high drop-out rate. If money is spent solely on education without also strengthening such areas as health and infrastructure the lasting positive effects of education will be minimal.

Another problem is that school sometimes do not offer the skills that are needed for the available jobs in the country. This has led to a high percentage of unemployment in certain countries, while they have had to hire workers from abroad to fill the jobs. A significant portion of educated unemployed people might lead to “brain drain”, or an inflation of the educational level that is needed in order to get a job. If the schools are centralized in urban areas a migration to the cities might cause problems both in urban and rural areas.

            The last area Klaassens Helgerson discusses is that of social structure. Education cause stability in that structure, while also allowing for mobility within  the social structure. Sometimes, however, education can help sustain inequalities within the structure, and make the difference between the elite and the rest of the people even greater. This can happen if education is not accessible for everyone, and if only rich and ‘acceptable’ people are given an opportunity in the schools. People can be educated to conform to their assigned role in society, completing a vicious cycle of inequality and conflict. Disparity is evident along such lines as rich and poor, urban and rural, male and female, and majorities versus minorities. If this is the case, education hinders development rather than promote it.[38]

Literacy definitely has its place in community development. Although it is not a ‘quick fix’ for the world’s problems it had great potential for promoting community development in a healthy way. This paper has looked at two successful literacy projects in this regard, and one that didn’t work as well. The different factors which helps or hinders sustainability and development have been investigated and discussed.

            I have in this paper focused on sustainability as well as direct community planning, because without sustainability no program is able to impact a community in a significant way. It should also be said that a literacy program needs to be focused on community development right from the start in order to have a chance of success. It takes a lot of hard work and determination to manage a sustainable program that truly can transform a community, but that is our goal and our vision, not only as SIL workers, but as disciples of Christ.

Bosscher, Kathleen. 2004. Local citizen involvement in the Limos Literacy Project: How we tried and failed. In Lingualinks Library 5.0 [computer program on disk]. In Notes on Literacy 27:22-30  [Dallas, Texas] : Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1979 [cited April 12th 2004].

Brussow, Mickey. 2004. Community development and composition. In Lingualinks Library 5.0 [computer program on disk]. In Notes on Literacy 35:10-12 [Dallas, Texas] : Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1981 [cited April 12th 2004].

Harris, Sue. 2004. A comparison of leadership in four communities: Implications for community involvement in economic and language development programs. . In Lingualinks Library 5.0 [computer program on disk]. In Notes on Sociolinguistics 3(3):165–177 [Dallas, Texas] : Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1998 1979 [cited April 12th 2004].

Klaassens Helgerson, Anne. 2004. Education and development: Is the relationship always positive? In Lingualinks Library 5.0 [computer program on disk]. In Notes on Literacy 23(3):18-27 [Dallas, Texas] : Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1997 [cited April 12th 2004].

LinguaLinks Library. 2004. The sustainability of literacy programs. In Lingualinks Library 5.0 [computer program on disk]. In Literacy bookshelf [cited April 12th 2004].

Lynip, Stephen A. 2004. Community involvement: The proving ground. In Lingualinks Library 5.0 [computer program on disk]. In Notes on Anthropology and Intercultural Community Work 17:26–31 [Dallas, Texas] : Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1995 [cited April 12th 2004].

Lynip, Stephen, Karen Lynip, and Jeanette Bennett. 2004. Inoke Literacy, Community Development, and Health Training project evaluation report. In Lingualinks Library 5.0 [computer program on disk]. [Dallas, Texas] : Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1989 [cited April 12th 2004].

Malone, Susan E., and Robert F. Arnove. 1998. Planning learner-centered adult literacy programmes. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Mann, Steve. 2004. My role and training as an ICW specialist. In Lingualinks Library 5.0 [computer program on disk]. In Notes on Anthropology and Intercultural Community Work 18:16–22 [Dallas, Texas] : Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1995 [cited April 12th 2004].

Olson, Dennis. 2004. Community development through indigenous leadership. In Lingualinks Library 5.0 [computer program on disk]. In Notes on Anthropology and Intercultural Community Work 18:30–37 [Dallas, Texas] : Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1995 [cited April 12th 2004].

Rassool, Nas. 1999. Literacy for sustainable development in the age of information. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

United Nations. 2004. Literacy as freedom. UNESCO. [cited April 12th 2004]. Available from World Wide Web: portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=25644&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

---. 2004. Literacy prerequisite for reaching global anti-poverty goals.

UNESCO. [cited April 12th 2004]. Available from World Wide Web: portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.phpURL_ID=22536&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

---. 2004 Message from the Director-General of UNESCO to mark the launch of the United Nations Literacy Decade (2003 – 2012).Koïchiro Matsuura.13 February 2003 [cited April 12th 2004]. Available from World Wide Web: portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=12872&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html      ;

---. 2004. United Nations Literacy Decade. UNESCO. [cited April 12th 2004]. Available from World Wide Web: portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=26957&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

[1] United Nations. 2004.  United Nations Literacy Decade.

[2] United Nations. 2004.  Literacy Prerequisite For Reaching Global Anti-Poverty Goals.

[3] United Nations. 2004. Message from the Director-General of UNESCO.

[4] Klaassens Helgerson, Anne. 2004

[5] Lynip, Stephen A. 2004.

[6] cf. United Nations. 2004.  Literacy as Freedom.

[7] Mann, Steve. 2004.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Malone, Susan E., and Robert F. Arnove. 1998, 19.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Lynip, Stephen, Karen Lynip, and Jeanette Bennett. 2004. This whole section is based on their report.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid

[15] Olson, Dennis. 2004. This whole section is based on this article.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Bosscher, Kathleen. 2004

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Malone, Susan E., and Robert F. Arnove. 1998, 64

[22] Harris, Sue. 2004.

[23] Brussow, Mickey. 2004.

[24] Ibid.

[25] LinguaLinks Library. 2004.

[26] Rassool, Nas. 1999. 1

[27] Ibid. 5ff

[28] United Nations. 2004. Literacy prerequisite for reaching global anti-poverty goals.

[29] Lynip, Stephen A. 2004

[30] Klaassens Helgerson, Anne. 2004.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid., referring to Fagerlind and Saha, 1989.

[35] Rassool, Nas. 1999, 2.

[36] Ibid, 2-3 and Klaassens Helgerson, Anne. 2004.

[37] Klaassens Helgerson, Anne. 2004.

[38] Ibid.