Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1 Introduction
Poverty is arguably the most critical and central concept in development. Since the
1970s, when Robert McNamara, as President of the World Bank, declared poverty
eradication to be the main object of development, development actors have been
debating the meaning of poverty and its definition. The concept has been characterised
in a variety of ways (Lok-Dessallien, 2000). Indeed, poverty has been depicted as an
economic issue, thus equating it with lack of income or expenditures, as a lack of
material goods or services, or in terms of social position (Spicker et al., 2007). In recent
years, on the other hand, the notion of poverty as a multidimensional construct that
encompasses topics ranging from physical and material needs to social, political and
psychological factors has become prominent among development actors (Chambers,
1997; World Bank, 2000).
One of the drivers modifying the definitions of poverty has been the recognition
that attempts to eradicate it have had limited success. Consequently, development actors
have attempted to gain a better understanding of what poverty is by directly involving
the poor in the process (World Bank, 2000; Norton et al., 2001). The definitions of
poverty, and the discourse surrounding it, have therefore been increasingly based on
information derived from the ‘narratives’ of the poor, i.e. on the recounting of events or
∗
Respectively, Research Fellow and Director, Livestock Development Group, School of Agriculture, Policy
and Development, University of Reading (corresponding author: f.misturelli@reading.ac.uk).
specific situations that reveal the way in which people make sense of their own
experiences and of the world around them (Blommaert, 2001; Cobley, 2001).
The use of narratives within poverty research may be divided broadly into two
main trends. The first, utilised mostly within participation and participatory
methodologies, tends to focus on responding to such specific questions as identifying
the poor, the causes of poverty and potential solutions (Booth et al., 1999; Norton et al.,
2001). The second, often utilised in conjunction with quantitative methods (Lawson et
al., 2007), is based on family or life histories to identify both causes and trajectories of
poverty (Davis, 2006; Miller, 2007; Ojermark, 2007). Both approaches have contributed
to enriching the definition of poverty by adding multidimensional perspectives, by
eliciting people’s perceptions of trends in well-being and factors impacting it, and by
highlighting aspects of poverty not captured by quantitative methods (Norton et al.,
2001).
Participation and participatory methods are perhaps the most popular mechanism
for collecting the ‘voices of the poor’. Initially utilised within single communities,
participatory methods have been increasingly employed in large-scale studies, as in the
multi-country study conducted by Narayan et al. (2000a; 2000b), which served as a
basis for the World Bank’s World Development Report on poverty in 2000.
Furthermore, participatory methods are employed in country poverty studies, namely,
the Country Participatory Poverty Assessment, as a means of including people’s views
in the analysis of poverty and deriving effective strategies to reduce it (Norton et al.,
2001; Christiansen and Hovland, 2003).
Despite their popularity, the use of participatory methods presents some problems.
According to Moore et al. (1998), it is difficult to translate information obtained from
participatory exercises into a policy-relevant form. To do so, the information should be
telling ‘more about the relative importance of these different objectives and concerns of
the poor in different circumstances’ (ibid: 1). Conversely, the outcome of participatory
research is often a list of factors that are supposed to indicate the main characteristics of
poverty in a particular community or a specific group of people. In addition, the factors
mentioned in the participatory exercises rarely shed light on what the poor consider
correlates or causes of poverty (ibid.). For example, mentioning ‘lack of land’ may be
both a cause, i.e. one is poor because one has no land, and a characteristic of poverty,
i.e. the person/household that does not possess land is poor. Unless these differences are
clarified, the indicators collected during participatory research may not be as useful as
expected (Moore et al., 1998; Misturelli and Heffernan, 2001).
Furthermore, it has been argued that the outcome of participatory methods may be
easily manipulated to offer a description of poverty that mirrors the notion of the
development actors rather than the poor (Pender, 2002; Pithouse, 2003). Indeed, the
language shaping the definitions of poverty as presented in the development literature,
often depicts poverty as a neutral fact, rather than the consequence of social relations
and policies (Yapa, 1996; 1998; Green and Hulme, 2005). The poor are often described
as victims of external circumstances, and consequently in need of help (Pithouse, 2003).
Conversely, the way in which poverty is described by the poor suggests a contested
perception, in which values, moral judgements, beliefs and experiences are intertwined
(Misturelli and Heffernan, 2001). For example, the poor do not necessarily see
themselves as victims, and hold strong views about those who do not take care of their
possessions and consequently fall into poverty (ibid.). However, these feelings are not
necessarily made clear in the results of participatory research; neither are they
mentioned in the definitions of poverty.
Life and family histories, being individual accounts of personal or family life, tend
to offer a ‘story’ which is spatially and temporally bound. As such, while they do give
an indication of which factors or events caused the spell of poverty for a particular
individual or household, they make it difficult to draw conclusions that are valid and
robust for a larger population (Morley, 1980; Polkinghorne, 2007). Nevertheless, life
stories are based on facts, i.e. when a specific event took place. Thus, they identify
trajectories of poverty, but are less focused on discovering the manner in which
informants make sense of these events. Conversely, psychological research has
demonstrated that the way one perceives one’s own situation and the beliefs attached to
it has a great influence on how one foresees the future, particularly with regard to what
is possible or achievable (Bullock and Limbert, 2003). Therefore, narratives should be
utilised not only as an account of events, but also as a means of unveiling how the
narrator positions him/herself with respect to the external environment.
Finally, narratives are always the product of a specific social context (Blommaert,
2001; Cobley, 2001). As such, they offer a wider frame within which poverty can be
located and understood. It is therefore likely that, despite individual differences, a core
of common experiences is shared among informants with a similar background.
Nevertheless, life-story narratives are often conducted with a limited number of people,
and this, although valid per se in ethnographic research, may not be sufficient if results
have to be made more general. Therefore, in order to analyse narratives, this study has
adopted and adapted a memetic approach.
The term ‘meme’ was first utilised in the 1970s, when Richard Dawkins, in his book
The Selfish Gene,1 put forward the idea of the existence of a unit of cultural information
that would explain the evolution of culture.2 He called it ‘meme’, from the Greek word
mimema (µίµηµα) meaning ‘what is imitated’. Memes are ‘cultural replicators’, i.e.
ideas, words, songs, scientific theories, etc. which ‘propagate themselves’ through
imitation, until they become established among the vast majority of recipients. In this
manner, a meme enters the discourse of a given group of individuals and becomes part
of the individual narratives. During this process, memes may evolve and change, but
they will still retain part of the original idea that made them popular in the first place.3
However, to succeed in a world of competing memes, a specific unit of information
needs to have a number of characteristics that make it likely to survive and spread.
1. This article has consulted the second edition of the book, published in 1989.
2. Dawkins (1989:192) defined a meme as a ‘replicator … a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of
imitation which leaps from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation’.
The Oxford English Dictionary (2000:703) states that a meme is ‘an element of behaviour or culture
passed on by imitation or other non-genetic means’.
3. An example offered by Dawkins (1989) is Darwin’s theory of evolution: although nowadays many aspects
of it have been disproved, every scientist and layman referring to it would have in mind the essence of the
theory.
Indeed, according to Dawkins (1989) there are three main characteristics of ‘cultural’
memes: longevity, fecundity and fidelity. Wilkins (1998) adds a fourth criterion; i.e., a
meme has to be shared between group members. Indeed, unless information is shared, it
cannot propagate further (ibid.). As such, the unit of information has to be plausible,
viewed as important or prestigious, and appearing to possess a degree of usefulness
(Gross, 1996; Bjarneskans et al., 1997). In addition, according to Castelfranchi (2001)
the ability of a unit of information to become a meme depends on the degree to which it
adheres to the beliefs and motivations of the individuals involved. Thus, the basic idea
underlying memetics is that the ‘fittest’ units of information survive and become
‘universal’ (Dawkins, 1989; Wilkins, 1998).
In recent years, memetic analysis has been applied to written texts and to the
internet to examine the spread of particular pieces of information (Gross, 1996; Best,
1997). In particular, the mechanisms by which ideas are spread have been investigated,
i.e. the means by which specific information is accepted and consequently circulated.
For example, Gross (1996) explored the addition and mutation of textual elements to the
original message, as well as the criteria that made specific information more likely to
spread. In this manner, he attempted to identify the rhetorical construct of the message,
which gave credibility to a meme. Nevertheless, the notion of meme can also be applied
to spoken language, in particular to narratives derived from semi-structured interviews.
Narratives are made up of various ideas and concepts that reflect the values and
beliefs of the narrator (Blommaert, 2001). When these ideas are replicated in a
community, they become part of the imaginary of that specific group of individuals, i.e.
memes. The narrative about the poisonous tattoo offered by Gross (1996) is a good
example of a meme. Similarly, the representations of the poor in Western societies as
taking advantage of social systems may also be considered memes.4 Thus, although the
original definition offered by Dawkins encounters a much wider field,5 memes can be
viewed as the core of a specific discourse.
In linguistics, memes are not necessarily individual words, but rather a set of
replicating terms, which occur together within a specific ‘semantic space’ (Best, 1997).
The ‘semantic space’ is a concept borrowed from computational studies of texts in
linguistics (Deerwester et al., 1990) and it indicates the ‘lexical company’ (Lowe,
2001:1) of a specific word, i.e. the terms that occur near to it within a text or a speech.
As such, within the narratives investigated, the semantic space is determined both by the
questions asked and by the recurrent themes apparent in the responses. For example, the
question ‘What is the difference between the rich and the poor people in your
community?’ indicates a semantic space that is mainly descriptive and that implies a list
of characteristics attributed to each group. Conversely, the question ‘Why are some
people poor?’ suggests a causal semantic space, where the respondent will put forward
what he believes to be the cause of poverty. The most utilised themes to answer the
questions will be considered to be memes.
4. The literature on poverty in Western society is vast. An interesting study is that presented by De Goede
(1996) on how poverty is represented in the US welfare debate. Although this article tackles the topic from
a discursive point of view and does not refer to memetic, it is a useful starting point for looking at how
discourses are constructed and specific ideas may be divulgated within societies.
5. A meme is everything that can be imitated including behaviour.
This study was conducted among pastoralist and urban communities in Kenya. In
particular, the pastoralist communities were located in Samburu and Garissa Districts,
whereas the urban dwellers lived in Kariobangi, a deprived area of Nairobi. The
pastoralists from Samburu District belonged to both Samburu and Turkana ethnic
groups, both of which pursued, to varying degrees, a traditional lifestyle, with the
respondents from Samburu living further away from the main commercial centre,
Baragoi, and the Turkana settled closer to the centre, with their animals kept in the
countryside. The respondents from Garissa were settled in the outskirts of Garissa town,
and their animals were kept by family members in the countryside. The choice of
communities diverse in relation to location, culture and lifestyle, stemmed from the
attempt to demonstrate that their perceptions of poverty differ significantly, and that
what is an important factor for one community may be irrelevant for another. The
narratives of the poor were collected in semi-structured interviews, and revolved around
the following questions:
Whereas the first two questions aimed at identifying descriptive criteria of poverty, the
last attempted to understand how the respondents conceptualised the causes of poverty.
Once the narratives were collected and analysed, the study set out to identify the
memes. As already mentioned, memes are recognised on the basis of four criteria:
longevity, fecundity, fidelity and replicability. Nevertheless, as the study was not a
longitudinal one, longevity was disregarded. As such, the process of identification
concentrated on the remaining factors. To explore the ‘fecundity, replicability and
fidelity’ of specific terms in the poverty discourse, the recurrent key themes were first
identified across the narratives. In this way, a broad overview of the themes utilised
with higher frequency was obtained. Secondly, the common themes were subdivided
according to the source, i.e. the location of the community (pastoral or urban). In this
way it was possible to discern broad differences and similarities among the study
participants. Thirdly, the semantic space in which the recurrent themes were located
was analysed, and references to the causality of poverty, personal responsibility and any
other potential explanation of the nature of poverty were identified. Finally, the
replicability of the theme, which would have made it a meme, was assessed. Table 1
outlines the components of the memetic analysis.
Once the memes were identified, the semantic space was investigated for relations.
More specifically, the memes were disaggregated to explore how the different
components were related to each other and consequently to assess whether the
narratives were constructed in terms of description (associative relation), contrast
(contrastive relation), causal (causality relation), etc. In this manner, the underlying
beliefs of the respondents were discovered.
4 The results
The analysis of the narratives of the poor highlighted some important themes shared
across the study sample. First, the respondents tended to present ‘the rich’ and ‘the
poor’ as opposites, divided by possessions and moral attributes. Secondly, poverty was
viewed as both the effect of external causes and the consequence of the actions of the
individuals concerned. Finally, the poor tended to be presented as limited in their
options, due to their circumstances. However, differences were apparent once the
themes were disaggregated according to the source and the semantic spaces in which
they were framed, as illustrated in the following paragraphs.
Figure 1 provides an overview of the semantic space in which poverty was framed, by
highlighting the most common characteristics associated with the rich and the poor by
pastoralist informants, both settled and those living a more traditional, i.e. nomadic,
lifestyle.
As the figure illustrates, the rich were associated primarily with livestock
ownership (40 mentions); assets (19 mentions); physical characteristics (14 mentions)
(including factors such as a healthy appearance as well as being groomed); meanness
(15 mentions) or boastfulness/pride (9 mentions); being educated or able to educate
their children (7 mentions). Overall, the moral characteristics were largely negative, and
largely focused on the behaviours and attitudes that the rich displayed towards the poor.
Interestingly, the memes identified with the poor were more concerned with the
causes of poverty than simply its characteristics. Indeed, causes of poverty included:
bad luck (44 mentions); being lazy (25 mentions); being addicted to alcohol or mirra
(24 mentions); being born poor (5 mentions). Further characteristics associated with the
poor included a limited number or type of livestock (23 mentions) or assets (6
mentions) and lack of education (5 mentions). Nevertheless, the poor were also
generous and ready to help (30 mentions).
By comparing the characteristics associated with the two groups, the most
important memes describing the poor among pastoralists are livestock, lack of assets
and lack of education. The semantic spaces surrounding these memes were constructed
Having daughters
Drinking
Attitudes
Born poor
is cause of is cause of
is cause of
Generosity
No assets
A Memetic Analysis of Poverty Perceptions 173
174 Federica Misturelli and Claire Heffernan
on the two groups in contrast and thereby perpetuated the idea of two separate social
spaces. Interestingly, however, differences were noted between pastoralist communities
in Samburu and those settled in the outskirts of Garissa town with regard to both the
selection of memes and their collocations.
For example, among the Samburu and Turkana, not surprisingly, livestock was the
most commom meme, and the relationship between rich and poor was constructed
primarily on the dichotomy of ‘having’ or ‘not having’ livestock. The second meme
referring to the relationship between rich and poor was constructed on the dichotomy of
being mean or generous, with the latter attributed to the poor. Thus, the semantic space
distinguishing between the rich and the poor was constructed on possessions and
characteristics/behaviours.
Conversely, among the settled pastoralists of Garissa, the memes regarding the
relationship between rich and poor were constructed on physical appearance and
feelings. In particular, respondents from Garissa mentioned feelings of hatred towards
the poor, but equally the loneliness of the poor. Nonetheless, the association of the rich
with generosity was higher, compared with the respondents in other districts.
Nevertheless, this generosity, although aimed at the poor, was not directed to
individuals. Rather, respondents outlined how the rich gave ‘generously to the mosque’.
However, this could be portrayed as a function of social pressure and not as due to any
duty or obligation to the poor. Thus, for the settled community in Garissa, the
generosity of the poor related to actual relationships among the poor themselves, i.e.
those who helped each other directly, whereas the rich helped, but almost at an
institutional rather than an individual level.
However, descriptive characteristics may be positive or negative, but they rarely
offer insights into the causes and/or consequences of a particular situation. In this
regard, the differences between the rich and the poor were noticeable. Of the
characteristics most commonly associated with the poor, six hinted at causes of poverty.
Interestingly, for the rich there was only one characteristic of note, i.e. ‘having
daughters’.6 Indeed, daughters enabled obtaining dowries and, thereby, future windfalls.
Nevertheless, as most people have very little control over the sex of their children, the
responses hint at an underlying competition between two memes: ‘having daughters’
and ‘hard work’. Indeed, hard work was mentioned 24 times across the narratives. Thus,
hard work could lift the poor from their condition, but, equally, fate played a part.
However, ‘hard work’ within pastoralist narratives was semantically associated with
livestock-related actions, i.e. what one had to do in order to maintain, multiply and
rebuild the herd.
The semantic connections for falling into and escaping poverty are detailed in
Figure 2. As the figure illustrates, people fall into poverty because of personal
characteristics, such as laziness or drinking, or due to some external events (bad luck)
and a lack of daughters. However, the strategies put in place in order to escape poverty
include having female children, educating children and hard work. Nevertheless, of
these three possibilities, having daughters appears to be the least reliable or certain,
whereas educating children is a long-term investment for the future. Thus, the only way
6. The topic was also mentioned, although not as frequently and in the negative, to classify the poor: they
were poor because they did not have daughters, and consequently could not obtain a dowry.
to counteract poverty, at least in the short term, was to activate social networks, as
Figure 3 illustrates.
is cause of
is cause of
is cause of
Drinking
Bad luck
Laziness contradicts
contradicts
Hard work
Having daughters
is cause of
is associated with
is associated with
Education
Hard work
is cause of
is cause of
Thieves
is a consequence of
is associated with Physical appearance
Laziness is associated with is associated with Education
Generosity
Cannot afford education
Both memes are very limiting. With the causes of poverty mostly attributed to
external factors, the implication is that respondents did not see an alternative to their
condition. Indeed, as illustrated in the previous analysis, while education was highly
valued, respondents were not convinced that their children’s lives would improve
significantly. Similarly, the meme ‘hard work’ did not find much space in the urban
dwellers’ narratives. Interestingly, however, when hard work was mentioned, it tended
to be offered as a self-referent. In this way, the study participants were implicitly
making a distinction between the poor who did not work, i.e. the ‘lazy ones’, and
themselves.
The two memes are likely to vary with regard to their external referent. More
specifically, who are the ‘rich’ and who are the ‘poor’ signified in their narratives?
Within the highly heterogeneous population of urban slums, the category ‘rich’ may
signify a vast range of social categories. Figure 5 illustrates the semantic space occupied
by the rich.
Cars
is part of
Location
Assets
is part of
is associated with
The Rich
is associated with
The rich speak English
Land or plot
is associated with
Employed
As the figure illustrates, what made someone rich was the ownership of a house
and/or a plot of land, or a car, and being employed. In addition, the rich spoke English
and lived in other areas of town. Although this was not a theme shared by all
informants,7 it was certainly an important factor in defining who the rich were. It
therefore appears that, in the imaginary of the informants, the rich did not live in the
7. Some respondents were adamant that there were no rich people living in their community: they did not
deny the fact that within the slums better-off people existed, but stressed that these people were not rich.
The rich who had a link with the slums tended to be landlords, but they did not necessarily live in the
slums. Conversely, other respondents defined the rich as those who worked in town, but still lived in the
slums.
same place as they did. Within this semantic space, the meme ‘the rich are nasty’ is
acceptable as it signifies an ‘other’ who does not share the same environment.
5 Conclusion
The memetic analysis has demonstrated how the narratives of the poor can become a
powerful instrument to decode the way in which the informants view poverty and
understand its causes. By tracking memes across the narratives, the risk of simply
reporting a list of indicators, which says nothing with regard to the beliefs and values of
the poor, is minimised. Inserting memes in a specific semantic context enables the
researcher to assess whether the factors mentioned as associated with either social group
were a cause or a consequence of poverty. Finally, memes are based on perceptions. As
such, they uncover the beliefs held by individuals rather than realities. As a number of
studies have emphasised (Misturelli and Heffernan, 2001; Palomar Lever, 2005;
Palomar Lever et al., 2004), beliefs are very important also in the implementation of
policies. Indeed, unless those who are to benefit from a specific intervention believe that
it would be useful to them, the intervention is doomed to fail (Misturelli and Heffernan,
2001). In addition, however, the analysis of memes indicated which aspects of poverty
are shared within the community and the wider group of the poor, and which are not.
Consequently, the method overcomes one of the main criticisms associated with
participatory methods, namely, the fact that the results are local, and cannot be utilised
to devise national policies (Moore et al., 1998). As previously illustrated, memes do not
obscure differences, which do exist, and attempting to hide them would not be useful in
a poverty analysis. Nevertheless, the memes minimise the ‘locality’ of the narratives.
Indeed, they enable the researcher to discern which factors are more important since
they are shared within the community, and those that are less important as being less
common.
For example, with regard to the pure description of what poverty is, the analysis
has confirmed that the cultural background of the respondents plays a major role in
framing poverty. Although material aspects cannot be overlooked, the analysis
demonstrated that the poor make judgments regarding physical appearance and
behaviour as well. Nevertheless, the most interesting part of the analysis concerned the
way the respondents viewed the causes of poverty, and what initiatives could be taken
to counteract it. The analysis, with its attention to the semantic space in which
narratives are located, has demonstrated that it is possible to distinguish the
characteristics of poverty from the causes of poverty. On the one hand, the possession
of assets or their lack, education and where one lives were associated in the narratives
with a specific status. Conversely, laziness, bad luck, and wasting resources were
considered causes of poverty. Thus, the analysis confirmed that the poor held strong
views regarding responsibility, and that not all the poor were seen in the same way.
Indeed, an important meme was ‘being deserving’. Therefore, the poor themselves cast
clear moral judgments regarding the different causalities of poverty and by default those
trapped within it. The perception was common across the study sample, although less
marked in the urban areas, where the respondents tended to be more sympathetic to the
poor, although they recognised that being a drunkard or lazy were both causes of
poverty. Nevertheless, it was apparent that, across the study sample with only few
exceptions, poverty was not a morally ‘neutral’ situation.
Furthermore, poverty was not immutable, particularly for pastoralists. The
approach further revealed some common memes within the narratives of the poor.
Being hardworking was considered an important factor for success or for living in ‘an
acceptable manner’. If one was hard-working, the community could have come to help
in times of crisis. Conversely, those who did not work hard were ‘undeserving’, and
consequently likely to be refused help from the community. In urban areas, the notion
of help did not emerge from the narratives investigated. Nonetheless, respondents
distinguished between those who were poor because they lacked assets despite working
hard, and those who stole because they were poor.
Perhaps the most important finding to emerge from the analysis was the way in
which the respondents viewed the process of falling into and escaping poverty. While
hard work was for the pastoralists a main means to escape poverty, factors such as
having daughters and education were also part of it. Thus, poverty was a combination of
personal effort and external circumstances. Urban dwellers were less clear on how to
escape poverty. Indeed, their memes were mostly descriptive, and the causes of poverty
were therefore obscured. As such, it appears that urban dwellers held less hope of
improving their condition, although this was not fully negated. The respondents
identified what was needed, or what they believed was needed, to improve their
condition, namely, education. However, in their narratives, the ability of the educated to
find suitable employment and thereby lift themselves out of poverty was questioned.
Nevertheless, while there was a strong desire for it for their children, the emphasis with
regard to education was often put on the wider family.
If these perspectives are compared with the definitions of poverty as offered by
development actors, the discrepancy in the conceptualisation is apparent. From a
conceptual point of view, development actors have described poverty in terms of basic
needs, social factors, multidimensionality and money-metric definitions (Lok-
Dessallien, 2000). Furthermore, the claim for poverty reduction has always been
justified in terms of progress, as a moral imperative and a matter of rights (Misturelli
and Heffernan, forthcoming). As such, poverty is often implicitly presented as a neutral
situation, a product of the external context where causes are rarely outlined. The notions
of ‘vulnerability’ and ‘exclusion’, which have become important memes within the
discourse of development actors, are an example of how the poor are constructed within
the discourse. Within this perspective, the poor are presented as exposed to a number of
events, from drought or loss of employment to conflicts, which make them fall into
poverty (World Bank, 2000). Equally, they are excluded from markets and from the
most affluent section of society. Thus, they are often presented as victims of external
circumstances, and the dichotomy between rich and poor is emphasised. As such,
external aid is not only welcomed, but needed (Pithouse, 2003). Similarly, the notion of
needs has informed many of the definitions of poverty (ILO, 1976; Davidson et al.,
1992; Sachs, 2005).
However, the poor do not view poverty as a matter of rights, nor is its relief a
moral imperative. Even the notion of vulnerability appears to be questioned among part
of the study group. Indeed, the manner in which the development actors vs. the poor
described poverty, illustrated a fundamental conceptual fault-line, which has a clear
References
Best, M. (1997) ‘Models for Interacting Populations of Memes: Competition and Niche
Behavior’, Journal of Memetics – Evolutionary Models of Information
Transmission 1 (http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/1997/vol1/best_ml.html).
Bjarneskans, H., Gronnevik, B. and Sandberg, A. (1997) ‘The Life Cycle of Memes’
(http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Cultural/Memetics/memecycle.html).
Blommaert, J. (2001) ‘Investigating Narrative Inequality: African Asylum Seekers’
Stories in Belgium’, Discourse and Society 12 (4): 413-49.
Booth, D., Leach, M. and Tierney, A. (1999) ‘Experiencing Poverty in Africa:
Perspectives from Anthropology’. Background paper No 1(b) for the World Bank
Poverty Status Report (http://www.odi.org.uk/pppg/publications/papers_reports/
mul/wob_bp1.html).
Bullock, H. E. and Limbert, W. M. (2003) ‘Scaling the Socioeconomic Ladder:
Women’s Perceptions of Class Status and Opportunity’, Journal of Social Issues
59: 693-709.
Castelfranchi, C. (2001) ‘Towards a Cognitive Memetics: Socio-cognitive Mechanisms
for Memes Selection and Spreading’, Journal of Memetics: Evolutionary Models
© The Authors 2009. Journal compilation © 2009 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 27 (2)
182 Federica Misturelli and Claire Heffernan
Moore, M., Choudary, M. and Sing, N. (1998) How Can We Know What They Want?
Understanding Local Perceptions of Poverty and Ill-being in Asia. IDS Working
Paper No. 80. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies at the University of
Sussex.
Morley, D. (1980) The ‘Nationwide’ Audience. London: British Film Institute.
Narayan, D.; Patel, R.; Schafft, K.; Rademacher, A. and Koch-Schulte, S. (2000a)
Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone Hear Us? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Narayan, D.; Chambers, R.; Kaul Shah, M. and Petesh, P. (2000b) Voices of the Poor:
Crying Out for Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Norton, A.; Bird, B.; Brock, K.; Kakande, M. and Turk, C. (2001) A Rough Guide to
PPAs: Participatory Poverty Assessment – An Introduction to Theory and
Practice. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Ojermark, A. (2007) Presenting Life Histories: A Literature Review and Annotated
Bibliography. CPRC Working Paper No. 101. Manchester: Chronic Poverty
Research Centre.
Palomar Lever, J. (2005) ‘The Subjective Dimension of Poverty: A Psychological
Perspective’. Paper presented at the international conference ‘The Many
Dimensions of Poverty’, Brasilia, 29-31 August (http://www.undp-
povertycentre.org/md-poverty/papers/Joaquina_.pdf).
Palomar Lever, J., Lanzagorta Pinol, N. and Hernandez Uralde, J. (2004) Poverty,
Psychological Resources and Subjective Well-being. Lomas de Santa Fe,
Universidad Iberoamericana (http://www.uia.mx/campus/publicaciones/IIDSES/
idses3ingles.pdf).
Pender, J. (2002) ‘Empowering the Poorest? The World Bank and the “Voices of the
Poor?”’ in D. Chandler (ed.), Rethinking Human Rights: Critical Approaches to
International Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pithouse, R. (2003) ‘Producing the Poor: The World Bank New Discourse of
Domination’, African Sociological Review 7 (2): 118-48.
Polkinghorne, D. (2007) ‘Validity Issues in Narrative Research’, Qualitative Inquiry 13
(4): 471-86.
Sachs, J. (2005) The End of Poverty: How We Can Make It Happen in Our Lifetime.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Spicker, P., Alvarez Leguizamón, S. and Gordon, D. (2007) Poverty. An International
Glossary. London: Zed Books.
Wilkins, J. (1998) ‘What’s in a Meme? Reflections from the Perspective of the History
and Philosophy of Evolutionary Biology’, Journal of Memetics: Evolutionary
Models of Information Transmission 2 (http://jomemit.cfpm.org/1998/vol2/wilkins
_js.html).
World Bank (2000) World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty. New
York: Oxford University Press for the World Bank.
Yapa, L. (1998) ‘The Poverty Discourse and the Poor in Sri Lanka’, Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 86 (4): 707-78.
Yapa, L. (1996) ‘What Causes Poverty? A Postmodern View’, Transactions of the
Institute of the British Geographers 23 (1): 95-115.