Community Participation and Poverty Reduction In

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND POVERTY REDUCTION IN

KACYIRU SECTOR IN KIGALI, RWANDA

JOSEPH GISHAIJA

MDS/0039/12

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Award of the Degree

of Master of Development Studies of Mount Kenya University

NOVEMBER 2016

DECLARATION

This thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any other university or for any award.

Students Name: Joseph Gishaija

MDS/0039/12

Sign ______Date ______

I confirm that the work reported in this thesis was carried out by the candidate under my supervision.

Name: Ndahayo Pierre Claver

Sign ______Date ______

DEDICATION

I dedicate this thesis to my family; my dear wife Mrs. MuhongerwaJackline, my children, Karamuka Brian Gishaija andKeza Brenda Gishaija, who gave me peace, quietness and immense support when studying after the day‟s activities.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work would not have been achieved and successful without combined support and guidance from various people. I would like to express my appreciation to the Ministry of Defense (MoD) and family members who assisted me during my educational career and/or to this research in particular. I am indebted to Mr. Ndahayo Pierre Claver for undertaking the tiresome task of supervising my dissertation. With you Sir, I gained a lot of experience and knowledge under your supervision. My gratitude goes to MuhongerwaJackline my wife for her support, may Almighty God bless you abundantly. I am grateful to all the classmates for the unconditional support they rendered to me without which this work would hardly be realized.I express gratitude to all the people who rendered their support to me. Thank you indeed. May God bless you all.

ABSTRACT The study entitled the contribution of Community Participation and Poverty Reductionin Kacyiru Sector in Kigali, Rwanda. The specific objectives of this study were; to assess the contribution of local community participation in terms of decision making, labor contribution and finance in Kacyiru Sector; to identify the benefits of the community participation in participatory projects in Kacyiru Sector and to determine thechallenges facing local government institutions in fostering community participation inKacyiru Sector in Kigali, Rwanda. Kacyiru Sector is located in Gasabo District which has the highest poverty and extreme poverty rates of 26 % and 13.2 % respectively, compared to the sister Kigali city districts and the major challenges affecting poverty reduction strategies was lack of potential for greater community participation at the District level as well as Sector level. This is a descriptive survey research design while the researcher used both quantitative and qualitative methods. The target population of the study was 750 households.Sample size was 256 derived. Sampling techniques used in this study are: stratified random sampling and purposive sampling technique.Morgan table to get sample size from the target population. The tools used were the questionnaires as the main instrument in collecting data and interview guides as well as Focus Group Discussions (FGD) to supplement the main questionnaire; and thus, it was possible to get variety of views, opinions, attitude and experiences of respondents using these tools. After collecting data, it was cleaned and coded. Data entry was also done by the use of SPSS software version 21 and Excel version 2010. Descriptive statistics means, frequencies; percentages were used to answer all objectives. With qualitative data, descriptive method was used to interpret data presented to provide explanations to the facts that has been expressed by the respondents. The study findings revealed that people who participated in decision making processes, labor and financewere at the highest percentages which was attributed to strongly agree, and furthermore, the findings showed that among the benefits of community participation in participatory projects was thecreated awareness among stakeholders, about their material resources, their leadership, technical expertise and the kind of help they are likely to need from the outside in order to finalize their projects; on top of that it leads to community ownership.Last but not least, the researcher established major challenges facing local government institutions in fostering community participation and poverty reduction in Rwanda. The study findings came up with challenges including; lack of volunteerism, poor sensitization and mobilization leading to low attendance hence poor community participation. The researcher came up with some general recommendations.More sensitization and awareness to all stakeholders is needed so that in their collaboration the set objectives could be attained on time. Partnership in the mobilization of both international and national resources and energies for the betterment is of great importance. The potential for greater participation and contribution of other actors such as NGOs, Development Partners, Communities and Individual is of enormous concern. Projects requiring community participation are implemented at the same time resulting in poor participation because community members feel over stretched. The study therefore recommends that there is need for the District and Sector as well to coordinate participatory projects activities in such a way that they are not implemented concurrently. Implementing participatory projects at different times will give communities an opportunity to participate fully in all participatory projects in the village.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ...... ii

DEDICATION ...... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... iv

ABSTRACT ...... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... vi

LIST OF TABLES ...... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...... xiii

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS ...... xv

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.0 Introduction ...... 1

1.1. Back ground of the Study ...... 1

1.2. Statement of the Problem ...... 4

1.3 Objectives of the Study ...... 5

1.3.1 General Objective of the Study ...... 5

1.3.2. Specific Objectives ...... 5

1.4 Research Questions ...... 6

1.5 Significance of the Study ...... 6

1.6 Limitation of the Study ...... 7

1.7 Scope of the Study ...... 8

1.7.1 Content Scope ...... 8

1.7.2. Geographical Scope ...... 8

1.7.3. Time Scope ...... 9

1.8 Organization of the Study ...... 9

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 10

2.0 Introduction ...... 10

2.1Theoretical Literature Review ...... 10

2.1.1 Poverty ...... 10

2.1.2. Poverty Reduction ...... 11

2.1.3. Poverty Reduction Theories ...... 15

2.1.3.1. Poverty Is Individual ...... 15

2.1.3.3 The Theory of Citizen Participation ...... 16

2.1.3.4 Principles of Citizen Participation ...... 17

2.1.3.5 Perceptions of Stakeholders and Planners ...... 17

2.1.3.6The Ladder of Citizen Participation ...... 18

2.1.3.7 Community Participation ...... 19

2.2 Empirical Literature Review ...... 20

2.2.1 Idea and Experiences of Participatory Approach from other Countries ...... 20

2.2.2 Popularity Pervasiveness of Participation ...... 23

vii

2.2.3 Importance of Participation...... 24

2.2.4 Limitations of Participation ...... 27

2.2.5 Participation as an End or Means...... 28

2.2.6 Empowerment ...... 29

2.2.7 The Role of Government in Economic Development...... 30

2.3 Critical Review and Research Gap Identification ...... 32

2.4. Theoretical Framework ...... 34

2.5 Conceptual Framework ...... 36

2.6 Summary ...... 37

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 39

3.0 Introduction ...... 39

3.1 Research Design...... 39

3.2 Target Population ...... 39

3.3 Sample Design ...... 40

3.3.1 Sample Size ...... 40

3.3.2 Sampling Techniques ...... 40

Stratified Random Sampling ...... 40

Purposive Sampling ...... 41

3.4 Data Collection Methods ...... 41

3.4.1 Data Collection Instruments ...... 41

3.4.2 Administration of Data Collection Instruments ...... 43

viii

3.4.3 Reliability and Validity of Research Instruments ...... 43

3.5 Ethical Consideration ...... 44

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...... 46

4.0Introduction ...... 46

4.1 Presentation of the Findings...... 46

4.1.1 Profile of Respondents ...... 46

4.2.1 The extent to which local people contributes on labor and finance as far as capabilities are concerned...... 51

4.2.2 Views of Respondents from community members on capabilities in Kacyiru Sector of Gasabo District...... 54

4.2.4The Respondents‟ views in regard with major challenges facing local government institutions in fostering community participation in Rwanda...... 58

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 60

5.0 Introduction ...... 60

5.1 Summary of the Findings ...... 60

5.1.2The Respondents‟ views in regard with the benefits of community participation in participatory projects in Gasabo District...... 62

5.2 Conclusion ...... 62

5.3 Recommendations ...... 63

5.3.1. To the Government ...... 63

5.3.2. To local authorities ...... 63

5.3.3. To the stakeholders ...... 64

5.4 The areas for further research ...... 64

REFERENCES ...... 65

APPENDICES ...... 68

APPENDIX I: AUTHORIZATION LETTER...... 69

APPENDIX III: QUESTIONNAIRES IN KINYARWANDA VERSION ...... 73

APPENDIX IV:FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE ...... 76

APPENDIX V: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE IN KINYARWANDA

VERSION ...... 77

APPENDIX VI: MAP OFGASABO DISTRICT ...... 78

APPENDIX VII: TABLE FOR DETERMINING SAMPLE SIZE FROM A GIVEN

POPULATION ...... 79

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Definition of Scale ...... 42

Table 3.2 Reliability Test Results ...... 44

Table 4.1 Age of Respondents ...... 46

Table 4.2 Gender of Respondents ...... 47

Table 4.3 Respondents and their Levels of Education ...... 48

Table 4.4 Views of Respondents on the Contribution of Community Participation in labour or financially in Gasabo District...... 49

Table 4.5 Respondents‟ views on contribution of community members on labor and finance in Gasabo District...... 52

Table 4.6 The Respondents‟ views on support base established in Gasabo District...... 54

Table 4.7 Respondents‟ Views on Local Government institutions use community participation as a tool of poverty reduction in Gasabo District...... 56

Table 4.8 The Respondents‟ views in regard with major challenges facing local government institutions in fostering community participation in Rwanda...... 59

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Conceptual framework ...... 37

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AD : Advocacy and Reform

CSOs : Civil Society Organizations

CVI : Content Validity Index

DDP : District Development Plan

EDPRS : Economic Development and Poverty Reduction

FBO : Faith Based Organization

FGD : Focus Group Discussion

GoR : Government of Rwanda

HR : Human Rights Commission

IMF : International Monetary Fund

JADF : Joint Action Development Forum

KII : Key Informants Interview

LODA :Local Administrative Entities Development Agency

MD : Media Development

MHC :Media High Council

MINALOC : Ministry of Local Government

MoD : Ministry of Defense

NDIS : National Decentralization Implementation Secretariat

NEC :National Electoral Commission

NEPAD : New Partnership for Africa‟s Development

NGOs : Non-Governmental Organization

NIDA : National ID Agency

NURC : National Unity and Reconciliation Commission

OAG :Office of the Auditor General

xiii

OECD : Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development

RAA : Rwanda Revenue Authority

RALGA : Rwandese Association of Local Government Authorities

RDB : Rwanda Development Board

RGAC : Rwandan Government Advisory Council

RGB : Rwanda Governance Board

RGNU : Rwandan Government of National Unit

SASP : South Australian State Strategic Plan

UN : United Nation

UNDP : United Nation Development Program

WGI : Worldwide Good Governance Indicators

xiv

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

Community: In this study, refers to an organized group of people that are; self- motivated, hardworking, forward-looking, and has the ability to exploit local potential with innovations geared towards sustainable development.

Community Participation: In this study refers to the process by which people contributes to their own community‟s development by being involved in the decision- making and implementation processes in determining goals and pursuing issues of importance to them.

Development: Refers to the process of change which aiming things to be better.

Local Community: It refers to a group of individuals that interact within their immediate surroundings.

Participation: Refers to people having their voices heard when decisions are being made that affect them, and being actively involved in decision making processes.

Poverty: In this study it refers to the inability to achieve minimally adequate levels of consumption, which entails a lack of basic necessities for physical survival (food, water, clothing, and shelter).

Poverty Reduction: Refers to promoting the productive use of labor – the main asset of the poor – and providing basic social services to the poor; on the other hand however, is to help to reduce poverty by increasing the productivity of the poor, by reducing fertility and improving health, and by equipping people with the skills they need to participate fully in the economy and in society.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction

The chapter provides understanding of the background to the study which is to assess the contribution of community participation and poverty reduction in Gasabo District. The chapter contains a back ground to the study, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, research questions, significance of the study, limitation of the study, scope of the study as well as organization of the study.

1.1. Back ground of the Study

Contemporary development approaches perceive community participation as one of the key ingredients for poverty reduction. In Western Europe they used to say, that efforts to stimulate community development through participation is to address the increasing poverty and disempowerment that accompanied the modernistic development discourse,(Bryld,

2001).Community participation is assumed in policy circles as the main channel for the active involvement of community members in shaping the outcomes of the development projects. For

(Alfonso, 2009) effective community participation may lead to social and personal empowerment, economic development, and socio-political transformation. The potential of community participation in reversing power relations and providing the poor with agency and voice is well noted in the development literature. As such most development projects are expected to have some modicum of community participation revealing the widespread appeal for community participation in contemporary development thinking and practice.

Community participation has featured very prominently in development in poverty reduction and rural development. (Cornwall, 2007)Writes that the concepts of participation and poverty reduction carry the allure of optimism and purpose and has shaped development discourse and policy for some time now. A growing body of evidence confirms Cornwall and Brook assertion that community participation in development projects leads to poverty reduction and sustainable development (Hoddinott, 2002)specifically; community participation empowers the poor by building their capacity through skills training to actively engage with the development process.

Tanzania has a long history in participatory development. Since independence the focus of the government has been in enhancing people‟s participation in various development projects. Effort to promote citizen participation was reflected in various policies and projects that were adopted during that time. These include establishment of Local Government system and abolition of the non- elected native authorities in 1972.

TheGovernment of Rwanda has put emphasis on community participation as a pre-condition for poverty reduction and development. As a result of the war and the genocide against the Tusti in

1994 there was total breakdown of institutions, systems, structures and human capacity in

Rwanda. A combined effort of the Rwandan Government of National Unity (RGNU), in place since July 1994, the Rwandan people, donors, and development partners in this endeavor have put the country back on the right path for long-term development (Nelis, 2008). The poverty reduction through community participation involves different institutions including Central

Government (CG) as well as Local Government (LG), which put way forward to reduce poverty through community participation exercise.

Globally, the percentage rate of poverty (though not in all countries the total number of poor people) there is widespread agreement on a general list of necessary conditions to eradicate poverty, like access to output and input markets accommodated by a good transportation, marketing and processing infrastructure; non-discriminatory tax and trade policy; high rates of investment in agricultural research and extension; a system of ownership rights that encourages initiative; employment creating non-agricultural growth; well-functioning institutions; good governance and so on, (World Bank, 2011)

The poverty reduction strategies were also taken by the East African Community (EAC) and some of the strategies have made significant impact on the lives of the population living in extreme poverty. Uganda during the last decade, encouraging results have been observed in terms of stabilization of macro-economic indicators and overall economic growth. Nevertheless, and despite the overall good performance, poverty continues to be a key issue and the main challenge that political, economic and social stability is facing. In order to tackle this problem, the government of Uganda has defined the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP), a long-term and overarching strategy that establishes poverty eradication as the fundamental goal of the government and provides a comprehensive framework for national planning and multi-sector engagement(FAO, 2011).

By the time this Plan was launched (1997), about 45% of the population lived in poverty;

Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) set the objective of reducing the headcount of income poverty to 10 percent of the population by 2017. While Uganda‟s target of poverty reduction is

10% by 2017 the Government of Kenya in its vision 2030 this vision has been designed with the aim of reducing poverty and increasing equity in wealth distribution(PEAP , 1997).

In Burundi the results of the Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire (CWIQ) survey conducted in

2008 revealed a national poverty rate of with rates of 69% in rural areas and 34% in urban areas

(IMF, 2010). According to Burundi Poverty Reduction Strategy Plan (BPRSP) and in line with

MDGs the Government of Burundi (GoB) through its BPRSP by 2015 the poverty will be reduced from 69% to 54% in rural areas and 28% in urban areas, (FAO, 2011)

Rwanda's poverty is the outcome of both economic and historical factors. First, the economic structure reflects a chronic failure to achieve productivity increases in a context of a large and growing population. This failure became increasingly evident in the 1980s and early 1990s, leading to severe structural problems. Second, the war and genocide of 1994 left a shocking legacy, further impoverishing the country and leaving a number of specific problems and challenges. While Rwanda's economy has experienced high population growth, economic transformation lagged behind. Both external factors and national policies have contributed to this, (World Bank, 2010).Hence, there is a lack of adequate information on the contribution of community participation and poverty reduction in Gasabo District; that is why therefore, there was a need to undertake this study in order to fill the gaps in.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

The Rwandan Government of National Unity (RGNU)has been investing heavily in human resource development; this is meaningful because, community participation cannot be achieved without the support of a reservoir of Rwandans who are knowledgeable, skilled and motivated and well informed. On the other hand, RGNU had adopted decentralization policy in 2000 and in

2002, EDPRS I was launched, which declared community participation among the elements of vision 2020 and a pre-condition for poverty reduction and development; however,

GasaboDistrict has the highest poverty and extreme poverty rates of 26 % and 13.2 % compared to the sister Kigali city districts. Kicukiro recorded poverty rate of 8.3 % and extreme poverty rate of 2.8 % while Nyarugenge recorded poverty rate and extreme rates of 10.1 % and 3.6 % respectively (EICV3, 2012)Yet, from the study conducted in 2014 by the Rwandan Local

Governments in Gasabo District, shows that one of the major challenges affecting poverty reduction strategies was lack of greater community participation at the District level as well as

Sector level (Rwandese Association of Local Government Authorities , 2014)Hence, the need to carry out this study in order to assess the contribution of community participation on poverty reduction in Gasabo District.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.3.1 General Objective of the Study

To assess the contribution of community participation and poverty reduction in Kacyiru Sector of Gasabo District.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

i. To analyze how the community participation in decision making, finance and labor are

the major community support to the local government inKacyiru Sector of Gasabo

District;

ii. To identify the benefits of community participation in participatory projects in Kacyru

Sector of Gasabo District;

iii. To determine thechallenges facing local government institutions in fostering

community participationin Kacyiru Sector of Gasabo District.

1.4 Research Questions

i. How the community participation in decision making, finance and labor does are the

major community support to the local government inKacyiru Sector ofGasabo District?

ii. What are the benefits of community participation in participatory projects in Kacyiru

Sector of Gasabo District? iii. What are thechallenges facing local government institutions in fostering community

participation in Kacyiru Sector of Gasabo District.

1.5 Significance of the Study

This research is significant to the researcher, Mount Kenya University, future researchers, the

Government of Rwanda, Local Government‟s institutions in Rwanda and the general public in various ways including the following;

The research enabled the researcher to have an in-depth understanding of the contribution of

Community Participation and Poverty Reduction in Kacyiru Sector in Kigali, Rwanda. The researcher will also be allowed to graduate with a Master‟s Degree in Development Studies from

Mount Kenya University since it is a requirement for all Master‟s Degree students; while the research report will be now put in the university library at Mount Kenya University to add on the already existing literature about the contribution of Community Participation and Poverty

Reduction in Kacyiru Sector in Kigali, Rwanda.

Future researchers are going to use this research when carrying out the related research on contribution of Community Participation and Poverty Reduction in Kacyiru Sector in Kigali,

Rwanda. Is going to provide them with basic guidelines and secondary data needed to do the research.

The study findings provided knowledge to the governance institutions especially MINALOC and relevant departments as well as policy makers about how community participation serves as a tool of poverty reduction in Rwanda.

The study findings are very relevant tool to RGB as the institution that is charged with

Monitoring and Evaluation and over all coordination of all governance efforts. This study provides to that institution the ways of using the community participation in project implementation in local government.

The findings and recommendations of the study are very helpful in solving challenges faced by local government institutions, using community participation as a tool in promoting economic development in Rwanda, and other developmental programs and speed up development projects with view to poverty reduction in Rwanda.

Furthermore, the study findings provided the relevant lesson on how community participation works as tools to fight against poverty reduction.

1.6 Limitation of the Study

The study focused on assessment of the contribution of community participation and poverty reductionin Kacyiru Sector in Kigali, Rwanda. Furthermore, the researcher faced challenges which included; translating research questionnaire into Kinyarwanda because most of the respondents speaks Kinyarwanda language only; busy respondents that had limited time to fill questionnaires and this called for the use of interview guide.

In most cases respondents had doubts about the research purpose and this made them hesitate to give their views. This increased the amount of time needed to complete the research. The

7 researcher made sure that respondents were fully convinced about the research purpose. This was done through thorough explanations.

Another challenge was respondent‟s reservation of openness in providing the right information asked regarding community participation issues; in order to solve this issue therefore, the researcher consulted different data sources related to community participation concept in

Rwanda.

1.7 Scope of the Study

1.7.1 Content Scope

The study is related to the domain of local governance and poverty reduction strategies.

1.7.2. Geographical Scope

The research was carried out in Kacyiru Sector as a model sector in terms of community participation and is located in Gasabo District. Kacyiru Sector is located in Gasabo District

(Akarere) in Kigali City, Rwanda. The District capital is Kacyiru. Gasabo District is one the three Districts that constitute the City of Kigali. Also, important to know that Gasabo District has high number of labour force (16+ years) migrating for work compared to the other districts in

Kigali City Province both in terms of arrivals and departures. Gasabo registers about 41,000 arrivals and 30,000 departures compared to 37,000 and 28,000 arrivals realized in Kicukiro and

Nyarugenge respectively(EICV3, 2012).

1.7.3. Time Scope

The researcher focused mainly on data of the period between 2010 and 2015. This period was given consideration because it was the time community participation has been reinforced so much and this period has witnessed more development.

1.8 Organization of the Study

The study of “theassessment of the contribution of community participation and poverty reductionin KacyiruSector in Kigali, Rwanda” is divided into five chapters. Chapter one is the introduction which contains a back ground to the study, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, research questions, significance of the study, limitation of the study, scope of the study and organization of the study. Chapter two is review of related literature and also contains the theoretical literature, empirical research, critical review and research gap identification, theoretical framework, conceptual framework and summary. Chapter three is the research methodology and contains research design, target population, sample design, sample size, sampling technique, and data collection methods, data collection instruments, administration of data collection instruments, reliability and validity of the instruments, data analysis procedure and ethical consideration. Chapter four is composed by research findings and discussion while chapter five presents summary, conclusions and recommendations.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

The chapter reviews the literature on theoretical and empirical concerning the concept of community participation and development activities, as presented by the various writers and practical experiences on community participation in development projects and their perception in relation to its effectiveness. On the part of theoretical literature review focused on the definition of poverty, poverty as individual as well as poverty reduction,community participation, the theory of citizen participation, principles of citizen participation, perceptions of stakeholders and

Planners, the ladder of citizen participationon the other hand of empirical literature review focused on experiences of community participation in line with poverty reduction strategies.

Critical review and research gaps identification in line with theoretical framework as well as conceptual framework of the study and summary of the whole chapter is concerned.

2.1Theoretical Literature Review

2.1.1 Poverty

Poverty is defined as the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions. According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September

13th, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% (46.2 million) in 2010, up from 14.3%

(approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993. In 2008, 13.2% (39.8 million) Americans lived in relative poverty(UN, 2015).

The government's definition of poverty is not tied to an absolute value of how much an individual or families can afford, but is tied to a relative level based on total income received.

For example, the poverty level for 2011 was set at $22,350 (total yearly income) for a family of

10 four. Poverty, food prices and hunger are inextricably linked. Poverty causes hunger. Not every poor person is hungry, but almost all hungry people are poor. Millions live with hunger and malnourishment because they simply cannot afford to buy enough food, cannot afford nutritious foods or cannot afford the farming supplies they need to grow enough good food of their own.

Hunger can be viewed as a dimension of extreme poverty. It is often called the most severe and critical manifestation of poverty(UNDP, 2015).

Rural households are the most heavily burdened by the consequences of poverty and hunger. In addition to causing hunger, poverty limits a rural community‟s ability to invest in its own development.

2.1.2. Poverty Reduction

Poverty reduction measures, like those promoted by Henry George in his economics classic

Progress and Poverty, are those that rise, or are intended to rise, enabling the poor to create wealth for themselves as a means of ending poverty forever. In modern times, various economists within the Georgism movement propose measures like the land value tax to enhance access by all to the natural world. Poverty occurs in both developing countries and developed countries. While poverty is much more widespread in developing countries, both types of countries undertake poverty reduction measures (UNDP, 2015).

Poverty has been historically accepted in some parts of the world as inevitable as non- industrialized economies produced very little while populations grew almost as fast, making wealth scarce. Geoffrey Parker wrote that "In Antwerp and Lyon, two of the largest cities in western Europe, by 1600 three-quarters of the total population were too poor to pay taxes, and therefore likely to need relief in times of crisis." Poverty reduction, or poverty alleviation, has

11 been largely as a result of overall economic growth. Food shortages were common before modern agricultural technology and in places that lack them today, such as nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation methods. The dawn of industrial revolution led to high economic growth, eliminating mass poverty in what is now considered the developed world. World GDP per person quintupled during the 20th century. In 1820, 75% of humanity lived on less than a dollar a day, while in 2001, only about 20% do(UNDP, 2015).

Today, continued economic development is constrained by the lack of economic freedoms.

Economic liberalization requires extending property rights to the poor, especially to land.

Financial services, notably savings, can be made accessible to the poor through technology, such as mobile banking. Inefficient institutions, corruption and political instability can also discourage investment. Aid and government support in health, education and infrastructure helps growth by increasing human and physical capital. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world's time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions-income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion-while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability(UNDP, 2015).

The EAC partner states have been implementing various tax reforms since the 1990s, including establishment of autonomous revenue authorities, simplifying tax systems, improving revenue collection efficiency and reducing tax evasion/avoidance. These reforms have mostly been geared towards broadening tax bases, rationalizing taxes to improve investment climate, enhancing compliance and improving other aspects of tax revenue administration. However,

DRM through taxation is still below its potential. For example, during the decade leading to

2011 and 2012, tax-to-GDP ratios in the EAC sub-region ranged from 12.3% to 22.1%,

12 compared to an average of 35.6% and 25.4% for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) countries and South Africa respectively. Other measures such as revenue productivity and VAT efficiency are also low, which indicate additional scope exists for expanding the tax base without compromising economic growth. Moreover, following reduction in ODA commitments to developing countries caused by the recent global financial crisis, there is renewed urgency for the EAC partner states to improve mobilisation of public resources.

(EAC, 2013).

Rwanda‟s latest data release in 2011 shows enormous improvement in the living standards of citizens over the past five years, and progress towards the Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs) - eight internationally-agreed goals aimed at reducing poverty and improving education, health, gender equality and environmental sustainability by 2015. Between 2006-2011, Rwanda has posted an average annual growth of real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 8.4 percent, driven mainly by higher productivity in the agricultural and industrial sectors(MINICOFIN,

2013).

Importantly, the poor have benefited most from this growth spurt. The Government of Rwanda has developed their own homegrown initiatives in order to tackle poverty at the most local level.

The “one-cow-per-family” programme, for example, provides families with milk for consumption and what is left over is sold for profit, improving nutrition and income at the household level( MINICOFIN, 2013).

Through government-led efforts the poverty rate fell from 56.7 percent in 2006 to 44.9 percent in

2011. If maintained over the longer term, this annual poverty reduction rate of 2.4 percent could put Rwanda in the company of Asian Tiger economies such as China, Vietnam and Thailand that

13 have been able over many years to lift millions out of poverty while sustaining growth.

A mix of political will and economic growth is helping drive Rwanda‟s success in alleviating poverty, despite challenges such as being landlocked and in a restive region, high population growth and density, and no natural resources. Rwanda‟s ant- poverty drive started with the setting up of the poverty reduction strategy based in the ministry of Finance and Economic

Planning. The lessons from the poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP) suggest four priorities for the Economic development poverty reduction strategy (EDPRS)( MINICOFIN, 2013).

Increase economic growth by investing in infrastructure; promoting skills development and the

Service Sector; mainstreaming Private Sector development and modernizing agriculture by introducing improved land administration, land use management practices and adopting techniques to reduce soil erosion and enhance soil fertility.

Slow down population growth through reducing infant mortality; family planning and education outreach programs, while also improving the quality of health care and schooling, particularly for girl( MINICOFIN, 2013).

Tackle extreme poverty through improved food security and targeted schemes of job creation and social protection. It is particularly urgent to create new employment opportunities for young people just entering the labor market (MINALOC, 2012).

Ensure greater efficiency in poverty reduction through better policy implementation which includes enhanced coordination among sectors and between levels of government; sharper prioritization of activities; better targeting of services for the poor; widespread mobilization of the Private Sector; and the more effective use of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

To its credit, the PRSP proposes small- scale rural credit to support agriculture.

2.1.3. Poverty Reduction Theories

2.1.3.1. Poverty Is Individual

This theory has been developed by (Ryan, 2014)and the right-wing view of this theory is that poverty is an individual phenomenon. On this view, people are in poverty because they are lazy

(doesn‟t participate in community activities as well), uneducated, ignorant, or otherwise inferior in some manner. If this theory is true, it would follow that impoverished people are basically the same people every year. And if that were true, we could whip poverty by helping that particular

15% of the population to figure things out and climb out of poverty. Thus, a program of heavy paternalistic life contracts to help this discrete underclass get things together might conceivably end or dramatically reduce poverty.

2.1.3.2Conflict Theory of Poverty

This theory was developed by Marx and Weber in 18th Century whereby their emphasis was based on class conflict bourgeoisie (owners of the means ofproduction) control the market system while the proletariats (working class) rely on the bourgeoisie for wages and this shows that the gap in wealth between the two groups is significant. Without the proletariat, there would be no production; therefore, they must remain unequal to ensure production is stable and cost effective. Conflict between the two groups causes change as far as poverty reduction is concerned. Poverty motivates people to climb the ladder; more gain it ensures that all jobs

(functions) in society will be filled(Abbott, 2013).

2.1.3.3 The Theory of Citizen Participation

Citizen participation theory was developed by Arnatien in 1989 which shows how this should be a process which provides private individuals an opportunity to influence public decisions and has long been a component of the democratic decision-making process. The roots of citizen participation can be traced to ancient Greece and Colonial New England. Before the 1960s, governmental processes and procedures were designed to facilitate "external" participation.

Citizen participation was institutionalized in the mid-1960s with President Lyndon Johnson's

Great Society programs (Cogan & Sharpe, 2011 p. 283).

Public involvement is means to ensure that citizens have a direct voice in public decisions. The terms "citizen" and "public," and "involvement" and "participation" are often used interchangeably. While both are generally used to indicate a process through which citizens have a voice in public policy decisions, both have distinctively different meanings and convey little insight into the process they seek to describe. Mize reveals that the term "citizen participation" and its relationship to public decision-making has evolved without a general consensus regarding either it's meaning or its consequences (Mize, 2012).

Many agencies or individuals choose to exclude or minimize public participation in planning efforts claiming citizen participation is too expensive and time consuming. Yet, many citizen participation programs are initiated in response to public reaction to a proposed project or action.

However, there are tangible benefits that can be derived from an effective citizen involvement program. (Cogan, 2010)identify five benefits of citizen participation to the planning process:

Information and ideas on public issues; Public Support for planning decisions; Avoidance of protracted conflicts and costly delays; Reservoir of good will which can carry over to future

16 decisions; and Spirit of cooperation and trust between the agency and the public.All of these benefits are important to the Forest Service in its planning efforts, particularly the last three.

Recent forest management decisions have led to prolonged court cases and a general lack of trust among many people with respect to the Forest Service(Rahnema, 2000).

2.1.3.4 Principles of Citizen Participation

A great deal of literature exists on the subject of citizen participation. A review of this literature indicates there are some commonly accepted principles that can be applied in the development and implementation of a citizen participation program. (Hertberg, 2012)provided a concise overview of citizen participation in the planning process following is a summary of their discussion.

2.1.3.5 Perceptions of Stakeholders and Planners

The perception of stakeholders and planners is an important consideration in the development and implementation of any public participation program. Public participation is often a requirement for planners; however, it is always optional for citizens. Citizens choose to participate because they expect a satisfying experience and hope to influence the planning process(Hertberg, 2012).

(Cogan et al., 2011)Indicates that participation can offer a variety of rewards to citizens. These can be intrinsic to the involvement (through the very act of participation) or instrumental

(resulting from the opportunity to contribute to public policy). The planner's expectations are also important in that an effective public participation program can lead to a better planning process and product as well as personal satisfaction.

Well-planned citizen involvement programs relate the expectations of both the citizens and the planner. Arnstein's "ladder of citizen participation" can assist the planner in determining his or her perceptions of a program's purpose and compare this with the anticipated perceptions of citizen participants(Cogan et al., 2011).

In successful citizen involvement programs, the disparity between the planner's and the participant's expectations in minimal. If expectations are different, conflict is probable. This conflict is damaging to the planning process (as well as the agency's reputation), and to the relationship between the participants and the planner. Often, it is avoidable because its source is in conflicting expectations rather than conflicting demands (Cogan et al., 2011).

2.1.3.6The Ladder of Citizen Participation

Clearly, citizen participation programs can increase costs and the amount of time a project takes.

Further, as discussed above, there is a certain level of risk associated with citizen participation programs. However, Cogan suggests that citizen participation programs can make the planning

18 process and planners more effective by: reducing isolation of the planner from the public; generating a spirit of cooperation and trust; providing opportunities to disseminate information; identifying additional dimensions of inquiry and research; assisting in identifying alternative solutions; providing legitimacy to the planning effort and political credibility of the agency; and increasing public support(Cogan et al., 2011).

Further, in certain polarized issues an effective public participation program may actually save time and money by insuring that the proposed solution is acceptable to all of the interested stakeholders.

2.1.3.7 Community Participation

Internationally, resources for social welfare services are shrinking. Population pressures, changing priorities, economic competition, and demands for greater effectiveness are all affecting the course of social welfare (Bens, 2010)The utilization of nonprofessionals through citizen involvement mechanisms to address social problems has become more commonplace. In their modern form, the concepts of community development and community participation took shape in the 1950s. From the situation in the 1950s, when community development was perceived to be synonymous with community participation, the situation has now changed to one in which there appears to be no clear understanding of the relationship between the two Clearly, this impacts or changes perception of what constitutes community participation and development(Abbott, 2013).

Participation is a rich concept that varies with its application and definition. The way participation is defined also depends on the context in which it occurs. For some, it is a matter of

19 principle; for others, practice; for still others, an end in itself (World Bank, 2010). Indeed, there is merit in all these interpretations.

2.2 Empirical Literature Review

Empirical literature is a careful analysis of a literature/documents structure and logic in order to determine the validity of an argument or the gist. Most often this term is used synonymously with close reading but we prefer to reserve close reading for the artistic analysis of literature.

2.2.1 Idea and Experiences of Participatory Approach from other Countries

Studies on participation indicate that the social-cultural and historical backgrounds of a country influences the way people perceive or interpret it(Suzuki, 2010). In the United Kingdom (U.K) and United States of America (USA), for example, the current debate has been focusing on parental participation in terms of choice of schools and school governance, while in developing countries the debate centers on community participation in school construction, financing and management(Suzuki, 2010) The experiences with decentralization in giving room to community participation have been very mixed in a numbers of countries that have committed themselves to participation.

In El-Salvador after twelve years of civil war that ended in 1992 ravaged the fabrics of society including education the government was incapable of delivering public services to its citizens.

Primary education services were not delivered in rural areas. In these critical circumstances, communities organized themselves and developed a self-managed, private form of education administered by an association of rural workers who hired and paid teachers directly from their own financial resources, (Coakes, 2013).

People in Chad value education highly and, therefore local contributions to the cost of education have been a long standing tradition in the country. This explains the efforts of local communities to play a greater role in financing and operating schools even when the education system deteriorated due to the civil war of 1979-82.(Coakes, 2013).

The government had been aware of the reality that the communities play an important role in the school system and, requested the World Bank to prepare a project to involve local people and respond to their real needs. In order to ensure various stakeholders participation, the project preparation was carried out involving various groups of people. First the government organized four regional conferences, inviting members of local school associations, representatives of

NGOs, Women‟s groups as well as ministry officials, schools inspectors, school directors and teachers. At the meetings participants discussed the local primary education problems and strategies to overcome them. The discussion helped reveal that Chadians at the local level are seriously committed to and closely involved in educating their children (Uemura, 2010).(Smith,

2011)have identified that practitioners tend to have a preoccupation with specific participatory methods but pay little attention to how they are applied, by whom and in what circumstances.

There are many methods for involving the community, no one method is necessarily better than another, each has potential advantages and disadvantages depending on the situation.

Any participatory technique needs the „right occasion‟ to be used responsibly and effectively, it is certainly not a situation of one size fits all (Kelly, 2011).Kelly also considers different interpretations of, and strategies for participation are important in different situations (Kelly

2011). A detailed analysis of historical cases suggests that the development of both technologies and methodologies is highly dependent on local context (Smith, 2011).

In discussions of community participation it is important to identify the appropriate definition of community. When involving the community it is essential to recognize that communities are not homogeneous but in fact heterogeneous(Prinsen, 2009)(Cleaver, 2011)identified common myths of community.

„Community in participatory approaches to development is often conceptualized as some kind of natural, desirable social entity imbued with all sorts of desirable values and the simple manifestation of this in organizational form‟. Three aspects of community are most important to those who advocate a positive role for communities in resource management: community as a small spatial unit; as a homogenous social structure; and as shared norms (Gibson, 2010).

Boundaries of community are usually based on people or places so the distinction between interest communities (people centered) and territorial communities (place centered) is often made (Kelly, 2011) Boundaries are often culturally and socially determined making them unclear and defining them will depend on the perspective of the individual. The concept of community is linked to thinkers such as Tonnies, Durkheim, Cooley and Weber (Colombo&Mosso,

2011)Agrawal and Gibson identified that it is more important and realistic to view community as having multiple interests and actors with a focus on how these actors influence decision-making, and on the internal and external institutions that shape the decision-making process.

2.2.2 Popularity Pervasiveness of Participation

Participation has grown in popularity since the 1970s and has become a catchword in development studies and practice(Hjortso, 2009);(Midgley, 2009); (Wright, 2010) suggested that participation has become a „warmly persuasive word that can be attached to very different sets of relations‟. (Lane, 2010)supports this, stating that „participation is dangerously close to becoming a buzzword, rhetorical term without theoretical clarity or practical content‟. (Chambers,

2012)credited the new popularity of participation to several origins: the recognition that many development failures originate in attempts to impose standard top-down programs and projects on diverse local realities where they do not fit or meet needs; concern for cost-effectiveness, recognizing that the more local people do, the less capital costs are likely to be; preoccupation with sustainability, and the insight that if local people themselves design and construct they are more likely to meet running costs and undertake maintenance; and ideologically for some development professionals, the belief that it is right that poor people should be empowered and should have more command of their lives (Chambers, 2012).

(Davis cited in Buchy, 2009)added to this discussion citing that the interest and application of the concept has grown due to a mixture of circumstances: increased access to information; a more intrusive media; alienation from traditional structures; protest movements; and a new sophistication amongst interest and lobby groups. In the literature, the commonly cited reasons for participation‟s popularity are; failed development projects, misused resources and disillusioned communities (Chambers, 2012).

The popularity of participation is evident from the diverse application and acceptance of the needs for participation; in fact many authors have found that it has become mandatory for development strategies to be participatory(Agarwal, 2011); (Chambers, 2012).

Literature on participation and empowerment cuts across disciplines, including economics, anthropology, sociology, politics and geography (Holcombe, 2011)(Jacobs, 2010)identified that participation is one of the principals of the global action plan Agenda 21, suggesting that „the involvement of ordinary citizens in both decisions about and the implementations of social and economic change‟. Some authors see participation‟s biggest application being to poverty alleviation (Holcombe 2011). Other applications include health, education, housing, social work and urban and rural development (Midgley&Hall, 2010).

(Buchy&Ross, 2011)have identified a number of assumptions that explain the enthusiasm for participation as better participation of local communities in the management of their own resource will lead to better (for example; more sustainable) environmental management;local communities are willing and enthusiastic about engaging on a voluntary basis in the management of their own affairs;local communities, while engaging in a participatory process are seeking a transfer of power from government agencies to the benefit of communities, or at least equal power in the decision making process; at one extreme of the spectrum, participation may be considered as a useful tool to achieve a specific management aim, while at the other participation will lead to empowerment and greater social justice.

2.2.3 Importance of Participation

Despite some authors contesting that participation makes no difference, the importance of community participation is well established in the literature.(Chamala, 2010)identifiedefficiency

24 benefits from participation, stating that „involving stakeholders and empowering community participants in programs at all levels, from local to national, provide a more effective path for solving sustainable resource management issues‟. Participation enhances project effectiveness through community ownership of development efforts and aids decision-making (Kerr, 2012)

(Mylius, 2009)also identified local ownership of a project or program as a key to generating motivation for ecologically sustainable activities. The authors also identify the role of community participation in disseminating information amongst a community, particularly local knowledge that leads to better facilitation of action. (Kelly, 2011)identified that participation results in learning and learning is often a prerequisite for changing behavior and practices.

(Vansant, 2013)identified four affirmations that summarize the importance of participation in development as; people organize best around problems they consider most important; local people tend to make better economic decisions and judgments in the context of their own environment and circumstances, voluntary provision of labor, time, money and materials to a project is a necessary condition for breaking patterns of dependency and passivity as well as local control over the amount, quality and benefits of development activities helps make the process self-sustaining (cited in(Botchway, 2012).

(White, 2012)identified a number of beneficial reasons for community participation: with participation, more will be accomplished, and services can be provided more cheaply.

Participation: has an intrinsic value for participants; is a catalyst for further development; encourages a sense of responsibility; guarantees that a felt need is involved; ensures things are done the right way; uses valuable indigenous knowledge; frees people from dependence on

25 others‟ skills; and makes people more conscious of the causes of their poverty and what they can do about it.

(Curry, 2010)identifies that „policies that are sensitive to local circumstances will not only be more effective in taking the uniqueness of local social structure, economy, environmental, and culture into account, but also, through the involvement of the local community, will be more likely to be successful in their implementation. Communities that have a say in the development of policies for their locality are much more likely to be enthusiastic about their implementation‟

(Curry, 2010)(Golooba-Mutebi, 2010)found that participation has a role in enhancing civic consciousness and political maturity that makes those in office accountable.

(Tikare&Youssef, 2010)argues that participation has increased in popularity to the point where it has become pervasive in development initiatives (at least in rhetoric). (Chambers, 2012)has summarized three main ways in which „participation‟ is used; as a cosmetic label to make a project appear good. It could be a requirement or a „will be done‟ or „has been done‟; and also as a co-opting practice to mobilize local labor and reduce costs as far as an empowering process which enables local people to do their own analysis, to take command, to gain in confidence and to make their own decisions.

The prevalence of Chambers‟ first point has led some authors to pessimistic views of the role of participation. For example, (Cleaver, 2011)stated that „participation has become an act of faith in development; something we believe in and rarely question‟(Kelly, 2011)identified that participation is often romanticized as a cure-all so that anything participatory is assumed to be

„good‟ and „empowering‟. (Cleaver, 2011)agreed, stating that participation is intrinsically a

„good thing‟. He goes on to suggest that many practitioners focus on „getting the techniques

26 right‟ and that is the principal way of ensuring success and that considerations of power and politics on the whole should be avoided as divisive and obstructive (Cleaver, 2011).

(Biggs, 2010)suggested that a techniques-based approach to participation fails to adequately address issues of power, control of information and other resources, and provides an inadequate framework for developing a critical reflective understanding of the deeper determinants of technical and social change. This is supported by (Vlaenderen, 2010)who stated that „the use of the concept of participation in development sometimes obscures real power differentials between

„change agents‟ and those on the „receiving end‟ of the development relationship, and sometimes serves as a pleasing disguise for manipulation‟.

2.2.4 Limitations of Participation

Despite the importance and benefits identified above, participation has limitations, particularly in relation to being context specific. (Campbell, 2012)identified four constraints to participation: institutional, cultural, knowledge and financial (cited in (Chamala, 2010)There are limits to what participation alone can achieve in terms of equity and efficiency, given pre-existing socioeconomic inequalities and relations of power (Agarwal 2011).

(Biggs, 2010)have found that participatory events (such as PRA) can construct knowledge in ways that strongly reflect existing social relations of power and gender. (Grant, 2013)identified that participation can be inhibited by social dynamics of exclusion and inclusion at the community level. Barriers to participation may include professional elitism, time and financial costs, lack of interest and skills among proponents and planners, and uncertainty about the results of public involvement (Jaffray, 2013)(Bamberger, 2010)has identified the several numbers of costs of participation as project start-up may be delayed by negotiations with beneficiaries and

27 participatory approaches frequently increased the number of managerial and administrative staff required as well as well-organized communities are able to exert pressure to raise the level or widen the range of services beyond those originally planned, with consequent increases in project costs.

Grimble and Chan (2010) suggested that methods need to be located within a broader frame that enables stakeholders to be identified and conflicts potentially defused, circumvented or resolved.

Participatory methods per se cannot guarantee success (cited in (Biggs and Smith 2010) page

240).

(Kleemeier, 2010)found that of projects implementing various methods of community participation, the smallest schemes and the newest ones were performing best in terms of long- term sustainability. Skeptics argue that participation places unrealistic demands on people, with more pressing demands on their time (Golooba-Mutebi, 2010)Non- participatory methodologies for resource management have negative impacts for efficiency but the damage that poor participatory methodologies do is more significant in setting norms and expectations for future participatory methodologies even if they are better designed and informed with the right intention (Turner, 2012).

2.2.5 Participation as an End or Means

(Buchy, 2011)have identified two emerging themes in the literature: participation as an approach, an ideology, a specific ethos for community development; and participation as a method, a set of guidelines and practices for involving communities or the general public in specific planning activities (Buchy, 2011). This could be summarized as participation as an end or as a means to an end(Williams, 2012). This discussion was also described by Nelson and (Wright, 2011) as the

28 distinction between instrumental and transformative participation and by (Macnaghten, 2010) as value based or instrumental. The means or ends argument is comparable to efficiency, and empowerment and equity. (Cleaver, 2011)identified efficiency as participation as a tool for achieving better project outcomes, and empowerment and equity as participation as a process which enhances the capacity of individuals to improve their own lives and facilitates social change to the advantage of disadvantaged or marginalized groups. But Bamberger (2010) questioned whether efficiency and empowerment are complimentary or conflicting objectives.

At a more superficial level (Nelson, 2012)identified the common distinction between

„participation as a means‟, as to accomplish the aims of a project more efficiently, effectively or cheaply, as opposed to „participation as an end‟ where the community or group sets up a process to control its own development. The authors go on to state that the extent of empowerment and involvement of the local population is more limited in the first approach than it is in the second

(Nelson, 2012).

2.2.6 Empowerment

Empowerment is a term frequently associated with participation that is often poorly used and conceptualized (Lyons&Smuts, 2012)(Holcombe, 2011)identified that „participation and empowerment are inseparably linked, they are different but they depend on each other to give meaning and purpose. Participation represents action, or being part of an action such as a decision-making process. Empowerment represents sharing control, the entitlement and the ability to participate, to influence decisions, as on the allocation of resources‟.

(White, 2009)identified that empowerment grows out of involvement in thinking, planning, deciding, acting and evaluating. Because empowerment refers to control, words commonly found

29 in definitions include access, control, entitlement, deciding, enabling, acting, awareness, and participation (Holcombe, 2011)Examples of such definitions are: „the idea that some can act on others to give them power or enable them to realize their own potential‟ ((Nelson, 2012) „in simple definitional terms, the verb to empower means to enable, to allow, or to permit and can be conceived as both self-initiated and initiated by others. For social agents, empowering is an act of building, developing, increasing power through cooperation, sharing and working together. It is an interactive process based on a synergistic, not a zero-sum, assumption of power; that is, the process of empowerment changes the power in the situation as opposed to merely redistributing it, Some authors identify empowerment on participation continuums (Choguill, 2009)due to the fact that participation is often seen as an essential ingredient of empowerment (Holcombe, 2011)

2.2.7 The Role of Government in Economic Development

One major issue regarding the application of governance concepts to economic development is the role of government in economic development. The neoclassical arguments of development emphasize the role of foreign trade and investment and the importance of a free market in stimulating competition during the development process (Rubin, 2012). They explain that the problems of less developed countries result from extensive government intervention in promoting import- substitution policies that limit the scope of industrialization. They argue that one of the major factors contributing to the success of East Asia adoption of export-oriented policies that encourages the process of technological adaptation and entrepreneurial maturation.

They recognize the role of state in the process of development but emphasize a passive and limited role of government in such activities as maintaining stability and providing physical infrastructure.

The statist arguments of development indicate that the successful experience of newly industrialized countries is related not only to the operation of the free market but also to the active role of government in directing public and private resources to change the structure of their economy (Cooper, 2013)For example, many of the successful newly industrialized countries emphasize a general incentive policy to encourage the accumulation of production factors (tax measures, research and development) and an industrial targeting policy to promote the growth of particular industries (e.g. subsidizing credit or import protection).

Considering the market and state arguments, (Aoki, 2009)promote a market-enhancing view, which emphasizes the role of government policy to facilitate or complement private-sector coordination. They indicate that previous approaches viewed the market and government as the only alternative and as mutually exclusive substitutes. They argue that the market-enhancing approach stresses the mechanisms whereby government policy is directed at improving the ability of the private sector to solve newly industrialized countries is the coordination problems and overcome other market imperfections. One example of the mechanisms is the important role of government private-sector intermediaries (e.g., deliberation councils, national wages council) in facilitating information change to avoid possible market coordination failures.

A similar argument about the relationship between the market and the state has been emphasized by (Kliksberg, 2012)He points out that the societies which have made the most consistent progress in recent decades are those which have moved beyond the false state-versus-market dichotomy. He maintains that these societies have developed a model of cooperation among the main social actors and have actively integrated powerful latent forces of civil society into that model. To solve many development problems, he emphasizes the need to rebuild the state to focus on the state‟s strategic role in society and the development of an institutional design and

31 managerial capacities to improve the effectiveness of the state performance.

The economic development strategies emphasized by local governments vary depending on the environment of their communities and different goals of their economic development plan. In general, four types of development strategies have been adopted: 1) subsidizing traditional inputs such as capital (e.g., direct loans and loan guarantees, tax-exemption bond financing, development corporations), land (e.g., land banking, site development provision), and labor (e.g., low cost/mass production, and high quality/lean production); 2) lowering political costs of doing business, including tax abatements and incentives and limitations on the regulatory environment;

3) promoting entrepreneurial activities of market development (e.g., export promotion, research, and dissemination) and business services (e.g., policy planning, research and development support and consortia); and 4) developing attractive social amenities (e.g., arts, environment) and improving distressed areas (e.g., enterprise zones) (Montjoy, 2010)All of these strategies are directly or indirectly related to policy or managerial issues of the new governance approach

(Liou, 2010).

2.3 Critical Review and Research Gap Identification

It is very clear from the review above that „community participation is not a simple matter of faith, but a complex issue involving different ideological beliefs, political forces, administrative arrangement, and varying perceptions of what is possible‟. (Scoones, 2009)have identified that there is a tendency for those who use the term participation to adopt a moral high ground, implying that any form of participation is good. Because of this inherent goodness of the notion of participation, it has become a substitute for the structural reforms needed for social change.

Thus there is a tendency for the focus on participation to become narrow and ignore many of the

32 contextual issues, which remain out of the control, or influence, of the beneficiaries of the development project (Botchway, 2012).

(Holcombe, 2011)succinctly outlines the situation stating that „development agencies verbalize their commitment to participation but less often do they state the steps necessary to structure operations that allow participation beyond that of voluntary labor in projects designed by outsiders‟.

(Scoones, 2009)supported the view that this often occurs in development projects and Cernea

(2006) stated that real participation in rural development programs is more myth than reality.

(White, 2009)states that the „involvement of the population in the physical work of implementing a project can hardly be considered as community participation unless there is a least some degree of sharing of decisions with the community‟.

(Ladbury, 2008)have identified four main reasons why participation does not occur in practice: economic, political, professionalism and the nature of the product. Economic reasons for non- participation involve a simple cost benefit calculation. The benefits must be greater than the costs of participating. The authors‟ political argument for non-participation is that participation of all or some of the beneficiaries may not be in the political interests of other actors in the project. „Participation is more frustrating than it is advantageous for those who are powerless‟

(Ladbury, 2008)

Professionalism is put forward as a reason for non-participation because the professional training and culture of some specialists mitigates against an emphasis on participation

„professional knows best‟. Another argument is that the degree to which participation can be

33 achieved will depend on the nature of the product, in particular, whether its delivery brings people together in a way that they can, or must, develop common interests. (Ladbury, 2008)

(Kerr, 2012)argued that most successful examples of participation come from NGOs and that government projects generally employ more superficial participation because staff lack the skills and incentives. Despite pervasive requirements for participation at all levels in natural resource decision making, there is little detailed, strategic guidance available to help managers understand when and how to involve the public (Deagen, 2001).

„Despite significant claims to the contrary, there is little evidence of the long-term effectiveness of participation in materially improving the conditions of the most vulnerable people, or as a strategy for social change‟ (Cleaver, 2011).

(Cleaver, 2011)suggested that there is some evidence of efficiency but little regarding empowerment and sustainability, and appropriateness is often reliant on evidence of the rightness of the approach and process rather than outcomes. Other issues include whether many rural people want to participate more comprehensively in development projects or whether they are satisfied by an outside organization functioning in „traditional‟ ways (Hussein, 2009)These arguments have led Hussein to posit that the effectiveness of participatory approaches may be different in practice than in theory (Hussein, 2009).

2.4. Theoretical Framework

This study was constructed and based on community participation theory, which is applied to a variety of situations, although not always appropriately(Hussein, 2009) suggested that participation has become a panacea. (Chamala, 2010)stated that „community participation has

34 been the hallmark of many successful development projects around the world‟. (Michener,

2010)however posited that the term is widely applied in academic and project documents without regard for implementation realities. Even within the project cycle there has been varying applications of participation. (Gaventa, 2007)Identified that there has been a growing emphasis on participation at the „front-end‟ of development projects in appraisal and implementation and now there is recognition of the importance of participatory processes in monitoring and evaluation of development and other community-based initiatives.

This study has been also constructed and based on democratic decision making approach, in contrast to bureaucratic or technocratic decision making, is based on the assumption that all who are affected by a given decision have the right to participate in the making of that decision.

Participation can be direct in the classical democratic sense, or can be through representatives for their point of view in a pluralist-republican model(Kweit, 2008). Kweit and Kweit go on to point out that criteria for evaluating policies in a democratic process are the accessibility of the process and/or the responsiveness of the policy to those who are affected by it, rather than the efficiency or rationality of the decision.

This study has been also based on Public participation or public involvement approach, this is one approach that the government services can use to help generate consensus and approval in it's decision-making. Working under the assumption that public consultation is becoming increasingly important in local entities management issues and that it is generally desirable, we conclude our discussion with a review of the elements of an effective consultation program.(Kweit, 2008)

(Priscoli and Homenuckm, 2006)point out that demand for public consultation in policy and decision making is part of a larger movement that evolved from the 1960s. The initial question they raise is: who is the public? They categorize publics into five groups including: (1) the organized public; (2) the general public; (3) politicians; (4) public interest groups; and (5) local experts (Priscoli and Homenuckm, 2006).

2.5 Conceptual Framework

The conceptual frame work of the study is going to explain interrelation between independent and dependent variables and its indicators. The study seeks to assess the contribution of community participation and poverty reduction in Kacyiru Sector of Gasabo District.

Community participation is being considered as independent variable and its indicators has been construed as decision making as well as contribution of labor and finance while poverty reduction has been considered as dependent variable and its variables has been construed as support base establishment, increased opportunities as far as ownership enhancement of outcomes is concerned.

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Community participation Poverty reduction

(a) Decision Making and (a) Empowerment Implementation (b) Capabilities (b) Contribution of the (c) Provided opportunities and production labor and finance (d) Ownership enhancement (c) of outcomes.

Intervening Variables

(a) Civil Society participation (b) Government Support

Source Researcher 2016

Figure 2.1 Conceptual framework

2.6 Summary

This chapter presents arguments as to why participation is important for improving life situations, particularly for the poor and disadvantaged, including people with disabilities and their families. Community participation is one means of decreasing tension and conflict over public policy decisions. A variety of techniques exist that solicit public input effectively.

Planners and participants can derive a number of tangible benefits from an effective public involvement process. However, the expectations of planners and the public must be roughly equivalent for the process to be effective. Theoretically, involving interested publics in all phases of planning and decision-making will lead to better decisions. Furthermore, the community participation approach has introduced new ideas about the improvement of government operation

37 system. While these ideas are sound in terms of business efficiency, there may be problems in applying them to the area of local economic development. For example, the result of the decentralization policy is the importance of local governments in providing public services and promoting economic development as far as poverty reduction is concerned.

In an attempt to categorize the various extents of participation, a number of typologies have been created to explain the continuum. Although having many important benefits, participation also has a number of limitations, most importantly being that methodologies are context specific.

Skeptics also argue that participation places unrealistic demands on people, with more pressing demands on their time.

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

This chapter was focused on research design, target population, sample design, sample size, sampling technique and data collection methods, data collection instruments, administration of data collection instruments, reliability and validity of the instruments, data analysis procedure and ethical consideration.

3.1 Research Design

This is a descriptive survey research design. Both designs were used in order to have issues related to the study described and analyzed. Descriptive research describes data and characteristics about the population or phenomenon being studied. The analytical design analyses issues related to the study area. The researcher used both designs in order to ensure that sufficient data for the research is acquired. The research designs were based on both qualitative and quantitative methods.

3.2 Target Population

The target population of the study was 750 households, which has been selected by Kacyiru

Sector‟s local leaders as model ones in terms of community participation involvement; as we consider therefore, a target population as a group of individuals that share one or more characteristics from which data can be gathered and analyzed. The researcher used purposive sampling technique had selected 1 sector, which is Kacyiru Sectors, a model sector in terms of local community participation activities among of 15 sectors comprising (Gasabo District , 2013)

3.3 Sample Design

The study used a stratified sampling technique to select the categories (married, single, divorced, widowed) of people that were visited. All 750 as men or women in their household as targeted people were candidate in this study. More again, the researcher applied purposive sampling technique in the selection of Kacyiru Sector. This area was selected because of its particularity of beinga model sector in terms of community participation involvement among of 15 sectors comprising Gasabo District(Gasabo District , 2013)

3.3.1 Sample Size

Sample size of the study was 256 derived from 750 households where the researcher used

Morgan tableto get sample size from the target population(Krejcie&Morgan, 1970)

3.3.2 Sampling Techniques

Sampling techniques used in this study are: stratified random sampling and purposive sampling technique.

Stratified Random Sampling

This technique has been used when researcher gave questionnaire to different respondents of

Kacyiru Sector; the researcher divided respondents into four strata: first, married who held households as heads; second divorced who held households as heads too and thirdarewidowed held households as heads and fourth who are still singles held households.This has been used in order to obtain data from all categories of people from sample size of the study.

Purposive Sampling

According to (Williams G. a., 1990)purposive sampling is one of the non- probability sampling technique that is used when the researcher purposely wanted to choose a particular sample.

Purposive sampling was used in this study, because of its particularity of beinga model sector in terms of community participation involvement among of 15 sectors comprising Gasabo

District(Gasabo District , 2013).

3.4 Data Collection Methods

The researcher obtained a letter of introduction from Mount Kenya University Graduate School to the Local Leaders of sampled Sector and Mayor of Gasabo District. Three Research Assistants were identified to assist in data collection. The data used for this study was obtained from both primary and secondary sources using several instruments. Interview was conducted and responses were recorded on paper. Secondary data was also obtained in the form of records.

3.4.1 Data Collection Instruments

The research instruments were questionnaire, interviews and documents analysis.

Questionnaire

The questionnaires were consisting of closed-ended and open ended questions. For closed ended questions, alternative responses were presented to the respondent and were filled in the spaces provided on the form according to the respondent‟s choice. For open-ended ones, the respondents were free to respond in their own way.The questionnaire had three sections: Section

A was included the respondent‟s demographic profile, Section B was focused on the general and closed ended statements which were in accordance with the objectives of the study. According to

(Khotari, 2004)semi-structured questionnaire is appropriate since it is flexible, not expensive, and not biased. Section C was based on the open ended questions.

The closed ended questions were based on a five Likert points scale as shown in Table I, and other attitudinal scale are indicated in questionnaires.

Table 3.1: Definition of Scale Scale Response Mean Range Interpretation

5 Strongly agree 4.50-5.00 Very High

4 Agree 3.50-4.49 High

3 Undecided 2.50-3.49 Moderate

2 Disagree 1.50-2.49 Low

1 Strongly disagree 1.00-1.49 Very Low

(Likert, 1932)

The Key Informants Interview (K.I.I)

As earlier mentioned, this research was also considered Key Informants Interview as an important to compliment the questionnaire. The Key Informant was 1 Sectors Executive

Secretary of Kacyiru Sector, and 3 people from Advisory board (Chairpersons, Vice Chairperson and Secretary) and 4 Cooperative Representatives fromKacyiru Sector ofGasabo District, and this made a total of 8 Key Informants.

Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

The researcher also used purposed Focus Group Discussion (FGD)of 15 people to compliment the main instruments. The Focus Group Discussion was held among 8 Advisory Board members

42 and 7 local people found at the queue at Kacyiru Sector in Gasabo District, who gave information relating to the study.

The Documents Analysis

The documents analysis and also was used for secondary data collection at his convenient time, to obtain unobtrusive information, obtain data that are thoughtful.

3.4.2 Administration of Data Collection Instruments

For this study therefore, the researcher made distribution of questionnaires to 256 respondents from the targeted group.The researcher made a face to face interview to the 1 Sectors Executive

3.4.3 Reliability and Validity of Research Instruments

The validity of instruments is a measure of how well a test measures what is supposed to be measured while reliability is a measure of how consistent the results from a test are (Kombo&

Tromp, 2006).

(Ochieng, 2009)argues that, for a study to be of real meaning it ought to apply valid and reliable instruments. Before actual research is done, the researcher had ensured that the instruments are pretested for purpose of achieving validity and reliability. The researcher used CVR (Content

Validity Ratio) where the expert agreed with the items. The CVR was used to compute the scores and because the score was 0.76it means that the instrument was considered valid. The formula for validity:

CVI :Relevant Items (16)_ Total Number of Items(21)

With respect to achieving the reliability of the instruments in this study, the pilot test was administered to 25 respondents in Kimihurura Sector in Gasabo District, which is not part of the population, but is a neighboring Sector. The Cronbach‟s Alpha Coefficient was computed to determine how items correlated to one another; A Cronbach Alpha (0.78) was a result and was proved valid.

Table 3.2: Reliability Test Results Cronbach‟s Alpha Number of Items

0.78 21

3.5 Data Analysis Procedure

After collecting data, it was cleaned and coded. Data entry was done by the use of Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software and Excel version 2010.Descriptive statistics means, frequencies; percentages was used to analyze, interpret and discuss the findings of all three objectives. This was because those objectives need to be descriptive.

With qualitative data, descriptive method as well as tables was used to interpret data presented to provide explanations to the facts that was expressed by the respondents. Data was also presented in terms of percentage so as to show the weight of responses compared to the number of respondents.

3.5 Ethical Consideration

The search of knowledge must not contradict some ethical principles including the obligation to avoid hurting or embarrassing the respondents as well as respecting their privacy. According to some scholars, as researchers, have to first ask ourselves the ethical relevance of any research

44 with reference to the values and actions that we undertake in order to complete it. For this purpose, the researcher needed to observe a set of measures to comply with ethical standards during the whole process of research.

The researcher had to bear the Mount Kenya University letter justifying the relevance of the assignment involved in and introducing him to various potential informants as well. Inform respondents that they have the right to refuse any participation in the study. Guarantee confidentiality regarding any information given and use it exclusively for this study. Such a measure is intended to gain cooperation and to build trust between information seekers and information givers and anonymity has been guaranteed where needed.

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4.0Introduction

This chapter presented, analyzed, interpreted and discussed the findings of the study in relation to the objectives. The researcher presented the collected data using tables and figure from which percentages and frequencies were ascertained to provide a basis for analysis and interpretations.

4.1 Presentation of the Findings

In this section, the researcher presents the findings of the research extracted from the data collection instruments that included questionnaires and interviews.

4.1.1 Profile of Respondents

The researcher presents the respondents‟ profile in relation to age, gender, marital status and education level. This was done in order to form a basis of making conclusions on assessment of the contribution of community participation on poverty reduction in Kacyiru Sector of Gasabo

District.

Table 4.1: Age of Respondents Age Frequency Percentage %

Below 25 years 30 11.7

26 – 30 years 80 31.2

31 – 35 years 95 37.1

36 – 40 years 35 13.6

41 years and above 16 6.2

Total 256 100

Source: Primary data

Table 4.1 shows that the respondents contacted revealed that they were aged less than 25 years

30(11.7%) while 80(31.2%) said they were aged between 26 – 30 years and 95(37.1%)were aged between 31 – 35 years, while 35 (13.6%) of respondents said they were aged between

41years and above therefore, this led the researcher to the realization that contacted respondents were aged enough to give reliable information in as far as making conclusions related to the effects of good governance and community wellbeing is concerned.

Table 3.2: Gender of Respondents Gender Frequency Percentage %

Male 142 55.5

Female 114 44.5

Total 256 100

Source: Primary data

The respondents numbered two hundred fifty six (256) in all. The study findings in Table 4.2 indicated that 142 of the respondents contacted were found to be male (55.5%) while 114(44.5%) of respondents were female. This led the researcher to the understanding that respondents were mainly male because they are the heads of households, more again this means that males were highly participated in this study; therefore, the information was given paramount significance since it was from different gender categories.

Table 4.3: Respondents and their Levels of Education Education Levels Frequency Percentage %

Primary level 25 9.7

Secondary level 125 48.8

Diploma holders 40 15.6

Bachelor‟s holders 46 17.9

Postgraduate 20 7.8

Total 256 100

Source: Primary data

The table 4.3 shows that the respondents were classified based on their educational background.

Whilst some have been educated from the primary level while other to secondary level up to the post graduate. The educational level of the respondents is dominated by secondary education level of 125 (48.8 %), the results further reveals that 46 (17.9%) Bachelor‟s degree holders, followed by 40 (15.5%) as Diploma holders while 25 (9.7%) have finished primary schools and

20 (2.8%) belong to the category with Postgraduate level.

4.2The Contribution of Community Participation in Decision Making, Labor and Finance

exercises are the major community supports to the local government in Kacyiru Sector

of Gasabo District.

Table 4.4: Views of Respondents on the Contribution of Community Participation in labour or financially in Kacyiru Sector of Gasabo District. Items Scales Frequency %

The voice heard when decisions are being SD 37 14.5 made that affect them D 30 11.7 U 12 4.6 A 81 31.6 SA 96 37.6 I participate in decision making exercise SD 20 7.8 D 30 11.7 U 08 3.1 A 80 31.2 SA 118 46.0 I am happy for my participation either in SD 04 1.5 labour or finance D 07 2.7 U 03 1.1 A 38 12.5 SA 204 79.6

Total 256 100 Source: Primary data

From the statement which was seeking to know whether people inKacyiru Sector of Gasabo

District participates in decision making exercise and their voice heard when decisions affects the mare being made; the table 4.4shows study findings that majority were strongly agreed on level of 96(37.6%); followed by respondents who agreed with the statement 81(31.6%), then

37(14.5%) of respondents strongly disagreed, while those with disagreed were 30(11.7%) and

49 undecided were 12(4.6%).This led the researcher to the understanding that the big number participates and have exercising their rights to rise up the voices when something is going wrong.

When respondents were asked if they participates in decision making processes and implementation as shown in table 6, the findings shows different percentages which explain different point of views of the respondents. The highest percentages were attributed to strongly agree as 118(46%).The number 80(31.2%) of respondents were agreed with statement, and

30(11.7%) were disagreed to do not participates in decision making processes. People don‟t react in the same way about express their views, reason why on that table 7; 20(7.8%) strongly disagreed and 08(3.1%) were undecided on that statement.

In a bid to find out whether a persons who participates in decision making are happy for their participation, the study findings show that the highest percentages obtained from respondents

204(79.6%) strongly agreed with the statement, while 38(12.5%) agreed and 07(2.7%) were disagreed, then 04(1.5%) strongly disagreed. The number of respondents 03(1.1%) were not sure whether people are happy with their participation in their decision making. These figures for researcher are significant because community participation is one among of the major indication of good governance.

To conclude by saying that; community participation has different domains like decentralization and participation; civil society participation; gender parity in leadership as well as power sharing is concerned; however, the researcher was intended to search on participation in line with decision making.

In this section, the researcher presents the respondents‟ findings in relation to whether their voices heard when decisions are being made that affect them as far as participation in decision-making exercise is concerned. More again, it was so much interested to know the respondents‟ feelings (whether there are happy or not) during their participation either in labor or finance. This was done in order to form a basis of making conclusions on assessment of the effects of good governance on community wellbeing in Gasabo

District. This is in line with (Chamala, 1995)who identified efficiency benefits from community participation, as involvement of stakeholders and empowering community participants in programs at all levels, from local to national, provide a more effective path for solving sustainable resource management issues. The Key Informants interviewed also argues that community participation enhances project effectiveness through community ownership of development efforts and aids decision-making.

4.2.1 The extent to which local people contributes on labor and finance as far as capabilities are concerned.

In this section the researcher presented, analyzed and interpreted the views of respondents in relation to the contribution on labor and finance as far as support base establishment is concerned.

Table 4.5: Respondents’ views on contribution of community members on labor and finance in Kacyiru Sector of Gasabo District. Items Scales Frequency % Community members contributes as they can SD 30 11.7 D 45 17.5 U 06 2.3 A 74 28.9 SA 101 31.4 You support financially all community development SD 10 3.9 projects D 34 13.2 U 05 1.9 A 108 42.1 SA 99 38.6 You benefit from community participation SD 18 7.3 in different projects D 30 11.7 U 11 4.2 A 119 46.4 SA 78 30.4

Total per section 256 100 Source: Primary data

When the researcher wanted to know whether community members contributes as they can

(labor and finance) the Table 4.5, shows the findings whereby the highest percentage 101(31.4%) of respondents strongly agreed with the statement while 74(28.9%) agreed, and 45(17.5%) expressed their feelings as disagreed, 30(11.7%) strongly disagreed with the statement and

06(2.3%) shown their opinion as undecided. This is in line with (Mylius, 1991)who argues that local ownership of a project or program as a key to generating motivation for ecologically sustainable activities. The authors also identify the role of community participation in disseminating information amongst a community, particularly local knowledge that leads to better facilitation of action.

Referring to the answers from the highest number of the respondents which were strongly agreed that, community members supports financially all community development projects were 108

(42.1%) followed by those who agreed as 99 (38.6%) while 34 (13.2%) disagreed, 10 (3.9%) strongly disagreed with the statement and 05 (1.9%) not sure whether those meetings are being held. There is no need to ask why the most half of respondents have agreed with the statement above; however, this has been supported by (Vansant, 1983)who identified four affirmations that summarize the importance of participation in development as; people organize best around problems they consider most important; local people tend to make better economic decisions and judgments in the context of their own environment and circumstances, voluntary provision of labor, time, money and materials to a project is a necessary condition for breaking patterns of dependency and passivity as well as local control over the amount, quality and benefits of development activities helps make the process self-sustaining.

When respondents were asked if they benefits from community participation in different projects as shown in table 7, the findings shows different percentages which explain different point of views of the respondents as well. The highest percentages were attributed to agree with the statement 119(46.4%). Followed by 78(30.4%) of respondents who strongly agreed with statement, and 30(11.7%) disagreed while 18 (7.03%) strongly disagreed and 11 (4.2%) were undecided. This has been supported by White (1981) identified a number of beneficial reasons for community participation: with participation, more will be accomplished, and services can be provided more cheaply. Participation: has an intrinsic value for participants; is a catalyst for further development; encourages a sense of responsibility; guarantees that a felt need is involved; ensures things are done the right way; uses valuable indigenous knowledge; frees people from

53 dependence on others‟ skills; and makes people more conscious of the causes of their poverty and what they can do about it.

4.2.2 Views of Respondents from community members on capabilities in Kacyiru Sector of Gasabo District.

In this section therefore, the researcher gave emphasis on the presentation, analysis and interpretation of respondents views in relation to transparence concept so that necessary and relevant conclusions can be made.

Table 4.6: The Respondents’ views on support base established in Kacyiru Sector. Items Scales Frequency %

Because of community SD 05 1.9 participation social services D 15 5.8 have been improved U 09 3.5 A 96 37.6 SA 131 51.1 Community opportunities have been increased too SD 24 9.3 D 45 17.5 U 03 1.17 A 85 33.2 SA 99 38.6 Ownership enhancement of out comes SD 03 1.17 D 06 2.3 U 02 0.78 A 51 19.9 SA 194 75.7

Total per section 256 100 Source: Primary data

From the statement seeking to find out whether because of community participation social services have been improved, table 4.6 shows that among the respondents contacted, the highest number revealed that it‟s true as strongly agreed 131 (51.1%) while 96(37.6%) agreed, and 15

(5.8%) expressed their feelings as disagreed, 09(3.5%)and (05%) shown their opinion as strongly disagreed with the statement. This has been identified also by (Golooba-Mutebi, 2004)who commented that communities that have a say in the development of policies for their locality are much more likely to be enthusiastic about their implementation‟ and further found that participation has a role in enhancing civic consciousness and political maturity that makes those in office accountable.

In a bid to find out whether community opportunities have been increased; the study findings show that the highest percentages obtained from respondents 99(38.6%) strongly agreed with the statement, while 85(33.2%) agreed and 45(17.5%) disagreed while 24 (9.3%) strongly disagreed.

The number of respondents 03(1.17%) not sure whether community opportunities have been increased.The Key Informants Interview results harmonize with White (1981) identified a number of beneficial reasons for community participation: with participation, more will be accomplished, and services can be provided more cheaply. Participation: has an intrinsic value for participants; is a catalyst for further development; encourages a sense of responsibility; guarantees that a felt need is involved; ensures things are done the right way; uses valuable indigenous knowledge; frees people from dependence on others‟ skills; and makes people more conscious of the causes of their poverty and what they can do about it. From the statement which the researcher was so interesting to find out whether ownership enhancement of outcomes,the study findings has shown on table 8 reveals that, the highest score obtained from respondents was a number of 194 (75.7%) for those who were strongly agreed. On other hand a

55 number of 51 (19.9%) attributed to agreed respondents while 6(2.3%) of respondents disagreed and 03(1.17%) strongly disagreed with the statement and 2 (0.78%) attributed to undecided respondents.This is the fact that community participation leads to ownership as well.

4.2.3 The benefits of the community participation in participatory projects in Kacyiru

Sector of Gasabo District.

The researcher in this section presented, analyzed and interpreted the views of respondents on how they expressed their views in regard to the benefits of the community participation in participatory projects in Kacyiru Sector of Gasabo District.

Table 4.7: Respondents’ Views on the benefits of the community participation in participatory projects in Gasabo District.

Items Scales Frequency %

Local leaders always involves SD 15 5.8 all community members in D 38 12.5 developmental projects for U 13 5.07 their benefits A 89 34.7 SA 101 39.4 Community participation SD 12 4.6 exercise works as a tool for D 15 5.8 poverty reduction U 14 5.4 A 96 37.5 SA 89 34.7 Poverty rates has been SD 16 6.2 decreased because of D 01 0.39 community participation U 20 7.8 A 33 12.8 SA 186 72.6

Total per section 256 100 Source: Primary data

When respondents were asked if Local leaders always involves all community members in developmental projects for their benefits. The study findings shown on table 4.7, has pointed out the highest percentages obtained from respondents, 101 (31.4%) strongly agreed, 89(34.7%) were agreed, while 38(12.5%) disagreed, 15(5.8%) strongly disagreed, and 13(5.07%) undecided of the statement. The Key Informants who have been interviewed has been also agreed on the statement above and Cleaver (1999) agreed, stating that participation is intrinsically a „good thing‟. And he suggested involving all community members in community members. He goes on to suggest that many practitioners focus on „getting the techniques right‟ and that is the principal way of ensuring success and that considerations of power and politics on the whole should be avoided as divisive and obstructive (Cleaver 1999).

The statement abides whether community participation exercise works as a tool for poverty reduction; the study findings reveals the highest percentages obtained were agreed respondents

96(37.5%), then 89(34.7%) strongly agreed while 15(5.8%) disagreed and 14(5.4%) were undecided and 12(4.6%) strongly disagreed with the statement. However, this was in line with

K.I.I and Kaufman and Alfonso (1997), who argued that effective community participation, may lead to social and personal empowerment, economic development, and socio-political transformation. The potential of community participation in reversing power relations and providing the poor with agency and voice is well noted in the development literature. As such most development projects are expected to have some modicum of community participation revealing the widespread appeal for community participation in contemporary development thinking and practice.

Respondents were asked whether poverty rates has been decreased because of community participation summary of the percentages of different answers shows that, there is 186(72.6%) of

57 respondents who were strongly agreed, 33 (12.8%) of respondent were agreed while 20 (7.8%) were undecided then 16 (6.2%) were strongly disagreed, and 01 (0.39%) were disagreed of the statement above. This is in harmony with (Coehlo, 2007)writes that community participation has featured very prominently in development is poverty reduction and rural development.

The concepts of participation and poverty reduction carry the allure of optimism and purpose and have shaped development discourse and policy for some time now. A growing body of evidence confirms Cornwall and Brook assertion that community participation in development projects leads to poverty reduction and sustainable development (Hoddinott, 2002)specifically; community participation empowers the poor by building their capacity through skills training to actively engage with the development process.

From the statement which was requested the respondents to express their views in regards the benefits of community participation in participatory projects in Kacyiru Sector of Gasabo

District they however, indicated a number of benefits such as, partnership in the mobilization of both international and national resources and energies for the betterment is of great importance.

The potential for greater participation and contribution of other actors such as NGOs,

Development Partners, Communities and Individual is enormous concerned.

4.2.4The Respondents’ views in regard with major challenges facing local government

institutions in fostering community participation in Rwanda.

In this section therefore, the researcher gave emphasis on the presentation, discussion, analysis and interpretation of respondents views in relation to major challenges facing local government institutions in fostering community participation concept so that necessary and relevant conclusions can be made.

Table 4.8 The Respondents’ views in regard with major challenges facing local government

institutions in fostering community participation in Rwanda.

The study findings here are pointed out some major challenges facing local government institutions in fostering community participation in Rwanda, such as, lack of volunteerism, capacity building intervention, sensitization as well as mobilization where you find that sometimes the attendance goes low because of those challenges mentioned above.

Challenges Frequency Percentage

Lack of volunteerism 216 84

Inadequate sensitization as 136 53 well as mobilization

Capacity building intervention 196 76

Other 14 5.4

Source: Primary Data

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Introduction

This chapter presents the summary of findings on the study which was aiming “to assess the contribution of Community Participation and Poverty Reduction in Kigali Sector in Kigali,

Rwanda, A Case Study of Gasabo District”. The chapter presents the objectives and the summary of the findings, conclusions and recommendations based on the research objectives, which have been made showing how to overcome the identified challenges and gives the recommendations and suggests the possible areas for future research. The study findings from respondents‟ helped the researcher to understand better the link between Community Participation and Poverty

Reduction in Kigali Sector in Kigali, Rwanda.

5.1 Summary of the Findings

This study aimed at assessing the contribution of community participation and poverty reduction in in Kacyiru Sector in Kigali, Rwanda. According to the respondents‟ status, it was necessary to go deep in this study and further look at the age, gender; marital status and education. The research was guided by objectives and set research questions. Data was gathered from different sources to arrive at important conclusion. According to the research findings, it has been revealed that contacted respondents were old enough to give reliable information in as far as making conclusions related to assessment of the contribution of community participation and poverty reduction in in Kacyiru Sector in Kigali, Rwanda is concerned. Respondents were mainly male because they are the heads of households. However the information was given paramount significance since it was from different gender categories and that respondents contacted were mainly educated and could be relied upon for necessary and relevant conclusion.

5.1.1 With regard to knowing whether community members in Gasabo District participates in decision-making and their voice heard when decisions affects them are being made.

The study findings reveals that majority of the respondents strongly agreed.From the statement which was seeking to know whether people inGasabo District participates in decision making exercise and their voice heard when decisions affects the mare being made; the study findings shows that majority were strongly agreed on level of 96(37.6%); followed by respondents who agreed with the statement 81(31.6%), then 37(14.5%) of respondents strongly disagreed, while those with disagreed were 30(11.7%) and undecided were 12(4.6%).

From the response above, it was realized that community members participate in decision making processes at the highest percentages which attributed to strongly agree with the above statement, and furthermore, the people who participates in the decision making and implementation are happy for their participation, the study findings show that the highest percentages obtained from respondents 204(79.6%) strongly agreed with the statement, while

38(12.5%) agreed and 07(2.7%) disagreed, then 04(1.5%) strongly disagreed. The number of respondents 03(1.1%) were not sure whether people are happy with their participation in their decision making. When respondents were asked if Local leaders always involves all community members in developmental projects for their benefits. The study findings shown on table 4.7, has pointed out the highest percentages obtained from respondents, 101 (31.4%) strongly agreed,

89(34.7%) were agreed, while 38(12.5%) disagreed, 15(5.8%) strongly disagreed, and 13(5.07%) undecided of the statement.

5.1.2The Respondents’ views in regard with the benefits of community participation in participatory projects in Gasabo District.

The study findings shows that among the benefits of community participation in participatory projects are to create awareness among stakeholders, people become aware of their material resources, their leadership, their technical expertise and the kind of help they are likely to need from outside in order to finalize their projects; in top of that it leads to community ownership.

5.1.3 The researcher established major challenges facing local community participation in poverty reduction activities in in Kacyiru Sector in Kigali, Rwanda.

The study findingsindicated a number of them hampering optimal its functioning such as: lack of volunteerism, sensitization as well as mobilization where you find that sometimes the attendance goes low because of those challenges mentioned above.

5.2 Conclusion

Researcher leant from the study findings, which highlighted understanding of the assessment of the contribution of community participation and poverty reduction in in Kacyiru Sector in Kigali,

Rwanda, these findings leads the researcher to conclude by saying that there is a strong link between community participation and poverty reduction in in Kacyiru Sector in Kigali, Rwanda especially when community members are highly involved and participates in all community development activities.

The findings further revealed that the degree of involvement and empowerment of local communities in poverty reduction activities was minimal. Most of the time the community is very much involved in planning process and decision making rather manual labor; therefore, community mobilization is very crucial because it creates awareness among stakeholders, people

62 become aware of their material resources, their leadership, their technical expertise and the kind of help they are likely to need from outside, people should be mobilized through education and training on the importance of their projects and to make them feel that projects belongs to them.

Involvement of all categories of people in any ongoing developmental project gives them power to make decisions pertaining to their social development, where people enjoy awareness of all the processes related to their social economic needs and inclinations.

5.3 Recommendations

5.3.1. To the Government

The study recommends to the government the following:

To increase community awareness about local community participation concept;

To increase more trainings and seminars for community leaders to emphasize on the link between Community Participation and Poverty Reduction in Kigali Sector in Kigali, Rwanda.

To determine the policy relate to the implementation of community participation in decision making, and poverty reduction strategies.

5.3.2. To local authorities

The study therefore recommends that there is need for the District to coordinate participatory projects activities in such a way that they should not be implemented concurrently. Implementing participatory projects at different times will give communities an opportunity to participate fully in all participatory developmental projects in the community.

5.3.3. To the stakeholders

Much more sensitization and awareness to all stakeholders is needed so that in their collaboration the set objectives could be attained on time. Partnership in the mobilization of both international and national resources and energies for the betterment is of great importance. The potential for greater participation and contribution of other actors such as NGOs, Development Partners,

Communities and Individual is enormous concerned. Projects requiring community participation and implemented at the same time resulting in poor participation of the villagers because community members feel over stretched.

5.4 The areas for further research

Researchers could do the following;

The impact of local leaders‟ involvement in community participation;

The role of good governance institutions in fostering local community participation.

REFERENCES

Aoki, K. (2009). The Causes and Consequences of Corruption: A Review of Recent Empirical Contributions, IDS Bulletin 27(2).

Abbot, M (2013).NGOs: The Supporting Link in Grassroots Development. West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

Agarwal, J. M. (2011). Economic Development Programs for Cities, Counties & Towns, Second Edition. New York: Praeger.

Alfonso, P. K. (1992). The Rise of the Entrepreneurial State: State and Local Economic Development Policy in the United States. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press:

Bamberg, E. J. (2010). Planning Local Economic Development: Theory and Practice (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Biggs, T. and Smith, H. (2010).Governance, Administration and Development, Manchester University. Chamalla, G. S.(2010).Decentralization and Development: Policy Implementation in Developing Countries. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Campbell, S. (2012). The World Bank: Lending for Structural Adjustment. In R. E. Fineberf& V.

Cleaver, B. G. (2011). Governance without Government?Rethinking Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8(2), 223-243.

Chambers, J. (2012). Democratizing Development: The Role of Voluntary Organizations. West Hartford, CT: Kummarian Press.

Colombo, B. G. (2011).Politics and the State. NY: St. Martin‟s Press.

Cooper, H.G. (2013). Understanding and Managing Public Organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Corgan, C. (2011).Globalization and the Revitalization of U.S. Economic Competitiveness: Implications for Economic Development Policy. In K. T. Liou (Ed.), Handbook of Economic Development (pp. 151-182). NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Davis, S. B. (2009).What Do We Know about the Political Economy of Economic Reform?World Bank Research Observer, 8, 143-168.

Golooba-Mutebi. (2010). The Dangers of Decentralization.World Bank Research Observer 10(2), 201-220.

Grindle, M. S. (2010).Good Enough Governance: Poverty Reduction and Reforms in Developing

Countries. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions.

Holcombe, S. (2011).Pathways from the Periphery: The Politics of Growth in the Newly Industrializing Countries. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Kelly, M.(2011).Public Management Reform and Economic and Social Development. Paris: OECD.

Kerry, B.(2012). Rebuilding the State for Social Development: Towards „Smart Government‟. International Review of Administrative Sciences 66, 241-257.

Krejcie, R.V., and Morgan, D. W.(1970) “Determining Sample Size for Research Activities”, Educational and Psychological Measurement.

Likert, R.(1932) A Technique for the Measurements of Attitudes.Archives of Psychology. Lane, M. B. (2010). Local Economic Development Financing: Issues and Findings. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management 11(3), 387-397.

Liou, K. T. (2010). Administrative Reform and National Economic Development. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Lohr,L. (1999). Sampling: Design and Analysis. Duxburg.

Montjoy, K. J. (2010). Regulations: Politics, Bureaucracy, and Economics. New York: St. Martin‟s Press.

MINALOC, (2012). Annual Report, Kigali.

MINICOFIN, (2013).Annual Report, Kigali.

Mize, K. (2002).Adjustment Crisis in the Third World. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Nellis, J. (2008). Public Enterprise Reform: Privatization and the World Bank. World Development 17, 659-672.

Nelson, M. E. (2012).The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: The Free Press.

Nuhu, M. I. (2012). Understanding Research: Coping with Qualitative-Quantitative Divide. London. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).(1998). Regulatory Reform: Overview of OECD‟s Work.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).(1995a). Emerging Market Economic Forum Workshop on Public Management in Support of Social and Economic Objectives. Paris: OECD.

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).(1995b). Governance in Transition: Public Management Reforms in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD.

Rahnema, R. P. (2000).Economic Development Strategies for State and Local Governments. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Rwandese Association of Local Government Authorities. (2010). Challenge Facing Local Governments in Rwanda. Kigali

Rondinelli, D. A.; &McCullough, J. S., & Johnson, R. W. (1989). Analyzing Decentralization Policies in Developing Countries: A Political-Economy Framework. Development and Change 21, 513-530.

Ryan, H. J. (2014). Economic Partnering with the Poor: Why Local Governments Should Work with Community-Based Development Organizations to Promote Economic Development. International Journal of Public Administration 29, 1679-1709.

Smith, C. J. (2011).Studying Governance and Public Management: Challenges and Prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2), 233-261.

Suzuki, J. S. (2004).Managing Economic Development: A Guide to State and Local Leadership Strategies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Turner, D. (2012). Managing Economic Reform: An Alternative Perspective on Structural Adjustment Policies. Policy Sciences 23, 73-93.

UN, (2015)Annual Report, New York.

UNDP, (2015). Annual Report, New York.

Vansant, D. (2009). Assessing Decentralization Policies in Developing Countries: A Case for Cautious Optimism. Development Policy Review 4, 3-23.

Williams, T. (2012). Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the Challenger Tragedy. Public Administration Review 47, 227-239.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I: AUTHORIZATION LETTER

APPENDIX II: A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MAIN RESPONDENTS

Dear respondent,

I am JOSEPH GISHAIJA student at Mount Kenya University Kigali Campus, in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of Master‟s Degree in Development Studies; I am conducting a research on “Community Participation and Poverty Reduction in Kacyiru Sector in

Kigali, Rwanda.You are kindly requested to read and answer all questions with your best view.

The information gathered is purely for academic purposes and will be treated with due confidentiality.

SECTION A: RESPONDENTS DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Please, put a √ tick in front of the option that corresponds with your agreement with the statement.

1. Cell……………………...……………………….. ……..…

2. Age: below 25yrs, _____ 26yrs-30yrs, ______31yrs-35yrs,_____

36yrs-40yrs, ______41yrs and above_____

3. Gender: Male_____ Female_____

4. Education level: …………………………………………………………………….

SECTION B: Please, put a √ tick in front of the option that corresponds with your agreement with the statement. 1=strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Undecided, 4=agree, 5= strongly agree.

Participation 1 2 3 4 5

1. The voice heard when decisions are being made that affect them 2. I participate in decision making processes 3. I am happy for my participation

Contribution of labor and finance 1 2 3 4 5 4. Community members contributes as

70 they can 5. You support financially all community development projects 6. You benefit from community participation in different project Capabilities 1 2 3 4 5 7.Because of community participation socio-economic services have been improved 8.Community opportunities have been increased 9. Ownership enhancement of out comes Local Government institutions use 1 2 3 4 5 community participation as a tool of poverty reduction 10. Local leaders always involves all community members in developmental projects 11. Community participation exercise works as a tool for poverty reduction 12. Poverty rates has been decreased because of community participation involvement

SECTION C:

13. What do you consider as the benefits of community participation in participatory projects in

Kicyukiro Sector?......

14.What are the major challenges facing local community members during participation

exercise involvement in regard to poverty reduction activities in Kacyiru

Sector?......

15.How can you advise local government institutions leaders in order to overcome these

challenges?......

16.From your point of view, what do you suggest as strategies which can helplocal government

institutions to strengthen community participation

exercise?......

APPENDIX III: QUESTIONNAIRES IN KINYARWANDA VERSION

Ndagusuhujewowewemeyegusubizaibibibazo,

Kugirangoububushakashatsibugerwehoharasabwainkungayanyu, musubizaibibazo.

Ibitekerezobyanyubizakoreshwamuriububushakashatsiniyompamvumusabwegusubizanezamutan gaamakuruariyoneza.

Tubashimiyeimikoraniremyiza.

AMABWIRIZA:

ICYICIRO CYA I:UMWIRONDORO W’USUBIZA

Ku bibazobyoguhitamo, toranyaigisubizokimwegusaushyireakamenyetso mu kazukariimbereyacyo

Ku bibazobyogusubiza mu magambo, subiza mu mwanyawabugenewe.

1. Akagali……………………...……………………….. ……..…

2. Imyaka: hasiya 25 _____ hagatiya 26-30 ______hagatiya 31-35_____

Hagatiya 36-40 ______imyaka 41 no gusubirahejuru_____

3. Igitsina: Gabo_____ Gore_____

4. Amashuriwize: …………………………………………………………………….

ICYICIRO CYA II: Toranyaigisubizokimwegusaushyireakamenyetso mu kazukariimbereyacyo:1=Sibyonagato, 2=Sibyo, 3=Ntacyombiziho, 4=Ndabyemera, 5=

Ndabyemeracyane.

Ubwitabirebw’abaturage 1 2 3 4 5

1.Ijwi ryacurirumvikanaiyohariibyemezobibogamyebyadufatiwengobisubirwemo 2.Nitabirainamazifataibyemezobitureba

3.Nishimiraubwitabirebwanjye

Ubwitabirebw’abaturage mu mirimo no gutangaamafranga 1 2 3 4 5

4.Abaturagebaritabiramubikorwabyosekandiukobashoboye

5. Dutangaamafrangakubikorwabyosebyiterambere

6. Dufiteinyungunyinshi mu mishanga yiteramberetwitabira

Ubushobozibwogukora 1 2 3 4 5

7.Kuberakwitabiraibikorwabyiteramberebyatumyeubukungubuzamuka

8.Amahirweatumaabaturagebitezaimbereyariyongeye

9. Ibikorwatwagezehotubifatankibyacubwite

Inzegozibanzezahayecyaneagaciroubwitabirebwaturagemubikorwabirwan 1 2 3 4 5 yaubukene

10. Abayobozibinzegoz‟ibanzebakanguriraabaturagekwitabiraibikorwaby‟amajyam bere 11. Ubwitabirebw‟abaturage mu bikorwaby‟iteramberebukoreshwankigikoreshonyamukurumukurwanyaubukene 12. Kuberaubwitabirebw‟abaturage mu bikorwaby‟iteramberebyatumyeubukenebugabanuka ICYICIRO CYA III:

13. Nibihebintubifatikabigaragazainyunguabaturagebabonaiyobitabiriyeibikorwaby‟iterambere

mu UmurengewaKacyiru?......

14.

Nizihembogamiziubonaabaturagebahuranazoiyobitabiraibikorwaby‟iteramberebirwanyaub

ukene mu UmurengewaKacyiru?......

15. Nizihenamawatangazakurahoizombogamiziwamazekugaragazahejuru?......

16. Woweubibonautekandinibihebyifuzowatangabyatumahongerwaimbaraga mu abaturage mu

kwitabiraibikorwaby‟iteranbere mu UmurengewaKacyiru?......

Ndabashimiye!

APPENDIX IV:FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE

Dear respondent,

Kigali, Rwanda. You are kindly requested to read and give us your view as you answer all questions. The information gathered is purely for academic purposes and will be treated with due confidentiality.

1. How do you understand community participation concept in Rwanda‟s context?

2. What could be a major importance as well as benefits of community participation?

3. What are the major challenges facing local community members during participation

exercise?

4. How can you advise government institutions leaders in order to help in solving these

challenges?

5. What do you think could be the best strategies for government institutions to strengthen

local community participation?

Thank you so much for your cooperation.

APPENDIX V: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE IN KINYARWANDA

VERSION

Ndagusuhujewowewemeyegusubizaibibibazo,

Nitwa Bwana JOSEPH GISHAIJA,ndiumunyeshuriwigamuriKaminuzaya Mount Kenya ishamirya Kigali, murwegorwokurangizaicyicyirocyagatatucyakaminuzamubijyanyenimyigirey‟iterambere; niyompamvundimogukoraubushakashatsi “Ubwitabirebw‟Abaturage mu UkurwanyaUbukene mu UmurengewaKacyirumuri Kigali, Rwanda” Kugirangoububushakashatsibugerwehoharasabwainkungayanyu, musubizaibibazo. Ibitekerezobyanyubizakoreshwamuriububushakashatsiniyompamvumusabwegusubizanezamutan gaamakuruariyoneza.

Tubashimiyeimikoraniremyiza.

1. Ni guteusonabukiwen‟ingingoy‟ubwitabirebwabaturage mu bikorwaby‟iterambere mu

Rwanda?

2. Nibihebintubifatikabigaragazainyunguabaturagebabonaiyobitabiriyeibikorwaby‟iterambe

re mu UmurengewaKacyiru?

3. Nizihembogamiziubonaabaturagebahuranazoiyobitabiraibikorwaby‟iteramberebirwanyau

bukene mu UmurengewaKacyiru?

4. Nizihenamawatangazakurahoizombogamiziwamazekugaragazahejuru?

5. Woweubibonautekandinibihebyifuzowatangabyatumahongerwaimbaraga mu abaturage

mu kwitabiraibikorwaby‟iteranbere mu UmurengewaKacyiru?

Ndabashimiyecyane!

APPENDIX VI: MAP OFGASABO DISTRICT

Source: District Development Plan (DDP), 2003

Figure 1: Map of Gasabo District.

APPENDIX VII: TABLE FOR DETERMINING SAMPLE SIZE FROM A

GIVEN POPULATION

N S N S N S N S N S

10 10 100 80 280 162 800 260 2800 338

15 14 110 86 290 165 850 265 3000 341

20 19 120 92 300 169 900 269 3500 246

25 24 130 97 320 175 950 274 4000 351

30 28 140 103 340 181 1000 278 4500 351

35 32 150 108 360 186 1100 285 5000 357

40 36 160 113 380 181 1200 291 6000 361

45 40 180 118 400 196 1300 297 7000 364

50 44 190 123 420 201 1400 302 8000 367

55 48 200 127 440 205 1500 306 9000 368

60 52 210 132 460 210 1600 310 10000 373

65 56 220 136 480 214 1700 313 15000 375

70 59 230 140 500 217 1800 317 20000 377

75 63 240 144 550 225 1900 320 30000 379

80 66 250 148 600 234 2000 322 40000 380

85 70 260 152 650 242 2200 327 50000 381

90 73 270 155 700 248 2400 331 75000 382

95 76 270 159 750 256 2600 335 100000 384

Note: “N” is population size

“S” is sample size.

Krejcie, Robert V., Morgan, Daryle W., “Determining Sample Size for Research Activities”,

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1970.