Skip to Main Navigation

The sociological action-research of development-induced population resettlement (英语)

This article discusses an action-research study of development caused population resettlement. The study, conduct from 1993-1994, covered 192 development projects that entailed the displacement and resettlement of about 2.5 million people over 8-10 year period. Topics addressed during the study included: 1) policy issues in resettlement; 2) the socioeconomic nature of displacement; and 3) impoverishment risk through displacement. Based upon the findings and recommendations of the study, the World Bank adopted a group of important decisions aimed at 1) strengthening the Bank's policy on resettlement; 2) increasing the financing of involuntary resettlement operations and the technical assistance provided to governments; and 3) improving internal Bank work on social issues and particularly on resettlement.

详细

  • 作者

    Cernea,Michael M.

  • 文件日期

    1995/01/01

  • 文件类型

    日志文章

  • 报告号

    REP480

  • 卷号

    1

  • Total Volume(s)

    1

  • 国家

    世界,

  • 地区

    世界区域,

  • 发布日期

    2015/10/14

  • Disclosure Status

    Disclosed

  • 文件名称

    The sociological action-research of development-induced population resettlement

  • 关键词

    Population Displacement and Resettlement;access to common property;skill need;legal framework for resettlement;project design and implementation;settlement operation;standard of living;involuntary resettlement;compensation in cash;international development agency;land and water;local labor market;public interest group;public policy issues;drinking water system;investments in infrastructure;provision of infrastructure;Access to Electricity;infrastructure and services;participation in planning;social and environmental;loss of harvest;quality at entry;loss of land;resettlement and rehabilitation;lack of income;large scale resettlement;body of water;outbreak of malaria;community based services;chronic food insecurity;process of development;loss of job;access to land;food production capacity;common property regime;social support network;local food production;common grazing area;displacement of people;transfer of property;safety net approach;countries in transition;high population density;social science research;Social Safety Nets;Social Sciences;resettlement policy;social scientist;income restoration;displaced people;resettlement plan;domestic policies;risk model;production system;field study;affected population;Bank Policies;Borrowing Countries;displaced person;population relocation;resettlement process;social disarticulation;resettlement program;Displaced Population;poor household;remedial action;earning capacity;bank finance;civil works;living condition;international debate;national policy;living standard;farm family;empirical evidence;Host Communities;population resettlement;operational performance;indigenous people;project delays;off-farm income;local agency;financial resource;resettlement issue;urban development;temporary shelter;Indigenous Peoples;forced displacement;social process;social network;project intervention;active participation;Environmental Assessment;appraisal mission;resettlement budget;Child care;mutual help;baseline survey;resource base;income data;social studies;eminent domain;kinship group;inaccurate information;burial grounds;resource shortfall;social crisis;academic study;social good;replacement cost;operational tool;social options;empirical findings;local knowledge;harmful effect;legal mechanism;predictive capacity;tribal groups;social group;rural resettlement;clear title;research progress;cash compensation;participatory approach;social study;political resistance;evaluation methodologies;social issue;resettlement standards;domestic sources;disbursement suspension;international media;poor hygiene;social tension;area population;liver fluke;hookworm infection;dam reservoir;school child;increased mortality;multiple cropping;insufficient water;environmental deterioration;preventative health;adverse health;precautionary measure;bank lending;social policies;governmental agency;important policy;socioeconomic processes;cash-crop income;reserved forest;explicit provision;physical transfer;forest product;income stream;adjustment period;cultivated land;food stamp;bank units;property loss;waste system;food relief;social interaction;organizational capacity;interpersonal behavior;social capital;Resettlement projects;social policy;reservoir siltation;Urban Infrastructure;local rate;policy principle;host population;regional economy;sustainable livelihood;policy prescriptions;resettlement impacts;transportation corridor;political tension;individual loan;water resource;bank involvement;ethical grounds;compensation system;catalytic impact;social dimension;resettlement experience;impact monitoring;international donor;bank's portfolio;piped water;sewerage system;energy need;legal title;natural environment;settlement system;cultural institution;customary right;Ethnic Minorities;lower dam;high dam;aid agency;bank's guidelines;project finance;collected information;formal policy;social identity;community life;explanatory variable;long commute;sanitary service;floor space;durable housing;commercial opportunities

下载

完整報告

正式文件版本(可能有签字)