Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods for Understanding Poverty

1. Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods for Understanding Poverty Principles and Country Case Study

2. Initial ignorance: what did we know about poverty without data? • Impressions; press reports; sectoral data • Macroeconomic data • Very often - some surveys do exists • often produce contraditory beliefs • do not contain any comparisons • do not measure the size of the problem • do not tell why some people are poor

3. Introducing the Case Study: Armenia • What did we know? • Little - 1993/4 survey was not very useful to find how many people are poor (daily recalls), how many people in Armenia? • What did we do to collect more data? • Building sampling frame - special surveys/ lists; HH LSMS-type survey, UNDP health and education survey on the same sample

4. Quantitative Methods - • Information on sensitive subjects difficult to obtain; many groups difficult to reach • No context available for interpreting responses • Expensive, and long gap between data collection and results. • Inflexible: can’t modify the instrument once the study begins + • Generalizing to the population.; results representative. • Standardized approaches permit replication and validity checks. • Can be used to obtain estimates of the costs or benefits of policies.

5. Poverty Profile for Armenia: What Have We Learned • Poverty is widespread (54% of the population using the minimum basket) and deep • Poverty is linked to lack of opportunities: collapse of formal urban labor market, isolation and low agricultural productivity • Main coping strategies are remittances from working abroad, family networks and subsistence agriculture

6. Poverty Profile: An Example Consumption per capita is a welfare indicator. The "food line" is the local cost of a "food basket" providing 2,100 Cal with adequate nutritional composition. The higher "poverty line" adds to the food line the actual expenditure of the poor on non-food items. The extreme poverty line is a cost of providing a daily requirement of 2,100 calories from bread and oil only.

7. Poverty Profile for Armenia: The Gaps • Such a high poverty figure has been challenged by Armenian Government and experts, “we are not that poor” • Findings that some rural poor lack land and are extermely poor contradicted successes of land reform • Prevalence of informal activities and seasonal work abroad raised doubts about accuracy of poverty incidence (under reporting) • Comparisons with previous surveys not possible - no information on factors explaining change.

8. Qualitative Methods Qualitative methods ask how,why and so what questions, while quantitative methods focus on what and how • + • Richly contextual • Faster and cheaper to conduct and analyze • Easier to reach isolated groups or populations. • Methods do not impose responses, and allow respondent to introduce new issues. • Have a time dimension. - • It is difficult to validate and replicate findings. • Purposive sampling does not facilitate reliable generalization • Quality of data very dependent on quality of interviewer • Difficult to analyze and interpret large numbers of case studies

9. Armenia: Findings of the Qualitative Assessment • Extreme poverty exists, and the poorest are not able to meet their basic needs • The poorest are unable to cope because: • their low educational level limits ability to find remunerative work • they lack land, or cannot farm their land • they are excluded from informal support networks • they don’t receive social assistance, or assistance is inadequate

10. Armenia: Findings of the Qualitative Assessment • New issue: “undeserving poor” • limits to the social support network, how it includes certain deserving; the government system mirrors social values about deserving and undeserving poor and therefore creates a double jeopardy for those who do not fit into the categories. • New issue: isolation of the poor • physical isolation - remoteness of rural poor from social services, markets; narrow and homogenous social contacts (poors’ networks are the poor); poor were often sick

11. Armenia: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods • Starting with survey data: sampling • areas selected based on survey poorest sites • Validation and consistency checks: • responded did report hunger and isolation • Interpretation of findings: • quality of employment matters, not just the fact of doing something (gather cans, gather greens...) • New perspectives/issues: • social exclusion.

12. Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Best Practices • Integration at different phases • During the formulation of research instrument (questions) • During data collection • During the analysis and interpretation phase • Integration at different levels of analysis • Households or project beneficiaries • Communities • Analysis of the project or program implementation process