Parallel Realities: Exploring Poverty Dynamics using Mixed Methods in Rural Bangladesh Peter Davis and Bob Baulch All photos in this presentation © 2008 Peter Davis

Introduction In poverty research, different methods often lead to different findings In the study of poverty dynamics differences may be magnified Differences in findings can lead us to: –critically assess methods –mix methods strategically to strengthen research findings –attempt to uncover drivers of change more reliably –and therefore be able to suggest more effective interventions

The focus of this presentation What can we learn by integrating quantitative and qualitative assessments of socio-economic mobility of the same individuals and households? The implications of these lessons for: –poverty-dynamics research –interventions to reduce chronic poverty

The CPRC-DATA-IFPRI Bangladesh longitudinal study The study combined three IFPRI evaluations which started in 1994, 1996 and 2000/03, and used a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods In we resurveyed the entire set of these households (plus new households created due to household division ) in three phases (qual-quant-qual)

The Study’s 3 Phases 3 phases of data collection: Summer 2006: focus group discussions investigating causes of decline and improvement and the long term impact of 3 interventions (116 FGDs in 11 districts) Winter : quantitative resurvey of panel households (1787 core splits in 14 districts) Spring-Summer 2007: life-history interviews and village histories in 8 districts (161 households – 293 individuals)

Map of the Study Sites Nilphamari (38) Kurigram (39) Tangail (39) Kishoreganj (19) Mymensingh (18) Manikganj (72) Jessore (36) Cox’s Bazar (32) Life-history districts (number of interviews)

Poverty and Growth in the Study Sites Microfinance ( ) Agricultural technology ( ) Educational transfers ( ) Poverty headcount Poverty in baseline survey 60%62%71% Poverty in 2006/200721%13%28% Growth in Per Capita Expenditures Over period28.0%43.5%44.3% Annualised2.1%3.7%6.5%

Methods used to assess poverty transitions 1) Quantitative: transition matrices based on per capita expenditures and the BBS upper poverty lines 2) Qualitative: Changes in individual well-being levels Level EnglishBanglaGuideline 1 Very poor or destitute khub gorib, na keye chole Suffering tangible harm to health because of poverty, generally due to insufficient food. Usually landless or near landless 2 Poor gorib Very vulnerable but eating reasonably well. Could easily move into 1 due to a common shock. For a medium size household, usually less than an acre for a medium sized household 3 Medium madhom A common shock would not result in tangible harm or going without food. Hold household assets or generate household income equivalent to between one and two acres of land for a medium-sized household. 4 Rich dhoni Hold household assets or generate household income equivalent to that generated by two to ten acres for a medium-sized household. 5 Very rich khub dhoni Hold household assets or generate household income equivalent to that generated by ten acres or more for a medium sized household.

Transition matrix (from per capita expenditures) First round (1994,1996, 2000) PoorNon-PoorTotal Poor Non-Poor Total

Transition matrix (from well-being levels) First round (1994,1996, 2000) PoorNon-PoorTotal Poor Non-Poor Total

Mismatches between Qual and Quant Assessments of Poverty Dynamics quantitative expenditure- based categories qualitative wellbeing categories (numbers of people) PPPNNPNNTotal PP PN NP NN Total

Exploring the ‘mismatches’ 1.Cases where per capita expenditure does not accurately reflect the economic wealth of the household –Asset-based transitions have more matches

1. Expenditure an imperfect indicator of wealth Classifying quant transitions using land assets halves the mismatches quantitative asset-based categories qualitative matrix categories (numbers of people) PPPNNPNNTotal PP PN NP NN Total

Box 1: Expenditure is an imperfect indicator of wealth ( qual PP: quant NN) Circumstances: Woman (57) Sold land to live while husband ill - died in 1980 Lives with son (29) working as a mason Son injured decimals of land owned Own illness since 2004

Exploring the ‘mismatches’ 1.Expenditure is an imperfect indicator of wealth –Asset-based transitions have more matches 2.Cases where households’ expenditures are close to the poverty line in either, or both, survey rounds. –High numbers of households near the poverty lines mean small changes in expenditure can cause transitions

2. Proximity to poverty lines: Distribution of per capita expenditures and poverty lines Agricultural Technology Sites

Box 3: Proximity to poverty lines (qual PP quant NP) Per cap. Expenditure Poverty line (BBS) Household members34 Land owned (decimals)133 Circumstances: Man 26 Married in 1996 Split from parents in 2001 Lives with wife and 2 daughters Only one household member the same as in 1994 Day labourer Own one cow

Exploring the ‘mismatches’ 1.Expenditure is an imperfect indicator of wealth –Asset-based transitions have more matches 2.Proximity to poverty lines –High numbers of households near the poverty lines mean small changes in expenditure can cause poverty transitions 3. Non-monetary aspects of ill-being were not detected in the expenditure-based measurement -domestic violence, disability, illness, or vulnerability

Box 4: Non-monetary aspects of illbeing not detected (qual PP but quant PN) Circumstances Man (45) living with his wife (36), 2 daughters, 2 sons Drives a van gari One disabled daughter Own chronic illness since 2002 Dowry problems for eldest daughter

Exploring the ‘mismatches’ 1.Expenditure is an imperfect indicator of wealth –Asset-based transitions have more matches –Liberal spenders versus frugal spenders 2.Proximity to poverty lines –High numbers of households near the poverty lines mean small changes in expenditure can cause transitions 3. Non-monetary aspects of ill-being were not detected in the expenditure based measurement -domestic violence, disability, illness, or vulnerability 4. Cases where changes in household size (often due to a ‘split’) led to changed household economies of scale

Box 5: mismatch caused by diseconomies of scale qual PP but quant PN Circumstances Woman (56) living with her husband (64) Income from selling snacks 10 decimals of homestead land,12 trees 2 daughters and 3 sons separated Land sold to pay for daughter’s dowries

Exploring the ‘mismatches’ 1.Expenditure is an imperfect indicator of wealth –Asset-based transitions have more matches –Liberal spenders versus frugal spenders 2.Proximity to poverty lines –High numbers of households near the poverty lines mean small changes in expenditure can cause transitions 3. Cases where some non-monetary aspects of ill-being were not detected in the expenditure based measurement (such as the impact of domestic violence, disability, illness, or vulnerability) 4. Cases where changes in household size (often due to a ‘split’) led to changed household economies of scale 5. Cases where recall errors affected qualitative assessments

Sequential reduction in mismatches Individual (per cent)Cumulative (per cent) Total mismatches196 (66.9) Wealth not expenditures93 (47.4)103 (35.2) Proximity to poverty line60 (30.6)69 (23.5) Non-monetary aspects of ill-being 43 (21.9)60 (20.5) Changes in household size 33 (16.8)46 (15.7) Qualitative recall errors16 (8.2)42 (14.3)

Trajectory patterns DirectionPattern Depiction Number of Cases Weighted Percent of Cases StableSmooth81.47 ImprovingSmooth31.43 DecliningSmooth20.36 StableSaw-tooth ImprovingSaw-tooth DecliningSaw-tooth DecliningSingle-step20.48 DecliningMulti-step Total293100

Lessons from integration Movement across monetary poverty lines can happen with little tangible change in people’s well-being Various types of vulnerability are not visible in standard quantitative approaches Including assets helps to improve assessments Studying individuals and households over long periods adds to the conceptual and methodological complications of poverty measurement With new challenges to understand the impact of global changes on the chronically poor, we need reliable mixed-methods approaches to poverty dynamics

Some conclusions Movements out of poverty are usually slow - declines can be fast and irreversible People move out of poverty –by building up assets (land, livestock etc.) business, agriculture, educated children working, employment and remittances People moving out of poverty are still vulnerable –food prices, loss of income, illness, dowry Better understanding of the crises and opportunities poor people face assists in prioritising and rationalising anti-poverty interventions and enhancing social protection

The end......but work continues...