A mixed-method taxonomy of child poverty – the case of Ethiopia Keetie Roelen Laura Camfield ISCI Conference, 28 July 2011

Combining debates on.. Child poverty Longitudinal poverty and poverty dynamics Mixed method research to analyze the situation of children and their households in Ethiopia over time

This study QUAL QUAN QUAL developing classification analysis taxonomy children and households

Data Young Lives, Ethiopia (rural sites only) 3 rounds of quan data: 2002, 2006, 2009 Qual data from 8 sites in 2008, 2009

This study QUAL QUAN developing classification taxonomy children and households >> Krishna’s Stages of Progress method

Stages of Progress method Source: Krishna, 2005

Methodological challenges YL data: Consistency across rounds of quantitative data collection Qualitative information not specific to stages of progress More fundamentally: Application of the qualitative Stages of Progress method to quantitative data Analysis of child poverty from a longitudinal perspective

Indicator deprivation rates Category Indicator R1R2R3 Ultra-poormalnourishment not enrolled in school na no animals no land used for agriculture unreliable credit Poorinsufficient food child worked for money no draught animals/oxen Nearly no membership of organisations poorno iron roof no land irrigated

Child poverty rates categoryR1R2R3 ultra-poor poor nearly poor not poor

Child poverty dynamics R2 poverty status R1 poverty statusultra-poorpoornearpoornon-poorTotal ultra-poor poor nearpoor non-poor Total

Child poverty dynamics R3 poverty status R2 poverty statusultra-poorpoornearpoornon-poorTotal ultra-poor poor nearpoor non-poor Total

Conclusion Children’s lives in rural Ethiopia have improved from 2002 to 2009 Persistent rates of ultra-poverty Important role for livestock How to use qualitative methods in a mixed-method setting? How to deal with the fluidity of child poverty over time?