What can a mixed methods approach tell us about the impact of poverty on children? Laura Camfield and Keetie Roelen EADI-DSA Conference, September 2011

 Importance of timing as well as intensity and duration, especially for children  Need to understanding how and why people become/ remain/ exit poverty ◦ e.g. critical assets, asset thresholds, liabilities  Importance of panel and qualitative data ◦ e.g. Davis & Baulch (2011), Krishna (2009)  Broad conclusions, e.g. role of assets and shocks; need specific, detailed case studies See Shepherd ea (2011), Addison ea (2009), Narayan ea (2007), CPRC website

 Static picture misleading as ◦ Seasonal variations in consumption and poverty (Krishna & Dercon, 2000) ◦ Increasing inequality at all levels  Woldehanna ea (2008) – Tigray vs. the rest, younger vs. older  Devereux and Sharp (2006) – Wollo vs. national picture  Dercon (2006), , 6 villages, fall in poverty overall but increase in poverty in 2  Bigsten et al (2003:99), , “potential poverty reduction... counteracted by worsening income distribution”  Importance of Productive Safety Net Programme

 Different degrees of mixing ◦ triangulation or ‘putting together’  e.g. household survey AND life history ◦ Sequential integration  e.g. focus group THEN survey THEN life history ◦ Holistic integration  e.g. ‘extended case’, longitudinal case studies  Case study research ◦ case ‘archive’ can be qual, quant, historical, etc. ◦ can generate or test theoretical propositions through careful sampling (e.g. ‘critical cases’) and comparison  e.g. Burawoy-Zambia, Bevan-Ethiopia, Olsen-India

 Young Lives, Ethiopia (rural sites only) ◦ 3 rounds of quan data: 2002, 2006, 2009 ◦ Qual data from 8 sites in 2007, 2008, 2009  Creation of a taxonomy (Roelen & Camfield, 2011)

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

categoryR1R2R3 ultra-poor poor nearly poor not poor

R2 poverty status R1 poverty status ultra- poor poor nearpo or non-poorTotal ultra-poor poor nearpoor non-poor Total

R3 poverty status R2 poverty status ultra- poor poor nearpoo r non-poorTotal ultra-poor poor nearpoor non-poor Total

 Sex of child, age/ health status of hh head, ethnicity, frequency of contact with parents and dependency ratio were not significant

 Increasing prosperity -purchased donkeys, sharecropped-in irrigated land  More food – “I get to eat until I will be full”  But family work affecting health and marks: ◦ “Sometimes [my parents] make me to drop out from my education and other times I get [too] tired to study. Therefore, carrying the stone is not good both for my education and for my health because it cuts my body [and] I feel pain on the back of my body” (2008, currently in Grade 5)

 Mother heads household, father died 2004  Family picks grit from haricot beans  Initially she welcomed work: ◦ “If I didn’t have a job, I couldn’t have attended class”  But it began to “share” her time for studying:  Then the work stopped ◦ “we could not get the income as we were getting earlier [...] which resulted in lack of food”  By 2009 she was working 45 hrs per week and had missed 10 days of school to earn ETB 40 ($2.35)  Excluded from PSNP, although their land is sharecropped-out

 Households became wealthier from 2002 to 2009, despite global economic crises (57% to 25% poor/UP)  But 8% of households remained ultra-poor  Movements up – agricultural diversification, non-farm activities, remittances  Movements down – illness, share-cropping out land, PSNP exclusion  Children affected by duration and timing of poverty (Gabra, Naomi)  But increased wealth didn’t always benefit children (Legesse, Ephrem, Degife)