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 íoften produce contradictory beliefs ído not contain any comparisons ído not measure the size of the problem ído not tell why some people are poor

3. Introducing the Case Study: Armenia What did we know? Little - 1993/4 survey give little information on number of poor (daily recalls); population numbers How did we collect more data? Built sampling frame - special surveys/ lists; HH LSMS-type survey, UNDP health and education survey on the same sample

4. Quantitative Methods Advantages  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. Disadvantages-  Information on sensitive subjects difficult to obtain;  Some groups difficult to reach  No context available for interpreting responses  Expensive, and long gap between data collection and results. Difficult to modify the instrument once the study begins

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 extremely poor cast doubt on land reform success 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 much Advantages Address impact of context and motivation Faster and cheaper to conduct and analyze Easier to reach isolated groups or populations. Methods do not impose responses Methods allow respondents to introduce new issues. Have a time dimension Disadvantages  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” social support networks may exclude certain categories; government assistance policies reflect social values about “undeserving poor,” thereby compounding exclusion of those judged “undeserving” New issue: isolation of the poor physical isolation - remoteness of rural poor from social services, markets; social isolation - contracting social contacts, mainly with other 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 –When formulating research instrument (questions) –During data collection –During the analysis and interpretation Integration at different levels of analysis –Households or project beneficiaries –Communities –Analysis of the project or program implementation process