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 contraditory 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 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 +  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. -  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

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