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

A mixed-method taxonomy of child poverty – the case of Ethiopia

Keetie RoelenLaura 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 analysistaxonomy 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 R1 R2 R3Ultra-poor malnourishment 7.4 0.3 0.5

not enrolled in school na 8.1 14.9no animals 18.4 12.8 10no land used for agriculture 9.4 10.1 8.4

unreliable credit 6.5 10.6 7.2Poor insufficient food 24.7 5.1 6

child worked for money 11.4 8.2 5.8 no draught animals/oxen 53.4 31.5 24.7

Nearly no membership of organisations 25.2 7.4 6.8

poor no iron roof 77.5 87.2 47.9 no land irrigated 93 90.2 86.8

Child poverty rates

category R1 R2 R3

ultra-poor 7 8.6 8.4

poor 49.8 24 17.2

nearly poor 35.6 55.5 41.8

not poor 7.7 12 32.6

Child poverty dynamics

R2 poverty status

R1 poverty status ultra-poor poor nearpoor non-poor Total

ultra-poor 1.81 2.54 1.99 0.36 6.7

poor 5.62 17.93 23.19 3.08 49.82

nearpoor 0.91 2.9 26.81 5.62 36.23

non-poor 0 0.54 3.44 3.26 7.25

Total 8.33 23.91 55.43 12.32 100

Child poverty dynamics

R3 poverty status

R2 poverty status ultra-poor poor nearpoor non-poor Total

ultra-poor 3.08 3.08 1.45 0.72 8.33poor 1.09 11.05 7.25 4.53 23.91nearpoor 0.91 5.43 29.53 19.57 55.43non-poor 0.36 0.18 3.62 8.15 12.32Total 5.43 19.75 41.85 32.97 100

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?