Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A Mixed-Method Taxonomy of Child Poverty – the Case of Ethiopia

  • Published:
Applied Research in Quality of Life Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we use mixed methods to develop a taxonomy of poverty and vulnerability to study the situation of children and their households in rural Ethiopia over time. The taxonomy is built using qualitative data from Young Lives, a long-term study of childhood poverty, with the specific purpose of analysing the context of children’s life trajectories using both quantitative and qualitative data. The approach aims to yield insights into changes over time as well as to reflect multiple dimensions and consider issues of current well-being and future ‘well-becoming’. It potentially allows for the identification of underlying mechanisms that influence and determine life trajectories. Until recently, quantitative and qualitative approaches towards the analysis of chronic and transient poverty have developed in isolation with little cross-disciplinary interaction. In this paper, we add to this body of research by using a mixed-method approach to develop a hybrid taxonomy of child poverty and well-being that can be used for a dynamic analysis. The paper also complements existing research and evidence on child poverty and well-being in the context of Ethiopia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term ‘q-squared’ was coined by economist Ravi Kanbur http://www.kanbur.aem.cornell.edu at a workshop in 2001 on combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches in Poverty Analysis.

  2. See also Sharp (2007) which focuses on the methodological implications of the study

  3. An exercise on understandings of well-being was conducted in 2007 (Camfield and Tafere, 2009); however this asked participants to describe the characteristics of children of the same age and gender living well or badly. The ‘understandings of poverty’ exercise, which was conducted the following year, was broader in focus and so comparable to the data collected from adults.

  4. Detailed information about the list of indicators and their thresholds included in the taxonomy can be found in Table 6 of the Appendix.

  5. For example, no organisational membership, no iron roof and no irrigation of land are indicators of category ‘near poor’; if a child is deprived with respect to at least two out of these three indicators, he or she is considered to be ‘near poor’. If he or she is deprived with respect to one or none of these indicators, the child is considered ‘non poor’.

References

  • Adato, M., Lund, F. & Mhlongo, P. (2004). Methodological Innovations in Research on the Dynamics of Poverty: A Longitudinal Study in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Paper presented at Q-Squared in Practice: A Conference on Experiences of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Poverty Appraisal, University of Toronto, May 15–16.

  • Addison, T., Hulme, D., & Kanbur, R. (2009). Poverty dynamics: Measurement and understanding from an interdisciplinary perspective. In T. Addison, D. Hulme, & R. Kanbur (Eds.), Poverty dynamics - interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, M. & Gassmann, F. (2010). Measuring Multidimensional Vulnerability in Afghanistan. MGSoG Working Paper 2010–004, Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, Maastricht University.

  • Alkire, S. & Foster, J. (2008). Counting and Multidimensional Poverty Measurement: Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, OPHI.

  • Appleton, S. & Booth, D (2001). Combining Participatory and Surveybased Approaches to Poverty Monitoring and Analysis. Background paper prepared for Uganda workshop, 30 May – 1 June.

  • Basu, K., Das, S., & Bhaskar, D. (2010). Child labor and household wealth: theory and empirical evidence of an inverted-U. Journal of Development Economics, 91(1), 8–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children, 7(2), 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camfield, C., & Roelen, K. (2011). Household trajectories in rural Ethiopia – what can a mixed method approach tell us about the impact of poverty on children? Working Paper 34, DEV Working Paper Series. UK: The School of International Development, University of East Anglia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camfield, L., & Tafere, Y. (2009). No, living well does not mean being rich: diverse understandings of well-being among 11 to 13 year old children in three Ethiopian communities. Journal of Children and Poverty, 15(2), 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P. & Baulch, B. (2011). Parallel Realities: Exploring Poverty Dynamics Using Mixed Methods in Rural Bangladesh. Journal of Development Studies 47(1).

  • Dercon, S. (2012). Understanding child poverty in developing countries: Measurement and analysis. In J. Boyden & M. Bourdillon (Eds.), Childhood poverty: Multidisciplinary approaches. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, F., & Woldehanna, T. (2005). Ethiopia participatory poverty assessment 2004–05. Addis Ababa: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED).

    Google Scholar 

  • Emirie, G., Negatu, W., & Derese, G. (2009). Impacts of productive safety-Net programme on child poverty reduction: Implications for child education. Canada: Report prepared for International Development Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, J. R., Morison, L. A., Gear, J. S. S., Makhubele, M. B., Porter, J. D. H., Busza, J., Watts, C., Kim, J. C., & Pronyk, P. M. (2007). Hearing the voices of the poor: assigning poverty lines on the basis of local perceptions of poverty. A quantitative analysis of qualitative data from participatory wealth ranking in rural South Africa. World Development, 35(2), 212–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe, G., & McKay, A. (2007). Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in assessing chronic poverty: the case of Rwanda. World Development, 35(2), 197–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanbur, R. (Ed.). (2003). Q-squared: Qualitative and quantitative methods of poverty appraisal. India: Permanent Black.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanbur, R. & Shaffer, P. (2005). Epistemology, Normative Theory and Poverty Analysis: Implications for Q-Squared in Practice, Q-squared working paper.

  • Kebede, B. (2009). Community wealth ranking and household surveys: an integrative approach. Journal of Development Studies, 45(10), 1731–1746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, A. (2006). Subjective Assessments, Participatory Methods and Poverty Dynamics: The Stages of Progress Method. Paper presented at the Workshop on Concepts and Methods for Analyzing Poverty Dynamics and Chronic Poverty, University of Manchester, UK, 23 to 25 October 2006.

  • Krishna, A. (2007) Subjective assessments, participatory methods and poverty dynamics: The stages-of-progress method. Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre Working Paper #93.

  • Krishna, A. (2009). Subjective assessments, participatory methods and poverty dynamics: The stages of progress method. In T. Addison, D. Hulme, & R. Kanbur (Eds.), Poverty dynamics - interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laderchi, C. (2001). Participatory methods in the analysis of poverty: A critical review. Oxford: Queen Elizabeth House Working Paper 62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laderchi, C. R., Saith, R. & Stewart, F. (2003). Does it Matter that we do not Agree on the Definition of Poverty? A Comparison of Four Approaches. Oxford Development Studies, (31)3: 243 –274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, D., McKay, A., & Okidi, J. (2003). Poverty persistence and transitions in Uganda: A combined qualitative and quantitative analysis. Kampala: Economic Policy Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine. S. & Roberts, B. (2007). A Q-Squared approach to Pro-Poor Policy Formulation in Namibia. Q-Squared Working Paper No. 49.

  • McGee, R. (2004). Constructing poverty trends in Uganda: A multidisciplinary perspective. Development and Change, 35(3), 499–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMurray, C. (1996). Cross-sectional anthropometry: what can it tell us about the health of young children? Health Transition Review, 6, 147–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G., & Urdinola, B. P. (2010). Cyclicality, mortality, and the value of time: the case of coffee price fluctuations and child survival in Colombia. Journal of Political Economy, 118(1), 113–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayan, D., Pritchett L., & Kapoor S. (2009). Moving out of poverty: Success from the bottom up. Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Outes-Leon, I., & Dercon, S. (2008). Survey attrition and attrition bias in YL. YL Technical Note 5. Oxford: Young Lives.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahmato, D. & Kidanu, A. (1999). Consultations with the poor: A study to inform the world development report 2000/2001 on poverty and development (National Report, Ethiopia). Addis Ababa.

  • Roelen, K. (2010). Multidimensional child poverty in vietnam from a longitudinal perspective – improved lives or impoverished conditions, Paper presented at the CPRC Conference on Ten Years of War Against Poverty, Manchester, 8–10 September 2010.

  • Roelen, K., & Gassmann, F. (2011). How effective can efficient be? - social assistance in Kosovo and what it means for children. Journal of European Social Policy, 21(3), 238–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelen, K., Gassmann, F., & de Neubourg, C. (2009) The importance of choice and definition for the measurement of child poverty – the case of Vietnam. Child Indicators Research, 2(3), 245–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabates-Wheeler, R., & Roelen, K. (2011). Transformative social protection programming for children and their carers: a gender perspective. Journal for Gender and Development, 19(2), 179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos, M. E., & Ura, K. (2008). Multidimensional poverty in Bhutan: estimates and policy implications. OPHI working paper: 14. Oxford: OPHI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scoones, I. (1995). Investigating difference: applications of wealth ranking and household survey approaches among farming households in southern Zimbabwe. Development and Change, 36, 67–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeley, J. A., Nabaitu, J., Taylor, L., Kajura, E., Bukenya, T., & Kabunga, E. (1995). Gender differences in the results of a well-being ranking exercise conducted in nine villages in Masaka District in rural South West Uganda. PLA Notes. London: IIED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1976). Poverty: an ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica, 44(2), 219–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1979). Issues in the measurement of poverty. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 81(2), 285–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, K. (2007). Squaring the “Q”s? Methodological Reflections on a Study of Destitution in Ethiopia. World Development 35(2): 264–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, K., Devereux, S., & Amare, Y. (2003). Destitution in Ethiopia’s Northeastern Highlands (Amhara National Regional State). Brighton and Addis Ababa: Institute of Development Studies and Save the Children SC-UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streeten, P. (1984). Basic needs: some unsettled questions. World Development, 12(9), 973–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Campenhout, B. F. H. (2007). Locally adapted poverty indicators derived from participatory wealthrankings: a case of four villages in rural Tanzania. Journal of African Economies, 16, 406–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, S. (2002). Being, Becoming and Relationship: conceptual challenges of a child rights approach in development. Journal of International Development, 14(8), 1095–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Development 35(2): 264–280.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Young Lives (www.younglives.org.uk) is a long-term international research project investigating the changing nature of childhood poverty. Young Lives is core-funded by UK aid from the Department for International Development (DFID) for the benefit of developing countries. Sub-studies are funded by the Bernard van Leer Foundation, the Inter-American Development Bank (in Peru), the International Development Research Centre (in Ethiopia) and the Oak Foundation. The views expressed are those of the author(s). They are not necessarily those of, or endorsed by, Young Lives, the University of Oxford, DFID or other funders.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keetie Roelen.

Additional information

The data used in this paper comes from Young Lives, a long term international research project investigating the changing nature of childhood poverty (www.younglives.org.uk). Young Lives is core-funded by UK aid from the Department for International Development (DFID) for the benefit of developing countries. Sub-studies are funded by the Bernard van Leer Foundation, the Inter-American Development Bank (in Peru), the International Development Research Centre (in Ethiopia) and the Oak Foundation. The views expressed are those of the author(s). They are not necessarily those of, or endorsed by, Young Lives, the University of Oxford, DFID or other funders.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 Construction of indicators and ensuring comparability across rounds

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roelen, K., Camfield, L. A Mixed-Method Taxonomy of Child Poverty – the Case of Ethiopia. Applied Research Quality Life 8, 319–337 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-012-9195-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-012-9195-5

Keywords

Navigation