Combining Participatory and Survey-Based Approaches to Poverty Monitoring and Analysis

For the purpose of

Monitoring the Implementation of the

PEAP

Combining Participatory and Survey-Based

Approaches to Poverty Monitoring and Analysis Our Starting point

Consider what Caravalho and White distinguish as the approaches to combine the two methods…

1. Integrating the two approaches into one methodology

2. Using the two approaches to CONFIRM, REFUTE, ENRICH and /or EXPLAIN findings from the other

However many more issues were raised and discussions were much broader………

Presentation will cover …..

Objectives (What do we want to achieve by combining) Strengths and weaknesses of each method Issues around combining and refocusing methods Conclusions for PPA2 Conclusions for combining

– Sampling and linking– UBOS role– Analytical levels

And What has been achieved so far……

Combining Participatory and Survey-Based Approaches to Poverty Monitoring and AnalysisObjectives

To respond to the wish of the Government of Uganda to achieve a better articulation of the relevant research processes and to obtain a better understanding of the results.

To go beyond joint reporting of findings from non-statistical and statistical sources (which is well established in Uganda through the Poverty Status reports).

Combining Participatory and Survey-Based Approaches to Poverty Monitoring and Analysis Objectives

we wish to Improve the two way flow of information

between beneficiaries, service providers and policy makers, covering the information on :

– Inputs (public spending etc…)– Outputs (The quantity and quality of immediate

results)– Immediate outcomes (e.g.access to services)– Final (Multi dimensional) Poverty Outcomes

Combining Participatory and Survey-Based Approaches to Poverty Monitoring and Analysis Objectives

Greater robustness in findings (less likely both methods would fail in a given instance)

Complementarities (seeing a situation from different perspectives)

Increased influence on policy makers

Survey Based MethodologySTRENGTHS

. Definite comparative advantage in

obtaining quantitative data Makes aggregation possible (data can be

generalised) Allows systematic disaggregation of data,

(we can measure trends within sub-groups).

Survey Based MethodologySTRENGTHS

Allows comparison over time (particular strength with panel survey data)

Allows simulation of different policy options

Provides results whose reliability is measurable

Survey Based MethodologyWeaknesses

Sampling and non-sampling error (particularly in under reporting of income and some expenditure)…. Although different sources can help to measure these errors

Miss what is not easily quantifiable

Fails to capture intra-household allocation (a particular problem)

Survey Based MethodologyWeaknesses

Difficult to measure attitudes and behaviour (Has typically closed questions)

Cost and length of time required for analysis

Some feel this approach is extractive (morally questionable)

Participatory ApproachesSTRENGTHS

Provides a richer definition of poverty More insight into casual processes More accuracy and depth of information on

certain questions and in certain cases There is a possibility of being holistic

(looking at a set of relationships as a whole)

Participatory ApproachesSTRENGTHS

Ability to go immediately back to data and interrogate initial findings/puzzles (further interviews and observation)

A wide range of resources for “triangulation” (systematic cross checking)

Participatory ApproachesStrengths Continued……….

It was noted that a PPA is not just a new type of study of poverty and its causes, but is a process which aims to achieve :

– a better understanding of poverty– New constituencies for anti-poverty action– Enhanced accountability to poor people– More effective policies and action

i.e. Main strength of PPAs lies in identifying the range of both final and intermediate processes and issues that are important to poverty reduction.

Participatory ApproachesWeaknesses

The real Observer bias issues (Lack of guarantee of objectivity ?)

It is unknown how representative the data is of the National situation

It is not suitable for providing definitive tests of hypotheses that apply to such wider populations.

Participatory ApproachesWeaknesses cont……

There are difficulties in verifying information

No systematic disaggregation Perceptions of poverty are relative to

changing environments

Issues around Combining and refocusing methods

PPAs are not the best tool for monitoring final outcomes.

Opportunities for using survey and participatory methods to confirm and refute each other are fewer than previously thought.

Maintaining the essential differences between survey-based and participatory approaches is the best way to exploit their complementarities.

Technocrats and politicians like to see a diversity in the types of evidence

Issues around combining and refocusing methods As it is important to generate quick feedback on

PEAP implementation, there should be a relative shift of attention towards intermediate factors and policy implementation bottlenecks.

This would seem to imply:– some change in focus of PPA research, and– more attention to access to services etc. in the

analysis of existing data

Conclusions for PPA2

There was a wide agreement on the need to give the second national PPA a strong and quite focused analytical framework to guide field work and reporting. This will take the form of addressing unanswered questions from :– The reports from PPA1– Analytical work on the household survey series,

particularly its panel component– A review of key implementation bottlenecks, - and

intermediate input, output and outcome issues

Conclusions for combiningSampling and linkage for PPA2

From the discussion, three different reasons for exploring a fresh approach to sampling for PPA2 emerged.– The growing analytical interest in how people become less poor

and hence in investigating poverty by “studying successes”– The wish to be able to make general statements that carry weight

with policy makers.– The desirability of maximising design and analytical links between

survey results and PPA themes and findings.

Conclusions for combiningSampling and linkage for PPA2

So….

Sites for PPA2 will be chosen to maximise mutual linkages with the panel element of the Household surveys.

PPA2 will also have purposively selected sites

There will be over sampling of cases of special analytical interest

Conclusions for combiningUBOS’s role

UBOS will become more active in the analysis of data. In particular, they will provide summarised general and panel data, to provide information to help UPPAP in their sample selection. In areas selected UBOS will supply fact sheets of interesting (possibly conflicting) information that can be further researched.

Conclusions for combining analytical levels

UBOS and UPPAP will undertake joint dissemination and sensitisation efforts

They will create a circle of analytical linkage (rather than linear , in one direction)

UPPAP will focus on asking “why” questions, and UPPAP will NOT make participatory work more

survey-like in order to check other data.

Conclusions for combining(and finally)

UPPAP and UBOS will develop a closer and more cooperative relationship by……– More sharing of information and analysis (improve

communications between partner’s offices)– Jointly develop a community based information system

– Sharing experience on how to stimulate interest in data

and how to promote its intelligent use– Collaborating to provide more reporting back at the

grass roots level, especially in panel areas

What has already been done !

UPPAP are currently designing PPA2 with significantly increased consultation with UBOS.

Next step when selecting sites is to ensure plenty of overlap with the sites of the panel element in the household survey. 

What has already been done !

UBOS has created a new research unit which will consist of Statisticians, sociologists and an economist to improve their analytical capabilities.

This unit will provide information to assist with the design and further research for PPA2.