36. Fabio Pittaluga provided a brief overview of various poverty assessment methods, looking at quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis, spatial analysis, and mixed methods. Quantitative assessments usually establish criteria prior to analysis and can be either uni-dimensional (e.g. establishment of poverty line and head counts), or multidimensional (e.g. Unsatisfied Basic Needs Index, Human Development Index). Quantitative assessments are often based on large scale data collection efforts, and produce consistent data that allow for comparison across countries. They provide a snapshot of poverty, are important for targeting and allocation of resources, although can be weak on the explanation of causality.
37. Qualitative assessments usually establish criteria during analysis and employ a multidimensional approach to poverty. They emphasize participation and local perceptions, and focus on causality but tend to be weaker on the enumeration of poor people. Frequently, they are based on selected representative samples, are often site specific and more difficult to compare across cases.
38. Spatial assessments are based on quantitative data and are important for targeting purposes. They often constitute a powerful tool for presenting data and for comparing different aspects of poverty.
39. In concluding, Mr Pittaluga remarked that, while the choice of a particular type of assessment methodology should ultimately be governed by the intended use of the information, factors that would have a bearing on the selection included (i) the concept and definition of poverty (e.g. normative/empirical, factual/potential, absolute/relative); (ii) the scale of analysis (household, community, district, etc.); (iii) budgetary constraints; (iv) the academic background of those involved; and (v) donor-driven preferences.
