here, relative to quantitative research based on household surveys, are the relatively faster speed and more nuanced and more contextual responses. The disadvantages include the lack of national representativeness, the smaller sample sizes, and the resulting inability to quantify (at national levels) the frequencies of the observed impacts and behaviors. Therefore, our findings should be regarded as illustrative and indicative, not representative.

The paper is structured as follows. The next section presents the conceptual framework and summarizes the major coping responses. Section 2 discusses the hardships faced by people during the crises. Section 3 surveys the sources of support people could rely upon. Section 4 offers concluding reflections.

# **1. MAJOR COPING RESPONSES**

## **CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK**

The analysis of coping did not adhere to any single academic concept but was guided by a broad-based framework of coping mechanisms (see Figure 2). The analytical framework is based on observations in the field and inspired by a range of studies on poverty and vulnerability, both quantitative and qualitative, including _Moving out of Poverty_ (Narayan, Pritchett, and Kapoor, 2009) and the work by Anirudh Krishna (Krishna, 2004 and 2007; Krishna and Shariff, 2011), Robert Chambers, and Stefan Dercon (e.g., Dercon, 2004). By coping responses (or mechanisms), we refer to actions that households take to deal with shocks and avoid the worst impacts: eat cheaper foods and fewer meals, work harder, seek out new income opportunities, seek support from relatives and community support networks, etc. We distinguish between behavior-based responses related to consumption and labor supply; assetbased responses that use savings, assets, and common property resources for coping; and assistancebased responses involving support from various sources (Heltberg and Lund, 2009).

People are exposed to significant levels of uninsured risk from a range of covariate and idiosyncratic shocks. In the study sites, the most common covariate shocks included the sharp economic contraction starting in 2008; food, fuel, and input price volatility; reduced remittances; droughts and other natural disasters; and political shocks. Health shocks and deaths were common idiosyncratic shocks. Although it can be challenging, we attempt to distinguish between the direct impacts of the crises—wage and employment shocks, food and fuel price hikes, and reduced remittances—from the consequences of aggregated coping responses, or second order impacts (Figure 2). We observed that coping responses led to impacts: the women that work very long hours to feed their families become exhausted and may have to leave infants under the supervision of minors; people unable to afford meat, dairy, and vegetables for long periods become malnourished and more susceptible to health shocks; the sudden influx of workers into the informal economy lowers everyone’s earnings; and criminal activities erode trust and cohesion within the community. Thus, second order impacts from crisis responses lead to both individual and covariate shocks, the latter stemming from the accumulated impacts of many peoples’ individual responses.

We also distinguish between impacts on men, women, youth, and children; on families; and on communities. Our observations in the field tell us that not all family members experience the same 5