# **5.2.3. Questions related to data and methodology**

<u>This study was the first to explore systematically the use of household surveys in ECA countries for investigating urban poverty and infrastructure and energy dimensions of poverty. Here several important problems were identified:</u>

**Exclusion of peri-urban areas from the sampling framework** .  The exclusion of peri-urban areas from the sampling frameworks means peri-urban problems are not well incorporated into otherwise rich poverty analyses as well as contributing to a more general underestimation of the prevalence of urban poverty in countries such as Albania, Kyrgyz and Azerbaijan, where peri-urban areas are growing rapidly.

**Quality of infrastructure services.** This study has pointed to the deterioration of quality in provision of infrastructure services, however fewer than half of the surveys used included any questions about quality. <u>The survey questionnaires</u> should be improved to allow better coverage of the quality of basic infrastructure services.

**Inclusion of vulnerable urban groups in poverty analysis.** <u>Qualitative data should be used to complement quantitative diagnosis and provide information on vulnerable groups of urban dwellers who are often under-represented or omitted entirely (slum dwellers, homeless, IDPs/refugees) in quantitative poverty assessment.</u>

# **Address poverty comparability problems between rural/urban areas.**

- In about one-third of the surveys used for this study, income poverty measures were not adjusted for urban/rural prices differences.  This has the affect of overstating rural poverty and understating urban poverty.

- Tailor infrastructure modules in order to make infrastructure-poverty indicators relevant to the urban/rural context (e.g. network vs. non-network access; the comparison across urban/rural of network connections is meaningless, but most surveys only ask about network connections).

# **5.2.4. Implications for future empirical research**

The results of the study provide some lessons for further empirical work, not only in terms of addressing the identified data deficiencies, but also in terms of on-going and new analytical work.

- **Survey design.** As discussed above, peri <u>urban areas should be incorporated into the sampling framework.  In order to understand infrastructure service quality, additional questions should be included in the survey instrument.  A special effort will be needed to collect information about public</u> transportation, which is routinely excluded from on going surveys, but which is important for both urban and rural livelihoods.  At the same time, questions should be adjusted so as to be relevant to both the urban and the rural contexts.  Income poverty measures should be adjusted for urban/rural price differences.

**On-going empirical work.** <u>The study results point to several areas where ongoing poverty and related work would benefit from a more nuanced approach.  Analysis based on distinguishing between urban and</u> rural areas would be enhanced by disaggregating urban into the capital and secondary cities. Additionally, when survey data are used to compare urban and rural areas in terms of infrastructure services, care should be taken not to overestimate the importance of access to network services for rural inhabitants.

61