Cited by 33Survey Methodology and NonresponseAgricultural Innovations and PracticesIncome, Poverty, and Inequality

Asking Questions to Understand Rural Livelihoods: Comparing Disaggregated vs. Aggregated Approaches to Household Livelihood Questionnaires

Jagger, Pamela, Luckert, Marty K., Banana, Abwoli, Bahati, Joseph·2012·World Development

Abstract

This study tests the hypothesis that both disaggregated and aggregated data collection methods produce similar estimates of the relative importance of livelihood portfolio activities and expenditures. The results show that different methods of data collection yield substantively different estimates of livelihood strategies for two indicators: income and expenditure. We also find evidence of a seasonal bias in responses to household livelihood questions asked at higher levels of aggregation. Our findings highlight the challenge of designing household surveys to elicit accurate and precise information, and demonstrate that different methods of data collection influence our understanding of rural livelihoods.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.04.030

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Jagger et al. (2012) demonstrate in a methods experiment in Uganda that alternative data collection methods can yield sectoral income estimates that differed up to 12 percentage points.

    “Jagger et al. (2012) demonstrate in a methods experiment in Uganda how alternative data collection methods—a quarterly income survey (PEN) and a one-time household-level participatory rural appraisal—in the same study population can yield sectoral income estimates that differed up to 12 percentage points.”

    From Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis (2014) · cites this paper as Jagger et al. (2012)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jagger, P., Luckert, M. K., Banana, A., & Bahati, J.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Makerere University (UG)
Venue
World Development
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-09
Volume
40
Issue
9
Pages
1810-1823
ISSN
0305-750X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2027066657
Cited by
33
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
10.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • World Development (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/E021816/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Income, Poverty, and Inequality
Keywords
rural livelihoods, household income, household expenditure, seasonal bias, survey design, data aggregation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review