Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Ability of Household Food Insecurity Measures to Capture Vulnerability and
Resilience: Evidence from a Cash Transfer Program in Zimbabwe
Garima Bhallaa ([email protected]),
Sudhanshu Handaab, Gustavo Angelesc, David Seidenfeldd
November 12, 2015 APPAM Fall Conference
aDepartment of Public Policy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA bUNICEF Office of Research-‐InnocenQ, Piazza SS. Annunziata 12, 50122 Florence, Italy cDepartment of Maternal & Child Health, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, USA dAmerican InsQtutes for Research, Washington, DC, USA
Right to Food is a Fundamental Human Right
• Recognized in ArQcle 25 of the Universal DeclaraQon on Human Rights
• Achieving food security and improved nutriQon recognized as the second of 17 proposed Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda
• 795 million people are sQll undernourished globally Prevalence rate in sub-‐Saharan Africa: 23.2 percent Prevalence rate in Zimbabwe: 33.4 percent Source: FAO, IFAD & WFP, 2015
• How to close this gap?
2
BACKGROUND & MOTIVATION
Complex mulQ-‐dimensional construct Four main pillars: Availability of food, Access to food, UQlizaQon of food, Stability No single perfect indicator that captures all dimensions
Shi^ in focus from objecQve to experienQal measures
RecogniQon of experienQal aspect of the disinvestment process that leads to the condiQon of being hungry. Some households can be food insecure, and yet not immediately be experiencing hunger.
Food Security as a Concept
Measuring Food Insecurity
The Big QuesCons
What are the differences between these measures, and the policy implicaQons of these differences? To what extent do the different food insecurity measures effecQvely capture household vulnerability and resilience?
FOOD INSECURITY MEASURES
Value of all food expenditure including value of gi^s and own producQon consumed divided by family size
Measures the number of different food groups consumed over a given reference period with a score ranging from 0 to 12.
12 food groups recommended for inclusion (Swindale & Bilinsky, 2006)
Per capita Food Expenditure
Diet Diversity Score (DDS)
Household Food Insecurity Scale (HFIAS)
Widely used experienQal indicator, developed by USAID 9-‐item scale, where households rate their experience from ‘Rarely’ to ‘O^en’, using reference period of past four weeks Measures three domains: anxiety over food supply, followed by decrease in quality of food, and then decrease in quanQty of food .
Baseline Equivalence (1/2) Mean Baseline CharacterisCcs of Sample Households (HH)
Total Eligible Treatment Comparison Household Demographics Household Size 4.77 4.76 4.78 Children under 5 0.69 0.68 0.70 Children 6 -‐ 17 2.06 2.09 2.02 Adults 18 -‐ 59 1.13 1.13 1.13 Elderly (>60) 0.87 0.85 0.92 % of HH that have disabled members 25% 24% 27% % of HH with chronically ill members 37% 35% 39% % of HH that have elderly members 67% 65% 69% Main Respondent CharacterisCcs Female 68% 70% 65% Age 57.44 56.86 58.58 Widowed 38% 38% 39% Divorced/Separated 9% 10% 8% Main resp. has schooling 56% 53% 62% Main resp. currently amends school 2% 2% 1% Highest grade of main resp. 3.24 3.12 3.47
5
Baseline Equivalence (2/2) Mean Baseline CharacterisCcs of Sample Households (HH)
Total Eligible Treatment Comparison Household Poverty Indicators Per capita Expenditure 33.14 32.50 34.38 Per capita Food Expenditure 20.97 20.73 21.44 % of HH living below poverty line 92% 93% 91% % of HH living below food poverty line 70% 70% 68% % of HH that are labor constrained 84% 83% 85% % of HH that suffered a shock 87% 88% 85% N 3063 2029 1034
6
Study Sample Size: No DifferenQal AmriQon
Study Sample Size
Comparison Treatment Total
2013 1,034 2,029 3,063
2014 882 1,748 2,630
Total 1,916 3,777 5,693
Response Rates 85.3 86.2 85.9
7
Mean of Food Insecurity Indicators
8
Mean of Food Insecurity Indicators
Year2013 Year2104
Overall Household Food Insecurity Score 13.98 11.02 P.c. Food Expenditure per month 20.02 18.93 Diet Diversity Score 5.82 6.76
Treatment Group Household Food Insecurity Score 14.20 10.93 P.c. Food Expenditure per month 19.56 18.68 Diet Diversity Score 5.69 6.85
Comparison Group Household Food Insecurity Score 13.54 11.21 P.c. Food Expenditure per month 20.90 19.43 Diet Diversity Score 6.06 6.58 !
Methodology • Pooled sample difference-‐in-‐difference model:
where Yhjt is the food insecurity outcome of interest for household h from province j at Qme t (2014, 12 months) β8 represents the impact esQmator, or the effect of being a cash transfer beneficiary
• Standard errors clustered at the ward level
Baseline values used for main respondent characterisQcs and household demographics Prices maintained as exogenous and allowed to vary by Qme period
• IdenQfying assumpQon: ‘parallel trends’ 9
Part 1
!!!" != !β! + β!Post! + β!Transfer! + β!Transfer ∗ Post!!+ β!HHDemographics! + β!HHMainResp! + β!Province! + β!Prices!"+ β!Week! + ε!!" !!
Difference-‐in-‐Differences Pooled Cross-‐secQon Model
Impact EsCmates of the Cash Transfer on Food Security Measures
Using Full Panel
Sample HHld Size <=4 Transfer is >= 20% of
p.c. total exp.
Impact EsQmate
Baseline Avg of all Hhlds
Impact EsQmate
Baseline Avg of all Hhlds
Impact EsQmate
Baseline Avg of all Hhlds
P.c. Total Expenditure per month 3.25** 31.54 6.36** 43.11 3.23** 20.27 (2.53) (2.27) (2.33) P.c. Food Expenditure per month 2.04* 19.34 4.52 26.6 2.15* 11.58 (1.75) (1.66) (1.79) Diet Diversity Score 0.76*** 5.79 0.80*** 5.44 0.88*** 4.74
(3.77) (3.08) (3.57) HFIA Score -‐1.28** 13.99 -‐1.0279 14.14 -‐1.1543* 14.99 (-‐2.29) (-‐1.49) (-‐1.70) Diet Diversity Score 0.7549*** 5.79 0.8002*** 5.44 0.8768*** 4.74 (3.77) (3.08) (3.57) 5231 2348 2730
10
Part 1
***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1 Robust t-‐staQsQcs clustered at the district-‐ward level in parentheses Notes: EsQmaQons use difference-‐in-‐difference modeling among panel households. All esQmaQons control for week of interview, baseline household size, main respondent's age, educaQon and marital status, districts, household demographic composiQon, and a vector of cluster level prices
Household-‐level Fixed Effects Impact EsCmates of the Cash Transfer on Food Insecurity Measures Fixed Effects Model
Using Full Panel HHld Size <=4
Transfer is >= 20% of p.c. total exp.
Restricted Sample (Main Resp stays the
same) (1) (2) (3) (4) P.c. Total Expenditure per month 3.46** 7.02** 2.15 2.84 (2.43) (2.29) (1.63) (1.40) P.c. Food Expenditure per month 1.98 4.59 1.03 1.34 (1.55) (1.65) (0.94) (0.76) Diet Diversity Score 0.68*** 0.83*** 0.68*** 0.64*** (3.71) (3.35) (3.15) (2.86) HFIA Score -‐1.24* -‐1.36* -‐0.77 -‐1.74** (-‐1.93) (-‐1.93) (-‐1.11) (-‐2.53) 5231 2348 2730 3991
11
Part 1
***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1 Robust t-‐staQsQcs clustered at the district-‐ward level in parentheses Notes: EsQmaQons control for week of interview, and a vector of cluster level prices
Household Diet Diversity Impact EsCmates on Household Diet Diversity Impact EsCmate Baseline Mean Household Diet Diversity Score 0.7549*** 5.793 Cereals -‐0.0014 100% Roots & Tubers 0.0349 11% Vegetables 0.0017 99% Fruits 0.1224** 31% Meats 0.0064 34% Eggs -‐0.0374* 6% Fish 0.0122 23% Pulses & Legumes 0.1609*** 53% Dairy 0.1219*** 27% Fats 0.1443*** 59% Sweets 0.1294*** 46% Misc. (Condiments & Beverages) 0.0596*** 91%
Total 0.0817 0.058 No. Of ObservaCons = 5231
12
Part 1
***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1 Robust t-‐staQsQcs clustered at the district-‐ward level in parentheses Notes: EsQmaQons use difference-‐in-‐difference modeling among panel households. All esQmaQons control for week of interview, baseline household size, main respondent's age, educaQon and marital status, districts, household demographic composiQon, and a vector of cluster level prices
Own-‐ProducQon/Purchases/Gi^s Impact EsCmates on Household Food Expenditure, Disaggregated by Source (Log of USD) Since these are log, they provide % changes due to cash transfer Total Own Purchases Gi^s Cereals -‐0.0097 -‐0.0196 0.1825** -‐0.2061** Roots & Tubers 0.0840 0.0382 0.0444 0.0055 Vegetables -‐0.1048 -‐0.1383 0.2054** -‐0.0938 Fruits 0.2519** 0.2357** 0.0587** -‐0.0274 Meats 0.0542 0.0027 0.0814 -‐0.0700 Eggs -‐0.0405 -‐0.0101 -‐0.0191 -‐0.0111* Fish 0.0126 -‐0.0276 0.0363 0.0144 Pulses & Legumes 0.3984*** 0.3224*** 0.0173 0.1013 Dairy 0.2211** 0.1206* 0.0362 0.0519 Fats 0.3194*** 0.0539 0.3096*** -‐0.0310 Sweets 0.2044*** 0.0070 0.2729*** -‐0.0724** Misc. (Condiments & Beverages) 0.1099 0.0232 0.1955*** -‐0.0950** Total 0.0817 0.058 0.3498*** -‐0.2396** No. Of ObservaQons = 5231
13
Part 1
***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1 Robust t-‐staQsQcs clustered at the district-‐ward level in parentheses Notes: EsQmaQons use difference-‐in-‐difference modeling among panel households. All esQmaQons control for week of interview, baseline household size, main respondent's age, educaQon and marital status, districts, household demographic composiQon, and a vector of cluster level prices
14
Own-‐ProducQon, 56%
Purchases, 23%
Gi^s, 21%
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
Cereals
Roots &
Tub
ers
Vegetables
Fruits
Meats
Eggs
Fish
Pulse
s & Legum
es
Dairy
Fats
Sweets
Misc
.
Part 1
Baseline Values of Food Expenditure
Methodology Unit of Analysis = Household Hypothesis : HFIAS informs us not just about a household’s present food status, but also about its vulnerability to future food poverty, the likelihood of its falling into food-‐poor status at a future point in Qme where
Yhj is the food insecurity of household ‘h’ in ward ‘j’ as measured by HFIAS score, and Log of per capita household food expenditure
15
Part 2
Y!" != !β! + !β!HHDemographics! + β!HHMainResp! + β!Distance! + β!PA! + β!HA!+ β!Livelihood! + β!LC! + β!Support! !+ β!Loan! + β!"Shocks!+ β!!Province! + ε!"!
EsCmates of socioeconomic characterisCcs of HH on HFIA and Per Capita Food Expenditure
HFIAS Score Log p.c.food exp Household Size (log) -‐0.4838 -‐1.4550*** ProducCve Assets Score -‐0.4918*** 0.0698*** Household AmeniCes Score -‐0.3877*** 0.0457*** # of life stock type 0.1304 0.0380*** Any income from wage labor? (Yes=1) -‐1.3552*** 0.1936*** Any income from maricho labor? (Yes=1) 0.9558*** 0.0343 Planted crops last rainy season? (Yes=1) -‐1.8166*** 0.0094* Labor Constrained (Yes = 1) 1.2691*** 0.0263 Aid received (in USD) 0.0002 0.0002* Monthly remijances low (<$25/month) -‐1.8561*** -‐0.2195*** Has loan outstanding (Yes = 1) 0.5114 0.0581 Suffered from a shock? (Yes = 1) 2.5149*** -‐0.300 ObservaCons 3022 3022 Adj. R-‐Squared 0.1362 0.4669
***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1 Other controls used were household demographics; main respondent main characterisQcs; Distance to food market, input market and water source; province dummies 16
Part 2
Uncertainty explains variaQon in only HFIAS score, not expenditure
Zimbabwe Seasonal Calendar
17 Source: Famine Early Warning Systems Network
Part 3
Food Insecurity Score by Week
18
12.5
1313
.514
lowe
ss H
FIA_
scal
e we
ek
April21-28 May1-7 May14-21 May28-31 June7-14week
Food Insecurity Score by Week
Part 3
Fully-‐Interacted Model Results from Fully Interacted Model Comparing Pre/IniCal Harvest vs. Peak Harvest
HFIAS Score Log p.c.food exp Pre/IniCal Harvest Dummy -‐1.9617 -‐0.2718 ProducCve Assets Score -‐0.5599*** 0.0664*** *Pre/IniCal Harvest 0.3459* -‐0.0111 Any income from wage labor? (Yes=1) -‐0.9932 0.2182** *Pre/IniCal Harvest -‐1.6729** -‐0.0053 Any income from maricho labor? (Yes=1) 0.6316 0.0964** *Pre/IniCal Harvest 0.8838 -‐0.0966* Planted crops last rainy season (Yes=1) -‐1.7274** -‐0.0836 *Pre/IniCal Harvest 0.3062 0.1461* Labor Constrained (Yes=1) 0.1908 0.0546 *Pre/IniCal Harvest 1.9299** 0.0281 Monthly remijances low (< $25/month) 1.1810* -‐0.1764** *Pre/IniCal Harvest 1.8227* -‐0.0689 Suffered from a shock? (Yes=1) 2.2203*** -‐0.0063 *Pre/IniCal Harvest 0.0301 -‐0.1289** ObservaCons 2114 2114 Adjusted R-‐squared 0.1391 0.4595
***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1 Only significant interaction terms are shown in this table
19
Part 2
The Missing GeneraQon
20
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5De
nsity
0 20 40 60 80 100Age in Years of Household Members
Age Distribution of Household Members
Conclusions • Aggregate expenditure does not reveal important household behavior. HSCT has
posiQvely impacted the resilience of beneficiaries. Households: – approach the market to diversify its food basket; – diversify its own-‐producQon of other foodstuffs, and – rely less on gi^s as a source of food
• Some factors, which directly reflect the household’s vulnerability, such as
exposure to shocks, labor-‐constrained status, and income from casual labor, are significant in explaining variaQon only in the HFIAS score, but not food expenditure. – Provides evidence that a consumpQon-‐based measure, such as household
food expenditure, may not fully capture household vulnerability • NegaQve impact of being labor constrained is accentuated during the lean phase.
Evidence supports the program feature of the HSCT wherein eligibility of a household to become a beneficiary of the cash transfer is determined not just due to food poverty but also due to its labor constrained status
21
