Unit 2 Measuring Poverty And FS

Question 1

2 key concepts underlying FS assessments (assumptions in measuring FS)

Answer 1

1. Dietary Energy Supply: energy or calorific value a person needs to function normally. 2300kcal males, 1800 females but weighted by age, height, activity etc.
2. Minimum requirements for balanced diet in terms of protein, fat, micronutrients (iron, vitamins). Proxy indicator: dietary diversity

U2.2.1 p. 32

Question 2

What is the FAO undernourishment indicator, what does it measure?

Answer 2

AVAILABILITY dimension of food security

FAO undernourishment indicator measures the prevalence of undernourishment in a country or region: proportion of people in population who are not meeting their minimum food energy requirements. Based on Food balance sheet (food availability estimate of country, not household)

U2.2.2 p.33

Question 3

How is food availability measured?

Answer 3

At national/global level:
Food Balance Sheets (FBS)= estimation of amount of staple foods (cereals = 50% of Dietary Energy Supply or DES) available in country, based on production, consumption, storage, trade;
estimates of total kcal available published by FAO, used to make consumption estimates (based on assumptions: minimum DES requirements of population (weighted); distribution of access based on consumption distribution – complex!).

Question 4

What is the use of dietary diversity scores?

Answer 4

Dietary Diversity Scores: Proxy for balanced/adequate diet, as it correlates well with intake of key micronutrients.

Can be obtained through a rapid form of FIS: Records of number of food groups (green leafy, starchy staples etc.) consumed.

Example of DDS: Food consumption score (WFP)

(2.2.3 access - FIS)

Question 5

How is food access measured?

Answer 5

1. FIS (food intake surveys)
   - weighting and recording intake (several days)
   - recall surveys (24 hours)
   - food frequency surveys recorded by individuals (7 days) (e.g. rapid FIS: used to obtain dietary diversity scores)
2. HCES (household consumption and expenditure surveys):
   1- survey on purchases and production as proxy for consumption,
   2- calculate calorie value,
   3- calculate household energy need,
   4- calculate if hh is undernourished, generalize to population
3. Qualitative:
   1- hunger scales, e.g. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale / Household Hunger Scale; apparent correlation of hunger survey data (from questions about subjective perceptions about quantity and quality of food, worries about hunger) correlate with food insecurity levels (US)
   2- coping strategy index: proxy for hh food insecurity, predictable coping sequence based on Stages of Household Food Insecurity

(2.2.3)

Question 6

How is food utilization measured?

[What are the concerns of the indicators?]

Answer 6

Food utilization measurement:

1. Anthropometrics:
   - Children: Birth weight [concerns: IU growth retardation: health consequences]; weight for height [wasting: child mortality]; height for age [stunting: poor health, long-term consequences]; MUAC [child underweight, acute malnutrition, requires supplementary feeding]
   - Adults: BMI (kg/m2) [concerns: thinness =poor nutrition, poor pregnancy and childbirth prognosis; obesity]
2. Micronutrient status
   Children, adults:
   - Vitamin A deficiency [concern: night blindness, eyesight deterioration];
   - Iodine deficiency [goitre, poor health];
   - Iron deficiency, low haemoglobin [anaemia, child mortality, poor pregnancy and childbirth prognosis etc.]

(2.2.4))

Question 7

How is stability of access measured?

Answer 7

Measuring STABILITY of access:
- Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning (MAHFP): number of months the family has experienced food security/insecurity over the year; poorest: less than 9 MAHFP means 3 months scrabbling for survival.

• use Access indicators, recording time of year survey is done
  (2. 2.5)

Question 8

Limitations of various measures of food security

Answer 8

1. Availability:
   - FBS:
   Estimate errors are common, under-reporting of wastage and trade;
   - FAO undernourishment indicator: overestimates food consumed; proxy; att: single indicator for country, not hh
   - Per capita availability: errors estimating food availability and population (Hawkesworth)
2. Access
   2.1 FIS: costly, thus poor data in low income countries; estimate errors (recall, weighting); inaccurate food composition tables; respondent illiteracy (Hawkesworth)
   2.2 HCES: intra-household issues (inaccurate information on consumption and needs); assumption that expenditure equals consumption (ignores storage, waste, guests…); recall issues causes underestimation of consumption.
   Non-representative samples; different methodologies hinder comparison; unequal distribution intra-hh; seasonal trends not captured;
   ( +++ regular surveys, large scale…)
   2.3 Qualitative: Hunger scales: subjective but well correlated; Coping strategy index: proxy but adequate - more research needed

Lower consumption values in HCES/FIS than FBS (wastage not incl in FBS! UK, MX -complex food system) but well correlated; vs. FBS underestimate intake in low income countries (own production not incl. in FBS) (Hawkesworth).

3. Utilisation
4. 1 Anthropometrics: Less agreement on standards (cut-offs) for adolescents, older children, adults other than mothers, pregnant women, babies and young children; time consuming, expensive (done at clinic); measurement errors of small children; age unknown; based on international growth standards from large surveys, but representativeness debated (normal range = within 2 SD (z scores) from standard; 3 SD from average = severely stunted).
5. 2 Micronutrient status: blood samples unpopular, requires infrastructure for analysis, unavailable in poor countries; (NEW: quick, less invasive methods on key micronutrients, e.g. finger prick.)
6. Stability:
   (Measured as access, or MAHFP - no info)
7. Composite indices:
   need to be carefully constructed, technically robust; choice of measurement and weighting affect results;
   (+++Can generate political support; help targeting funds; help measure results of policies and programmes)

(2.2)

Question 9

What are some of the potential advantages and disadvantages of raising the national poverty line, as China did in 2011?

Answer 9

Raising the national poverty line means that more people are immediately defined as poor. This can affect a very substantial number of people in large countries like China.

If there is any type of national social protection system, more people will now become eligible for the benefits. This is a clear advantage for those concerned! However, the national government must now persuade the newly-reduced number of ‘non-poor’ to support the additional benefits for the ‘newly-defined poor’, which may be politically difficult. In addition, the government may be embarrassed by increased national and international media pressure as national poverty figures rise. For these reasons, raising the poverty line is a politically brave decision which is usually only taken by confident governments in a favourable economic environment.

(unit 2 self-assessment)

Question 10

What are some of the limitations of the Human Development Index?

Answer 10

The HDI fails to capture many important dimensions of poverty, such as security or the environment.
The HDI is only calculated for a large area (normally a country), as some of the statistics which compose it are only available on a national level (eg GDP/GNP). This means that it cannot be used for policy-making on a smaller scale, for example, to compare the effect on poverty levels of groups of people within a country.
The HDI presents an average figure and does not reflect inequality. An inequality-adjusted HDI has recently been developed in response.
Some of the specific HDI indicators have also been criticised (see unit text question and answer) and some have recently been changed to reflect this (for example, schooling and GDP).
(unit 2 self-assessment)

Question 11

List two possible advantages and two possible disadvantages of qualitative field methods for assessing poverty and food insecurity.

Answer 11

The main potential advantages include:

Qualitative field methods are relatively rapid, so can be used to identify households in need during a crisis for example.
They can be tailored to local perceptions of what constitutes poverty and food insecurity.
They are relatively easy to understand, so potentially more participatory.

The main potential disadvantages include:

Often difficult to compare across sites and countries (work has been put into standardising some scales, such as the Household Hunger Scale and reduced Coping Strategies Index).
Qualitative methods are usually measuring proxy indicators, for example, Dietary Diversity Scores are proxy indicators for a diet adequate in all nutrients, and a score of household assets (such as a bicycle or radio) is a proxy for household wealth. Rapid qualitative methods need to be well designed and calibrated to ensure that they are fairly representing the underlying variable of interest. (unit 2 self-assessment)