indian food puzzles: growth, poverty & (mal)nutrition angus deaton & jean drèze

Indian food puzzles: growth, poverty & (mal)nutrition

Angus Deaton & Jean Drèze

Lots of growth

Real GDP per capita growing at 3.6 percent a year since 1980 4.6 percent a year 00−04

Real per capita aggregate consumption growing at 2.0 percent in the 1980s, 2.6 percent in the 1990s, and 4.7 percent 00−04

Poverty reduction has been less than warranted by this growth rate if equally distributed Some increase in inequality Much more important are data inconsistencies Coverage differences, and outright discrepancies Survey consumption grows less rapidly than NAS

consumption Errors on both sides Inconsistent survey instruments from year to year

Growth across the distribution

NSS growth may be too low Generally some growth at all fractiles

Percentile 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th

Rural

1983–1993/41999/00–2004.52000/01–2004.5

1.81.41.3

1.41.20.4

1.21.10.3

1.01.60.7

0.82.21.9

Urban

1983–1993/41999/00–2004.52000/01–2004.5

1.2–0.6–0.0

1.1–0.4–0.1

1.30.10.3

1.40.60.4

1.31.91.4

All India

1983–1993/41999/00–2004.52000/01–2004.5

1.71.31.1

1.40.90.3

1.20.80.3

1.11.00.9

1.11.71.5

Table 1: Growth by percentiles

NSS data

But calorie consumption is falling

YEAR PCE (real) Calories Protein Fats

Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban

19831987–81993–41999–02000–12001–22002(2)20032004(1)

384350555657585960

142.5157.7159.9179.3185.3182.2189.0192.4194.7

230.7245.7264.9306.4311.1301.8318.2314.4315.3

2,2402,2332,1532,1482,0832,0182,0252,1062,087

2,0702,0942,0732,1552,0271,9822,0142,0202,036

63.563.260.359.156.854.855.458.056.9

58.158.657.758.455.354.254.955.556.0

27.128.331.136.034.633.634.736.435.6

37.139.341.949.646.146.147.046.747.1

Is this really correct?Data from National Nutritional Monitoring Bureau

Rural (nine states)

1975-79 1988-90 1996-97 2000-01 2004-05

Energy 2,340 2,283 2,108 1,954 1,907

Protein 62.9 58.4 53.7 50.7 48.8

Note: Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal. 1988-90 and 1996-97 estimates exclude MadhyaPradesh and West Bengal. The 2004-05 figures exclude Gujarat..

Fall is clearest for cereals

Year Cereals All foods

Rural Urban All India Rural Urban All India

19831987–81993–41999–02000–12001–22002(2)20032004(1)

1,6811,6481,5331,4551,4221,3911,3811,4121,419

1,3031,2961,2311,2001,1611,1301,1371,1421,165

1,5961,5691,4581,3921,3571,3301,3181,3451,357

2,2402,2332,1532,1482,0832,0182,0252,1062,087

2,0702,0942,0732,1552,0271,9822,0142,0202,036

2,2012,2022,1332,1502,0692,0092.0222,0842,075

010

020

030

040

050

0

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Cereal availability

Cereal + pulses availability

Changes in government stocks of cerealgms

per

capi

ta p

er d

ay

From Economic Survey of India

010

020

030

040

050

0

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000year

Cereal availability

Cereal + pulses availability

Changes in government stocks of cerealgms

per

capi

ta p

er d

ay

From Economic Survey of India

NSS consumption

5010

015

020

025

0

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000year

RICE

WHEATOTHER CEREALS

AVAILABILITY OF CEREALS, GM PER PERSON PER DAY

Ministry of Agriculture

What about Engel?

• Engel’s law says that the share of food in the budget falls as incomes rise– Says nothing about levels of food consumption

• Calorie Engel curves show calories (including cereal calories) rising with income (or at least pce) over a range

• So we would expect calorie consumption to rise as living standards improve– India is growing rapidly, but remains poor– Average per capita calorie consumption in the bottom

decile of pce in 1983 was less than 1,400 calories, and has been around 1,500 calories for last 20 years

Why are calories falling?

• One interpretation is that poverty and hunger are increasing, especially among rural households

• “Republic of hunger”• If poor people were getting better-off, they would

consume more calories, especially more cereals• So some combination of falling incomes, rising

prices, and unemployment must be impoverishing them

• Engel curves are correct, calorie data are correct, and NSS is overstating consumption levels

Rising poverty

• A weaker argument is based on calorie adequacy

• India’s poverty lines were originally set so that at the PL, households on average obtained 2,400 calories (rural) and 2,100 calories (urban)

• So we can calculate how many people are meeting these standards over time

Calorie poverty rates

Year Round Rural Urban All India

19831987–81993–41999–02000–12001–22002(2)20032004(1)

384350555657585960

66.165.971.074.176.279.879.678.478.5

60.557.158.158.260.764.263.063.361.5

64.863.967.870.172.376.175.374.674.3

Percentages of persons below recommended daily calorie allowances

Calculations from NSS data

But, but . . . .

• The purchasing power of the original poverty lines has not changed (up to possible errors in price indexes)

• Pronab Sen (EPW) has shown that, if people around the poverty line were to pay the average price per calorie paid by people below the poverty line, they would meet the calorie norms

• So they must be reducing calories because they want to, not because they have to.

• Reports of numbers of people not getting “two square meals a day” have fallen dramatically over the last 20 years

What about malnutrition• NFHS 3 from 2005−06 • NFHS 1 (92−93) and NFHS 2 (98−99) are available but did not

consistently measure all children across India• In the 90s, children who were underweight (z-score less than −2 for

weight for age) fell from 52 to 47 percent• Latest results for most states show little improvement overall• In the 90s, stunting improved in some states, worsened in others• Latest results show improvements in most states (18 out of 21:

worse in Arunachal Pradesh and Karnataka)• Wasting has got worse (all but 4 out of 21 states)• Much worse than might have been expected given growth and

poverty estimates• Better than expected if there is widespread and increasing hunger

02

04

06

00

20

40

60

02

04

06

00

20

40

60

02

04

06

0Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Chhattisgarh Delhi

Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Karnataka

Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya

Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh Uttaranchal

West Bengal

1992-93 1998-99

2005-06

Graphs by State

PREVALENCE OF STUNTINGAges 0-3

01

02

03

04

00

10

20

30

40

01

02

03

04

00

10

20

30

40

01

02

03

04





West Bengal

mean of r1 mean of r2

mean of r3

Graphs by State

PREVALENCE OF WASTINGAges 0-3

02

04

06

00

20

40

60

02

04

06

00

20

40

60

02

04

06





West Bengal

1992-93 1998-99

2005-06

Graphs by State

PREVALENCE OF UNDERWEIGHTAges 0-3

149.

515

015

0.5

151

151.

5m

ean

heig

ht

10 20 30 40 50Age

Indian women

are growing taller, though little progress for thoseborn between 1965 and 1975

148

149

150

151

152

mea

n he

ight

10 20 30 40 50Age

India

Nepal

Bangladesh

and not as rapidly as women inNepal and Bangladesh, thoughthey are taller to start with

145

150

155

160

165

170

6 7 8 9 10Log of real GDP per head in year of birth

Ave

rage

hei

ght

South Asia

Africa

Latin America & Caribbean

Europe

US

China

And they remain among the smallest women in the world

Central Asia

148

150

152

154

156

mea

n w

omen

’s h

eigh

t in

198

9/99

1500 2000 2500 3000

mean per capita calories in region in 1983

black is urbanblue is rural

INDIAN NSS REGIONS

Fats and calories

• Much has been made of “nutritional transition” in countries like India

• Replacement of cereals by fats (milk, edible oil, chicken) and “animal source” foods, as well as sugar

• Concerns about consequences for health, especially diabetes and CVD

• But Indian rural poor are desperately short of fat, and for them, the nutritional transition is a good thing.

.4.5

.6.7

.8

4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5

1983 1987-81993-4

RURAL FOOD SHARES

Fra

ctio

n of

the

bud

get

spen

t on

foo

d

Logarithm of household total per capita expenditure

“Thin” rounds 1994-98

1999-00


.3.4

.5.6

.7

4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7

1983

1987-8

1993-4

URBAN FOOD SHARES

Fra

ctio

n of

the

bud

get

spen

t on

foo

d

Logarithm of household total per capita expenditure

“Thin” rounds 1994-981999-00


7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8

4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5

R38

R43

R50R55

R56-60

RURAL INDIA: Nonparametric Calorie Engel Curves

Logarithm of household per capita expenditure

Log

per

cap

ita h

ou

seh

old

calo

ries

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8

4 4.5 5 5.5 6

R38

R43

R50

R55

R56-60

URBAN INDIA: Nonparametric Calorie Engel Curves


Log

per

cap

ita h

ou

seh

old

calo

ries

7.4

7.6

7.8

8

4 4.5 5 5.5 6

R50

R55

R50 with 365 days for low frequency items


Log

per

cap

ita h

ou

seh

old

calo

ries

RURAL INDIA: Nonparametric Calorie Engel Curves

77.

27.

47.

6

4 4.5 5 5.5 6

38 43 50

55

56-60

Rural calories from cereals

logarithm of household total expenditure per capita

loga

rithm

of

per

capi

ta c

alor

ies

from

cer

eals

6.8

77.

27.

47.

6

4 5 6 7

RURAL

URBAN

Calories from cereals, rural and urban together

2.5

33.

54

4.5

4 5 6 7

Per capita fat consumption, ruraland urban, all rounds

logarithm of household total expenditure per capita

loga

rithm

of

per

capi

ta f

ats

The puzzle remains

Engel curves for nutrients have positive slopes Even for calories from cereals (rural households)

Yet calorie consumption (& certainly cereal consumption) is falling Even among the poorest rural households

What can be shifting the curve? Not prices

Perhaps the curves are misleading? Cereal consumption really falls with income

Activity patterns Urban population is more sedentary

But fall is within rural population too Rural population may need less energy

Changing occupational mix More mechanization Less fetching of water and firewood Better public health: clean water & immunization

But not clear that this helps Less work often yields relatively few calories Occupational mix (out of agriculture) is real, but too small

relative to effects in regression equations’ Especially if the slopes of the Engel curves are correct Bigger people need more calories Falling for children too, according to NNMB

Biased Engel curves

NNMB data show that better off households consume less cereal and fewer calories from cereals

NCAER data appear to show the same thing But both of these have weak income measures

Comparison of APL and BPL households in Rajasthan

Literature on bias in Engel curves based on “indirect” measurement of nutrients (like NSS) Measurement error in quantities induces positively

correlated measurement error in nutrient counts and in total expenditure, biasing slope towards unity

Some evidence on the bias

Aggregation up to states, regions, districts The importance of varying tastes

Instrumental variable estimates None perfect and at best suggestive Almost always other interpretations

Aggregation and sample splitting reduces the slope But measurement error biases

Perhaps evidence that the slope is too high But not convincing

Other reasons for bias

If NSS measures food OK, but progressively understates non-food, true Engel curves would be flatter But can’t explain why it is falling over time

The rich feed servants and guests, the poor get meals that are not recorded, so steepening the Engel curve Unlikely to be a large effect Engel curve should flatten over time, but not

shift down at the bottom

But maybe Engel curves are OK?

For the rural poor in agriculture, calories may not generate utility directly, but fuel for work

Those who are healthier and stronger eat more, especially cereal calories, to generate earnings

Causality is from calories to income Among non-manual workers, cereals are

unresponsive to income, or even inferior As real wages rise, people are less willing to do hard

physical labor, which moves calorie consumption down as incomes and consumption rises

Which reconciles the Engel curve evidence

indian food puzzles: growth, poverty & (mal)nutrition angus deaton & jean drèze

Documents