Chapter 6 – Undernutrition: Who, Where, When?

I. Long-term perspective on undernutrition

A. Worldwide the number of malnourished people has declined (Table 6.2-p.76)

1. All countries 35% 17%

2. 918 million 798 million

3. Still a significant number of people

B. Regionally1. East and Southeast Asia

41%12%

2. South Asia

33% 22%

3. Sub-Saharan Africa

38% 43% 33%

C. Food production per person has gone up (Figure 6.1-p.77)

What does this mean for food prices?

Food prices have gone down, for the most part (Figure 6.2-p.78)

D. Indexes

If base period is 1961, index for

1961 = 100

An index is a percentage comparison from a fixed point of reference (base period)

a. If increase from 1961 to 1997 was 25%, then index for 1997 is 125

b. If decrease from 1961 to 1997 was 50%, then index for 1997 is 50

D. Indexes

II. Seasonality of Undernutrition

A. Linked to the growing season1. Hungry season (May through August)

a. Work is scarce (wages are low)b. Food is scarce (prices are high)c. Families increase their consumption of wild fruits and vegetables

2. Harvest season

a. Food is abundant (price is low)

b. With irrigation the harvest season can be extended (planting of rice normally begins during the

monsoon.

III. Who is undernourished?

A. How to measure (Table 6.5-p.83)1. Calories available per person

Worst countries:

Congo D.R., Burundi, Tajikistan

2. Mortality rates for children under 5

Worst countries = Sierra Leone, Angola, Afghanistan

3. Percentage of underweight children

Worst countries = Korea, Afghanistan, Bangladesh

How to measure the who- Cont.

B. Looking at all 3 measures

1. Most of the “worst countries” are in sub-Saharan Africa

1. Rural incomes lower than urban

2. Many policies favor urban areas

C. Rural areas worse off than urban

D. Children most vulnerable during weaning

E. Pregnant and nursing women next worse off

F. Old women also vulnerable to undernutrition

IV. Variables that influence percentage of weight-for-age

A. Correlation coefficient tells size and direction of influence

(Table 6.8-p.88)

1. Number of years of education of mother and father has a positive correlation coefficient

a. More education increases percentage of weight-for-age

2. Positive coefficient on income

a. Higher income implies higher percentage weight for age

b. Less important in farming families than in nonfarming families

3. Age of weaning has positive coefficient

a. The later a child is weaned the higher the percentage weight-for-age

4. Negative coefficient on total number of household members

a. More people in the family implies lower percentage weight-for-age

5. Birth order has a negative coefficient

a. Children born after other children are more likely to have a lower percentage of weight-for-age

6. Negative coefficient on type of infant feeding

a. implies that babies that are only bottle fed have a lower

percentage weight-for-age compared to children who are breast fed