P126 Food Security and Social Protection · Food Security and Social Protection Authored by Julia...

Centre for Development, Environment and Policy

P126

Food Security and Social Protection

Authored by Julia Compton and Colin Poulton including material from a course by

Thi Minh-Phuong Ngo, Julia Pacheco Loureiro and L Tincani.

The main contributor to each of the current units is as follows:

Units 1 to 5 Julia Compton

Unit 6 Colin Poulton

Units 7 to 10 Julia Compton

© SOAS | 3741

Food Security and Social Protection Module Introduction

© SOAS CeDEP 2

ABOUT THIS MODULE

Despite considerable progress in reducing income poverty in many parts of the world,

recent estimates are that nearly ¾ billion people still live in extreme poverty. In

addition, hundreds of millions of people suffer from food insecurity and malnutrition,

with major consequences for human health and development. Globalisation, combined

with increasing incomes in many countries, has resulted in major changes to the

structure of food markets, and new challenges for food production and consumption

policies. In many countries, high and volatile food prices have heightened awareness of

these issues.

The past two decades have also witnessed massive growth in the scope and scale of

social protection (welfare) in low- and middle-income countries. Some famous

examples include ‘Progresa’ in Mexico, ‘Zero Hunger’ and ‘Bolsa Família’ in Brazil, the

National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in India, and the move away from

international food aid to a national social protection programme (Productive Safety

Nets Programme) in Ethiopia.

This module considers food security and social protection together, because there are

complex linkages and trade-offs between them. Social protection programmes can be a

key tool in fighting poverty and hunger. However, the design of social protection

programmes is debated. Should governments provide free or cheap food, or simply

offer poor people cash? Is offering a job on a public works scheme a better option? Who

should be eligible to receive help, and for how long? Is social protection a costly ‘Band-

Aid’, which doesn’t really change anything in the long term – or can it promote growth

and job creation? What are the potential trade-offs with other investments which could

reduce food insecurity, such as direct investments in small-scale farming? The module

explores practical policy issues such as these, while providing students with an

academic foundation to explore concepts and evidence.

STRUCTURE OF THE MODULE

Unit 1 introduces concepts to be used throughout the module and emphasises the

importance of shocks (such as to ill-health or crop failure) in the livelihoods of poor

people. Unit 2 discusses issues in the definition and measurement of poverty and food

insecurity, which underpin practical policy debates. Unit 3 provides an introduction to

social protection, while Units 4 to 6 discuss some major implementation issues,

including targeting, financing and politics. Units 7 to 10 then consider the key

dimensions of food security and critically assess policies and interventions to tackle

food insecurity, including the important role of social protection.


© SOAS CeDEP 3

WHAT YOU WILL LEARN

Module Aims

• To set out some key food security concepts and frameworks, including the

relationship between food insecurity and poverty.

• To set out some key social protection concepts and frameworks, with a special

focus on social protection as a set of approaches and instruments for tackling

poverty and food insecurity in low- and middle-income countries.

• To explore policies, approaches and instruments that have been used for

tackling food insecurity in low- and middle-income countries, including social

protection in particular.

• To highlight current debates and questions on food security and social

protection and to explore the concepts and evidence which underpin them.

Module Learning Outcomes

By the end of the module, students should be able to:

• describe and assess critically the main conceptual frameworks and

measurements used to analyse poverty (with emphasis on measurements used

for social protection), food security and nutrition

• describe and critically compare the major approaches and instruments used for

social protection in developing countries, with a particular emphasis on social

protection

• critically examine implementation processes and challenges in social protection

programmes, including targeting methods and benefit setting, information

systems and payment mechanisms, and exit and graduation strategies

• critically examine the importance of the political economy of social protection:

how policy history, political actors and social and economic factors affect the

scope, characteristics and support for social protection

• describe and appraise critically the main approaches that have been taken to

promote the four main aspects of short- and long-term food security

(availability, access, utilisation and stability), including the role of social

protection interventions

• engage critically in current international debates on food security and social

protection, discussing the merits and disadvantages of different policy

proposals, for example, interventions to mitigate the impacts of international

food price volatility.


© SOAS CeDEP 4

ASSESSMENT

This module is assessed by:

• an examined assignment (EA) worth 20%

• a written examination in October worth 80%.

Since the EA is an element of the formal examination process, please note the following:

(a) The EA questions and submission date will be available on the Virtual Learning

Environment (VLE).

(b) The EA is submitted by uploading it to the VLE.

(c) The EA is marked by the module tutor and students will receive a percentage

mark and feedback.

(d) Answers submitted must be entirely the student’s own work and not a product

of collaboration. For this reason, the VLE is not an appropriate forum for queries

about the EA.

(e) Plagiarism is a breach of regulations. To ensure compliance with the specific

University of London regulations, all students are advised to read the guidelines

on referencing the work of other people. For more detailed information, see the

FAQ on the VLE.


© SOAS CeDEP 5

STUDY MATERIALS

There is one textbook that accompanies this module.

Grosh, M., del Ninno, C., Tesliuc, E. & Ouerghi, A. (2008) For Protection and

Promotion: The Design and Implementation of Effective Safety Nets. Washington DC,

The World Bank.

This textbook is very clearly written and provides a good overview of the evidence for

social protection by drawing on examples from a wide range of countries. Up-to-date

references as well as some alternative views are given in the module units.

For each of the module units, the following are provided.

Key Study Materials

These are drawn mainly from the textbooks and relevant academic journals and

internationally respected reports. Readings are provided to add breadth and depth to

the unit materials, as appropriate and are required reading as they contain material on

which students may be examined. For some units, multimedia links have also been

provided. Look at these and use the VLE to discuss their implications with other

students and the tutor. The notes under each resource indicate its scope and relevance.

Further Study Materials

These texts and multimedia are not provided in hard copy, but, weblinks have been

included where possible. Further Study Materials are NOT examinable and are

provided to enable students to pursue their own areas of interest.

References

Each unit contains a full list of all material cited in the text. All references cited in the

unit text are listed in the relevant units. However, this is primarily a matter of good

academic practice: to show where points made in the text can be substantiated.

Students are not expected to consult these references as part of their study of this

module.

Self-Assessment Questions

Often, you will find a set of Self-Assessment Questions at the end of each section

within a unit. It is important that you work through all of these. Their purpose is

threefold:

• to check your understanding of basic concepts and ideas

• to verify your ability to execute technical procedures in practice

• to develop your skills in interpreting the results of empirical analysis.

Also, you will find additional Unit Self-Assessment Questions at the end of each unit,

which aim to help you assess your broader understanding of the unit material. Answers

to the self-assessment questions are provided in the Answer Booklet.


© SOAS CeDEP 6

In-text Questions

This icon invites you to answer a question for which an answer is provided. Try

not to look at the answer immediately; first write down what you think is a

reasonable answer to the question before reading on. This is equivalent to

lecturers asking a question of their class and using the answers as a springboard

for further explanation.

In-text Activities

This symbol invites you to halt and consider an issue or engage in a practical

activity.

Key Terms and Concepts

At the end of each unit you are provided with a list of Key Terms and Concepts which

have been introduced in the unit. The first time these appear in the text guide they

are Bold Italicised. Some key words are very likely to be used in examination

questions, and an explanation of the meaning of relevant key words will nearly always

attract credit in your answers.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

As you progress through the module you may need to check unfamiliar acronyms that

are used. A full list of these is provided for you in your study guide.


© SOAS CeDEP 7

TUTORIAL SUPPORT

There are two opportunities for receiving support from tutors during your study. These

opportunities involve:

(a) participating in the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)

(b) completing the examined assignment (EA).

Virtual Learning Environment

The VLE provides an opportunity for you to interact with both other students and

tutors. A discussion forum is provided through which you can post questions regarding

any study topic that you have difficulty with, or for which you require further

clarification. You can also discuss more general issues on the News forum within the

CeDEP Programme Area.

Additional features of the VLE include an FAQ for solutions to frequently asked

questions, MyHelp for any relevant queries or suggestions and a profile area where you

can view your study progress.


© SOAS CeDEP 8

INDICATIVE STUDY CALENDAR

Part/unit Unit title Study time (hours)

Unit 1 Introducing Food Security and Social Protection 10

Unit 2 Measuring Poverty and Food Insecurity 15

Unit 3 Social Protection: Foundations, Instruments, Challenges

15

Unit 4 Design and Implementation of Social Protection 15

Unit 5 Financing and Economics of Social Protection 10

Unit 6 The Political Economy of Social Protection 10

Unit 7 Access to Food 15

Unit 8 Utilisation of Food: Nutrition, Health, Culture and Economics

15

Unit 9 Policies and Programmes for Improved Access and Utilisation

15

Unit 10 Availability of Food 15

Examined Assignment

Check the Virtual Learning Environment for submission deadline

15

Examination entry July

Revision and examination preparation September

End-of-module examination September—October

Unit One: Introducing Food Security and Social

Protection

Unit Information 2 Unit Overview 2 Unit Aims 2 Unit Learning Outcomes 2 Unit Interdependencies 2

Key Study Materials 3

1.0 Food security: initial concepts and definitions 5 Section Overview 5 Section Learning Outcomes 5

1.1 Introduction 5 1.2 Definition of food security 7 1.3 Components of food security 9 Section 1 Self-Assessment Questions 13

2.0 Introduction to poverty, vulnerability and livelihoods 14 Section Overview 14 Section Learning Outcomes 14

2.1 Poverty 14 2.2 Risk and vulnerability 18 2.3 Livelihoods approach 27

Section 2 Self-Assessment Questions 31

3.0 Social protection: a brief introduction 32 Section Overview 32

Section Learning Outcomes 32

3.1 Introduction 32 3.2 Values and their influence on social policies 33 3.3 Definitions of social protection 36

Section 3 Self-Assessment Questions 38

Unit Summary 39

Unit Self-Assessment Questions 40

Key Terms and Concepts 41

Further Study Materials 42

References 44

Food Security and Social Protection Unit 1

© SOAS CeDEP 2

UNIT INFORMATION

Unit Overview

This unit will introduce the basic concepts and frameworks which underpin analysis of

food security and social protection. These include the concepts of poverty, livelihoods,

and risk and vulnerability and how these are linked to food security and social

protection. The unit also discusses the different values and world views which may

underpin different social policies and introduces some of the terminology used to

describe values. Finally, the unit introduces the concept of social protection and

explains what this module will and will not cover.

Unit Aims

• To provide a basic introduction to the most common concepts and frameworks

which underpin analysis and debate about food security and social protection.

• To set out some linkages between them.

• To discuss the competing values and world views that underpin debates on

social protection and food security policy.

Unit Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, students should be able to:

• outline the historical evolution of the current international definitions of food

and nutrition security and distinguish their components

• explain the importance of shocks, trends and seasonality in perpetuating

poverty and inequality

• define the livelihoods approach and discuss its strengths and limitations

• discuss the competing values and world views that underpin debates on social

protection and food security policy.

Unit Interdependencies

This is an introductory unit and many of the concepts will be further explored later in

the module. In particular, Unit 2 discusses measurements of poverty and food security,

Unit 3 discusses the underlying approaches to social protection and Units 6–8 discuss

the main components of food security (availability, access and utilisation) in much

more detail.

If you would like to look further at the poverty and livelihoods concepts covered here,

see the CeDEP module ‘Understanding Poverty’.


© SOAS CeDEP 3

KEY STUDY MATERIALS

Section 1

No key reading required.

See link to FAO website below for a short e-learning course that will reinforce these

terms and concepts.

Available from: http://www.foodsec.org/dl/elcpages/food-security-learning-

center.asp?pgLanguage=en&leftItemSelected=food-security-learning-center

This centre has free e-learning courses on a variety of aspects of food security. They are

quick to take online and carefully thought through, so they are highly recommended,

especially if the concepts are new to you. They also have course versions in French and

Spanish.

Al Jazeera News (20 July 2011) Millions Face Famine in Somalia. [Video]. Duration

4:13 minutes.

Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hr7wSDNgxI

Al Jazeera news item on the declaration of famine in Somalia in 2011 (referred to in

Section 1.1).

Section 2

Grosh, M., del Ninno, C., Tesliuc, E. & Ouerghi, A. (2008) Appendix A: Basic concepts

of poverty and social risk management. In: For Protection and Promotion: The

Design and Implementation of Effective Safety Nets. Washington DC, The World

Bank. pp. 453–464.

This book will be the main textbook for the course as regards social protection. This

appendix covers many of the concepts introduced in this unit, including poverty, risk

and vulnerability. Note that not all terms are used in exactly the same way we use them

in this module. This is an introduction to the variability in terminology that you will

encounter in your wider reading!

Scoones, I. (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. Brighton,

UK, Institute of Development Studies (IDS). IDS Working Paper 72.

A fairly early paper on the sustainable livelihoods approach (introduced in Section 2)

that was influential in establishing the approach in its current form.

http://www.foodsec.org/dl/elcpages/food-security-learning-center.asp?pgLanguage=en&leftItemSelected=food-security-learning-center

http://www.foodsec.org/dl/elcpages/food-security-learning-center.asp?pgLanguage=en&leftItemSelected=food-security-learning-center

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hr7wSDNgxI


© SOAS CeDEP 4

Section 3

Grosh, M., del Ninno, C., Tesliuc, E. & Ouerghi, A. (2008) Introduction. In: For

Protection and Promotion: The Design and Implementation of Effective Safety Nets.

Washington DC, The World Bank. pp. 1–9.

As mentioned above, this book will be the main textbook for the course as regards social

protection. Section 1.3 (pp. 4–6) provides a useful introduction to what the book calls

safety nets and we call social transfers. It is also worth skimming through the rest of the

chapter to get an overview of what the book covers, much of which we will be returning

to in later units.

UNDP. (25 October 2011) A Social Protection Floor for All. [Video]. Geneva,

International Labour Organization (ILO). Duration 6:48 minutes.

Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhdfxHnJAl0

UNDP video on the concept of a Social Protection Floor (a minimum level of social

protection that countries should work towards), with examples of social protection

programmes in different countries (referred to in Section 3.1).

World Bank (12 April 2012) Catching Hope: Safety Nets Change Lives in Brazil and

Ethiopia. [Video]. Washington DC, The World Bank. Duration 6:09 minutes.

Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bovGA93Q5-s&feature=relmfu

World Bank video on safety nets in Brazil and Ethiopia (referred to in Section 3.1).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhdfxHnJAl0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bovGA93Q5-s&feature=relmfu


© SOAS CeDEP 5

1.0 FOOD SECURITY: INITIAL CONCEPTS AND

DEFINITIONS

Section Overview

This section discusses the evolution of the concept of food security and nutrition and

introduces some of the terms you will be using in the module.

Section Learning Outcomes

By the end of this section, students should be able to:

• describe the evolution of international thinking around food and nutritional

security

• explain the differences between hunger, food and nutrition security,

malnutrition and undernutrition.

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 Some definitions

Note: not all terminology is settled in this area, as discussed later in this unit. Students interested in

looking further into terminology — in both English and other languages — can consult FAO (2014). Often,

terms are redefined and made more precise when measurements are developed for them, as discussed

later in this module.

Hunger:

– an uneasy sensation occasioned by the lack of food

– a weakened condition brought about by prolonged lack of food

Malnutrition:

– faulty nutrition due to inadequate or unbalanced intake of nutrients or their

impaired assimilation or utilization (first known use of word: 1862)

Source: Merriam-Webster (n.d.)

Food security:

– a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and

economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary

needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life

Source: FAO (2002)

What does the ‘food insecurity’ mean to you? Here we introduce some terminology and highlight some of the changes in thinking over the past 40 years.

For many people, the most visible face of food insecurity is hunger, or ‘severe

transitory (temporary) food insecurity’, accompanied by an international appeal for

food aid. If this is not already very familiar to you, you can find an example in the video

by Al Jazeera News (Al Jazeera, 2001; available from the Key Study Materials). Since the

turn of the century, about 30 countries a year have declared some type of food


© SOAS CeDEP 6

emergency and some have faced repeated food crises (see 1.1.2). The current list of

countries requiring food assistance can be found on the FAO-GIEWS website (click

‘Table View’ for details) (GIEWS, n.d. b).

1.1.2 Countries facing prolonged food emergencies, 1986—2005

Source: FAO (2006) p. 2.

However, chronic food insecurity – in particular, undernutrition, or ‘hidden hunger’ –

is a much more widespread problem. One measure of chronic undernutrition is shown

in 1.1.3.

1.1.3 Prevalence of chronic malnutrition (percentage of children under 5 who are

moderately or severely stunted, data from 2008—2015)

Source: UNICEF (2015)

Countries facing food emergencies (1986–2005)(consecutive years including 2005)

< 5 years 12 –14 years5 – 8 years > 15 years9–11 years


© SOAS CeDEP 7

Finally, the term malnutrition encompasses poor nutrition as well as undernutrition.

Obesity and overweight pose an increasing health problem in all countries, even the

poorest. We will return to this issue in Unit 8. It is sometimes termed ‘overnutrition’,

but in this module we will avoid the term, because the diet of overweight people may

be short of essential nutrients such as vitamins.

1.1.4 Prevalence of obesity (percentage of women 18 or over who are clinically

obese, ie seriously overweight

Source: WHO (2015)

The second Global Nutrition Report (GNR) (IFPRI, 2015) was originally launched

with the tagline: ‘Think your country doesn’t have a nutrition problem? Think

again’. You can look up the nutrition data for your own country (do an internet

search for the latest version of the GNR). Don’t worry if you don’t understand

all the terms used; we will come to them later in the module. You might also

like to look up your country on the FAO Global Information and Early Warning

System on Food and Agriculture (GIEWS, n.d. a) for a different perspective.

1.2 Definition of food security

The concept of food security has evolved considerably since it was first introduced in

international development policy debates in the 1970s. Many definitions and indicators

have been proposed. In the table in 1.2.1, we present a few of the explicit and implicit

definitions used for food security.


© SOAS CeDEP 8

1.2.1 Food security: an evolving definition

1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

This includes a ‘Right to adequate standard of living’ but without

defining very specifically what this means in terms of food security.

1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

‘to improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food

by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by

disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition …’ and ‘… to

ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to

need’ (Article 11).

1974 Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition

‘Every man, woman, and child has an inalienable right to be free from

hunger and malnutrition’.

1974 World Food Summit

‘Availability at all times of adequate world food supplies of basic

foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to

offset fluctuations in production and prices.’ This is believed to be the

first internationally agreed definition of food security.

1983 FAO, World Food Security

‘Ensuring that all people at all times have both physical and economic

access to the basic food that they need.’

1996 World Food Summit

‘Food security, at the individual, household, national, regional and

global levels [is achieved] when all people, at all times, have physical

and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their

dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.’

2002 (current definition)

FAO

‘Food security [is] a situation that exists when all people, at all times,

have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and

nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for

an active and healthy life. The four pillars of food security are

availability, access, utilization and stability.’

2012 (proposed but not agreed — further work requested)

Committee for World Food Security (CFS)

‘Food and nutrition security exists when all people at all times have

physical, social and economic access to food of sufficient quantity and

quality in terms of variety, diversity, nutrient content and safety to

meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy

life, coupled with a sanitary environment, adequate health, education

and care.’

Sources: FAO (2003) pp. 25—34, CFS (2012a; 2014)

Look through the definitions in the table in 1.2.1. What are the key changes

from the 1974 definition of food security to 1983 and then 1996 and 2002?


© SOAS CeDEP 9

Answer

The 1974 definition focuses on world availability of basic foodstuffs. It does

not consider distribution of food among or within countries, or other aspects.

Its main concern is diminishing volatility (fluctuations) in supply and prices.

In 1983, the definition focuses on people’s access to basic food. (See below

for more explanation of the term access.) Access includes both availability

(physical access) and economic access. Access is conceived in economic terms.

Stability is also implicitly included (‘all times’).

By 2002, the definition has brought in many different concepts:

Who? All people

What? Safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food

preferences (concepts of nutrition, food hygiene and safety, and cultural

acceptability)

How much? Sufficient for an active and healthy life

When? All times (stability)

How? Physical (availability), social and economic access

More details on the history of the food security definition are given in FAO

(2006).

The definition in the table in 1.2.1 (FAO, 2002) is now widely accepted as the

international definition of food security and will be used in this module.

There are four main components (or pillars) of food security in the definition, which

will be discussed in more detail below:

(a) aggregate food availability, usually at the global or national level

(b) food access (or entitlement) at the household or individual level

(c) food utilisation, is concerned with the conversion of food into adequate

nutritional well-being at the individual level

(d) stability of access to food is concerned with ensuring that people maintain

access to food at all times, for example, avoiding seasonal hunger.

1.3 Components of food security

(a) Food availability

‘Availability: The availability of sufficient quantities of food of appropriate

quality, supplied through domestic production or import (including food

aid).’


Early definitions of food security focused on the availability of food at the national or

global level and emphasised the ability of a country to produce and import enough food


© SOAS CeDEP 10

to feed its population. In terms of policy, food security was to be attained through three

main channels: by enhancing food production; through trade flows between food

surplus and food deficit countries; and by building regional and national food stocks. In

a national emergency, these channels might be supplemented by international (large-

scale, normally untargeted) food aid.

Concerns regarding food availability at the global level were particularly acute in the

early 1970s, as global food prices shot up, in particular, due to high oil prices. This is

reflected in the 1974 definition of food security in the table above. The question of food

availability took centre stage again when world food prices shot up in the period from

2007 to 2011. This triggered a return to international discussions about policies

affecting food availability, including issues of production, self-sufficiency, large versus

small farms, land-grabbing, grain storage and trade. Although world prices have

decreased in the past few years, these issues are still very important to many countries,

not least because a local drop in availability can still trigger a food crisis.

(b) Access to food

During the 1980s, an important dimension was added to the concept of food security:

access to food, analysed at the household and individual level.

Food access: ‘Access by individuals to adequate resources (entitlements)

for acquiring appropriate foods for a nutritious diet.’


This conceptual shift from aggregate food availability to household or individual food

entitlement has been credited to the seminal analysis of large-scale famines conducted

by Amartya Sen (1981). The potency of Sen’s analysis came from his demonstration

that there was no evident decline in food availability in three out of the four large-scale

famines he analysed: the Bengal Famine (1943), the famine in Bangladesh (1974) and

the 1973 famine in Ethiopia.

Sen’s major insight was that decline in overall food availability was not the direct cause

of famine. Rather it was the ability to ‘access’ food which counted: it was perfectly

possible to ‘starve in the midst of plenty’ if you had no means to buy, borrow or beg

food. This was not a new discovery: for example, throughout the Great Famine in

Ireland (1845–1852), food continued to be exported in large quantities from Ireland to

England. However, Sen’s analysis was successful in changing the international debate

from a focus on aggregate food availability to a focus on access (which he called

‘entitlements’) to food by different, disaggregated population groups, such as small

farmers, small traders and pastoralists.

(c) Utilisation of food

Good nutrition depends on much more than the availability of nutritious food. Among

other things, it depends on healthy food choices and good health to digest the food.

These issues are discussed further in Unit 8.

In the 1990s, the concept of nutrition was incorporated in the definition of food

security through adding a new component – food ‘utilisation’. As FAO (2006) defines it:


© SOAS CeDEP 11

‘Utilization: Utilization of food through adequate diet, clean water,

sanitation and health care to reach a state of nutritional well-being where

all physiological needs are met. This brings out the importance of non-food

inputs in food security’


Many authors make a distinction between food security and nutrition security. For

example:

‘A household is food secure if it can reliably gain access to food in sufficient

quantity and quality for all household members to enjoy a healthy and

active life. It is possible, however, for individuals in food-secure households

to have deficient or unbalanced diets. Nutrition security is achieved when

secure access to food is coupled with a sanitary environment, adequate

health services, and knowledgeable care to ensure a healthy and active life

for all household members. The ability of an individual to fully reach his or

her personal and economic potential, however defined, must depend to a

large degree on his or her level of nutrition security.

Source: Benson (2004) p. ix.

However, there is not yet any internationally agreed definition of nutrition security.

The United Nations Committee on Food Security (CFS) has been reconsidering the

terminology, noting that ‘The current lack of consistency in the use of these terms can

cause confusion and hold back meaningful discussion of the core issues’ (CFS, 2012b: p.

5). The term ‘food and nutrition security’ was proposed in 2012, but not accepted by

CFS (in part because it was argued that the current definition of food security already

includes nutrition, under the utilisation pillar), and work on terminology continues

(CFS, 2012c; 2014). The CFS has also employed the term ‘food security and nutrition’

(CFS, 2014).

You may be wondering at this point: why does the terminology matter? Underlying the

arguments over semantics is a political question regarding the way that terminology

implicitly defines responsibility and scope of work. (For example, should the

Committee for World Food Security be responsible for ensuring good nutrition as

well?) The distribution of responsibility for promoting good nutrition outcomes has

been the subject of debate for many years. To put the history in simplistic terms

(detailed accounts are given in Levinson (2002) and Garrett and Natalicchio (2011)):

until the 1970s, food security was mostly seen as the job of agriculturalists, trade

specialists and home economists: to ‘put food on the table’. The nutritional quality of

food and its effect on human growth was seen as the job of nutritionists and doctors,

who, in their turn, took a medical view of nutrition, as a problem to be treated by

supplementary feeding and medical treatment. From the 1970s, a number of

developing countries tried to promote a multi-sectoral approach to nutrition, while a

number of international conferences were called to try to bring different institutions

together to work on a collaborative approach. However, this was only moderately

successful, and even within the United Nations there was a clear split between agencies.

To quote Levinson (2002: p. 135), ‘Institutionally speaking, did nutrition belong in


© SOAS CeDEP 12

ministries of health or social welfare or departments of women and children, the logical

loci of UNICEF-assisted programs, or did it belong in ministries of food, agriculture or

even industrial development, the prime counterparts in FAO-assisted programs?’ These

issues have not been completely resolved to this day, despite continuing efforts to work

across disciplinary boundaries, through bodies such as the UN Standing Committee on

Nutrition (UNSCN) and the international Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement.

This module will employ the FAO (2002) definition for food security presented in 1.2.1,

including nutrition under the utilisation component. However, definitions are not set in

stone. As the international focus of ‘food security’ gradually moves away from a lack of

food to other issues, such as dietary diversity, food choices, obesity and sustainability of

food systems, and as the roles of different organisations evolve, international

definitions are likely to change to reflect these changes.

(d) Stability

‘To be food secure, a population, household or individual must have access

to adequate food at all times. They should not risk losing access to food as a

consequence of sudden shocks (eg an economic or climatic crisis) or

cyclical events (eg seasonal food insecurity). The concept of stability can

therefore refer to both the availability and access dimensions of food

security.’


The distinction between short-term (transitory) and long-term (chronic) food

insecurity is important, as different policies are needed to address them.

• Chronic food insecurity is generally associated with long-term poverty and

poor nutrition.

• Transitory (temporary) food insecurity comes from intensified pressure

caused by conflict, economic factors (world food prices) or natural disasters.

• Seasonal food insecurity is recurring and is generally associated with an

annual hungry period.

The above terms all refer to the duration of food insecurity, while we will use the

terms moderate and severe with reference to the severity of food insecurity. Some

authors, especially from the agriculture discipline, use the terms ‘transitory’ and ‘acute’

hunger as interchangeable. Devereux (2006), however, points out that the confusion of

‘transitory’ and ‘acute’ implies that chronic food insecurity means a low level of hunger,

which can have practical consequences. This is because political support for relief in

food crises is often triggered by a rapid drop from what is seen as a ‘normal’ level of

malnutrition for a given locality, rather than an objective assessment of relative needs.

As an example, Devereux (2006: p. xii) cites ‘a humanitarian intervention in one

Southern African country that was triggered by a rise in malnutrition rates from 2.5%

to 5%, but routine nutritional surveillance in Somalia that reported 13% malnutrition

produced no donor reaction, as this level was considered “normal” for Somalia’. This

has been called the ‘normalisation of crisis’ (Bradbury, 1998).

Preventing and responding to shocks, and maintaining stability of food security, is one

of the major objectives of both food security and social protection programmes.


© SOAS CeDEP 13

Section 1 Self-Assessment Questions

1 What are the four key components of food security agreed in the international

definition?

2 What are the main differences between food security and nutrition security, as

reflected in the definitions given by FAO (2006) and Benson (2004) above?


© SOAS CeDEP 14

2.0 INTRODUCTION TO POVERTY, VULNERABILITY AND

LIVELIHOODS

Section Overview

This section starts by introducing some of the basic concepts of poverty that you will be

using. It goes on to discuss the importance of ‘shocks’ in perpetuating long-term

poverty and food insecurity, and to define some of the key terms used in discussing

shocks, risks and vulnerability. It presents evidence that shocks may not only cause

short-term suffering but also lead to long-term increases in poverty, reduce

entrepreneurship, increase inequality and reduce economic growth. Finally, this section

introduces the livelihoods approach, a bottom-up way of thinking about poverty and

vulnerability which underpins much food security and social protection work.



• explain the importance of shocks, risks, trends and seasonality for long-term

poverty and food security, giving examples

• describe the main points of the livelihoods framework, including how the five

capitals may affect the food security options available to a household.

2.1 Poverty

Poverty is intimately connected to food security. Poor households in poor countries

often spend over half of their entire income on food, and this can rise to 75% or more in

hard times. This compares with around 12–15% of income spent by the average

household in a wealthy country. However, the many factors affecting food security – in

particular the utilisation of food – mean that the relationship between poverty and food

security is not straightforward.

What is meant by poverty? There is no single concept or definition. When you are

reading about social protection and food security, you will come across a number of

different definitions and measures. For this module, the most important point to

remember is that different ways of measuring poverty can drastically affect the

numbers of people who are counted as poor, as well as the depth of poverty.

It is often argued that poor people’s own perceptions, what is important to them, and

what they consider makes a person ‘rich’ or ‘poor’ should underpin any definition of

poverty. The views of poor people from developing countries have been collected in

various ‘participatory’ exercises, for example, in the World Bank’s global study ‘Voices

of the Poor’ (summarised in Narayan et al, 1999). An extract is shown in 2.1.1.


© SOAS CeDEP 15

2.1.1 Dimensions of well-being according to the ‘Voices of the Poor’ global study

Material well-being: having enough

Food

Assets

Work

Bodily well-being: being and appearing well

Health

Appearance

Physical environment

Social well-being:

Being able to care for, bring up, marry and settle children

Self-respect and dignity

Peace, harmony, good relations in the family/community

Security:

Civil peace

A physically safe and secure environment

Personal physical security

Lawfulness and access to justice

Security in old age

Confidence in the future

Freedom of choice and action

Psychological well-being:

Peace of mind

Happiness

Harmony (including spiritual life and religious observance)

Source: Alkire (2002) p. 190, extracted from ‘Voices of the Poor’ by Narayan et al (2000).

Poor people’s own perceptions, however, do not provide us with a firm basis for

comparing poverty among households and areas (Ravallion, 2012). For this reason,

poverty has been conceptualised in a number of ways. The main concepts are described

briefly below.

Some of the main concepts of poverty that you will encounter are:

(a) Income poverty or ‘money metrics’

The income poverty or money-metric approach essentially views poverty as a lack of

goods and services (consumption), and of the money (income) with which they can be

purchased. Income and/or consumption measures are the most commonly used

measures of poverty, and form the basis of most of the international poverty statistics

that you will see quoted, but have also been widely criticised on the grounds that ‘money

cannot buy happiness’, and income does not measure what is truly important to people.


© SOAS CeDEP 16

Absolute and relative poverty

International poverty statistics use an absolute definition of poverty: you are poor if

your income or consumption falls below a certain defined level (the poverty line), and

not poor if your income is above it. However, many people feel ‘poor’ or ‘rich’ in

comparison to others around them, rather than in relation to an absolute standard.

With this in mind, many wealthier countries take a relative approach to measuring

poverty, where poverty is defined as being below a certain fraction of median income.

It has been suggested (Ravallion & Chen, 2010) that this approach should also be

applied to measuring poverty in developing and middle-income countries.

(b) Basic needs

The basic needs philosophy counts people as poor if they are deprived of certain basic

material needs. The underlying thinking is that material deprivation must be addressed

before other more complex psychological needs can be satisfied (this reflects a popular

psychological theory called Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – Maslow (1943)). While most

people agree that humans have basic material needs, it has proved more difficult to

agree on what these are, and to make comparisons across countries. For example, a

household without a television might be counted as poor in some wealthy countries,

whereas a television might be a luxury in other places.

The concept of basic needs (and also the concept of capabilities) has some difficulty in

integrating the problem of what might be termed poor choices. For example, if someone

has a good salary but chooses not to spend the money on basic needs (preferring to

blow it all on drink and gambling, for example) are they counted as poor?

Make a list of what you think would constitute essential basic needs in your own

country. You might like to compare this with analysis carried out for the UK in

2008 (Bradshaw et al, 2008).

(c) Happiness

The happiness approach focuses on measuring life satisfaction and what is most

important to people. In that sense, it represents an approach to quantifying the

qualitative perceptions of poor people. The most famous happiness index is Gross

National Happiness, used by the Kingdom of Bhutan (Ura et al, 2012), and the concept

is gaining much interest in wealthy countries (OECD, 2011).

(d) Capabilities and human development

This influential and philosophically rich approach was initially proposed by Amartya

Sen in 1979 and is summarised in his book ‘Development as Freedom’ (Sen, 1999).

Poverty is conceived as a set of constraints or ‘unfreedoms’ to people realising their full

human potential, and therefore the objective of development should be to enable them

to mobilise their ‘capabilities’ and ‘functionings’. The term human development was

defined by UNDP (1990) as ‘a process of enlarging people's choices’, and is often used

as a shorthand for the capabilities approach to poverty reduction.


© SOAS CeDEP 17

Chronic and transient poverty

Whatever concept of poverty is used, it is also important to understand that households

may move in and out of poverty over time. A stylised depiction of some of the possible

poverty trajectories for a household, using a poverty line, is given in the figure in 2.1.2.

All the households vary in their poverty levels over time. However, on the far left of the

figure you can see households which always fall below the poverty line and thus are in

chronic poverty. On the far right, there are households that never fall below the

poverty line (the non-poor). The middle of the diagram shows households that are

usually or sometimes non-poor but sometimes or often fall below the poverty line – the

transient (or transitory) poor.

2.1.2 Stylised diagram showing chronic and transient poverty

Source: Hulme et al (2001) p. 13.

The diagram in 2.1.3 gives a real-life example of changes in perceived household

poverty levels over time, taken from an interview with a poor rural Bangladeshi

woman, 33 years old at the time of interview. In this case, what were the main causes of

sudden declines in household well-being?

2.1.3 Stylised depiction of ‘life condition’ based on an interview with a rural

Bangladeshi woman

Source: re-drawn from Davis (2006) p. 18.


© SOAS CeDEP 18

(e) Poverty and the lifecycle

In most societies there is a strong relationship between poverty and the lifecycle. For

example, the birth of a baby commonly causes household expenses to increase while

reducing household income during the period the mother does not work. Old people

and children cannot work full time (or even if they could, it is normally not accepted

that they should). The presence of many such dependants in a household (a high

dependency ratio) is likely to increase household poverty, whereas households with

grown-up children may find themselves better off. For these reasons, most societies see

the need to provide extra support to households which would otherwise be in poverty

due to lifecycle events such as maternity and old age.

2.2 Risk and vulnerability

An important point to note from the previous section is that insecurity (including food

insecurity) forms a significant part of what poor people identify as important to their

definition of poverty. Everyone faces shocks in their lives: for example, sickness,

unemployment or theft of an important item. Sources of shocks such as extreme

weather, price changes and disease prevalence are particularly high in many poor

countries, especially in rural areas. As this section will show, shocks and insecurity are

important causes of long-term poverty as well as short-term suffering.

Terminology

Many of the terms used in discussing risks and shocks have no generally accepted

international definition and are used in different ways by different authors. The table in

2.2.1, explains how the terms are used in this module, as well as noting some other

definitions you may come across in the literature. This is a reminder to check meanings

carefully as you read!

A particular source of potential confusion is the term vulnerability, which may be

applied either to households or communities. This may describe either:

• an imprecise term denoting a general condition of weakness and

defencelessness (‘vulnerable old people’)

• a lack of ability to cope with or mitigate the effect of shocks when they arise, ie

the opposite of resilience (Dilley & Boudreau, 2001)

• a combination of the likely exposure to shocks and the ability to cope with

them. Grosh et al (2008: p. 516) express this as ‘the probability that a

household will pass below the defined acceptable threshold of a given indicator’

(for poverty or food insecurity) and the mathematics are further explored by

Dercon (2006).

In this module, we will use the third definition, but all three definitions are in common

use and you should check readings carefully to understand what is meant.


© SOAS CeDEP 19

2.2.1 Key terms used to describe risks, shocks and vulnerability

Term Definition in this module Other usages

Shock A specific, uncertain (in timing

or magnitude) event which has

a negative effect on welfare. A

shock may be natural (eg a

flood) or man-made (eg a price

rise).

In economic parlance, a shock can

be positive or negative, but in this

module we are talking about

negative shocks. The term hazard is

sometimes used instead of shock. (In

the health sector, a hazard usually

refers to a potential shock, similar to

the definition we are using in this

module for risk, but this usage is less

common in agriculture and

economics.)

Risk A (potential) shock whose

probability can be predicted to

some extent, so in theory

would be ‘insurable’.

Risk may also be used to refer to the

probability of a negative shock (this

is the most common definition in the

health sector), or to a combination

of probability and (predicted) impact

of a shock (eg in Grosh et al, 2008).

Trend An overall directional change in

some aspect of the external

environment over time.

Uncertainty A (potential) shock which is not

sufficiently predictable to be

insurable, such as an

earthquake.

A few authors use risk for negative

events and uncertainty for positive

events.

Idiosyncratic

(adjective) Refers to a shock which affects

a single individual or household

— such as an illness.

Sometimes called individual.

Covariate

(adjective) Refers to a shock which is

common to the community or

the whole economy, such as a

drought or a rise in world food

prices.

Sometimes called common.

Volatility The degree of variability in

prices, incomes, etc — this may

or may not be quantified.

A statistical measure of variation in

prices, incomes, etc (usually the

coefficient of variation).

Vulnerability The likelihood of a long-term

decline in well-being due to

shocks. This has two

components: exposure to

shocks and lack of ability to

absorb or cope with them.

See discussion above. Vulnerability

can also refer to the lack of ability

to cope with a shock (ie the opposite

of resilience) or to general weakness

or need for support (eg vulnerable

elderly people) rather than being

specifically related to shocks.

Resilience The capacity to absorb or

mitigate shocks without a long-

term decline in well-being.

The concept of resilience may be

applied to the community or

environment as well as to the

household.

Note: all terms are nouns unless otherwise stated

Source: unit author


© SOAS CeDEP 20

Shocks, trends and seasonality

The table in 2.2.2 shows an example of shocks that affected rural households in

Ethiopia over a 20-year period. Fluctuations in weather, changes in commodity prices,

illnesses affecting family members and diseases affecting livestock were among the

most widespread cited sources of shocks.

2.2.2 Shocks faced by rural households in rural Ethiopia

Types of shocks Households reporting hardship in

last 20 years (%)

Harvest failure (drought, flooding, frost, etc) 78

Policy shock (taxation, forced labour, ban on migration, etc) 42

Labour problems (illness or deaths) 40

Oxen problems (diseases, deaths) 39

Other livestock (diseases, deaths) 35

Land problems (villagisation, land reform) 17

Assets losses (fire, loss) 16

War 7

Crime/banditry (theft, violence) 3

Source: Dercon and Krishnan (2000) p. 5, based on Ethiopian Rural Panel Data Survey (1994—1997).

Dercon (2006) analysed later data from the same Ethiopian survey, and estimated that

shocks (in particular from drought and illness) in the 1999–2004 period had increased

the proportion of households in poverty by almost half in 2004 over what it would have

been without the shocks. In another much-cited paper, Rosenzweig and Binswanger

(1993) estimated that the coefficient of variation (CV) of farm profits in their study

villages in a semi-arid part of India was 127% over a 7–10 year period, largely due to

weather variability (for comparison, they calculated the CV for incomes in young white

American males to be about 39%, or less than a third as variable). For people living

close to bare subsistence level, this degree of variability is a major threat to survival.

Wider trends may affect the likelihood and amplitude (extent) of shocks as well as the

resources needed to cope with them. For example, climate change may increase the

likelihood of droughts and also of extreme weather events such as cyclones.

Can you think of other global or regional trends that might increase pressure on

poor households, or alternatively open up new opportunities?


© SOAS CeDEP 21

Answer

Some examples are:

Increasing population puts more pressure on land and water resources and

may increase conflicts.

Increasing use of new technology may increase opportunities, for example the

use of mobile phones to transfer money.

Increasing international price of fossil fuels will increase the cost of food,

fertilisers and transport.

Seasonality is a concept which falls between shocks and trends, in the sense that it is

recurring and to some extent predictable. Seasonal pressures on household food security

are particularly strong in rural areas where there is only one main harvest. The pre-harvest

season is often characterised by low food stocks, high food prices and other pressures

(such as disease) which cause considerable stresses to the poor (Devereux et al, 2011).

Coping with and reducing shocks

Shocks will be more or less damaging depending on the extent to which households are

able to mitigate their impact. In rich countries, people are able to purchase private

insurance against many types of risk (eg fire, theft, sudden death) or to get payments

from the government (eg unemployment, missing work through ill health). In countries

or places where this is not possible, households deal with risk by resorting to two types

of strategies: ex post (after the event) and ex ante (in anticipation of the event).

(a) Ex post strategies

Reactions to shocks are normally referred to as coping strategies, although this term is

debatable (some of them might be termed acts of desperation). The table in 2.2.3 shows

the different coping strategies adopted by the richest and poorest households in

northern Ghana during the 1988–1989 food crisis.

2.2.3 Household responses to food deficit (northern Ghana, 1988/1989)

Coping strategy Percentage of households in the

Richest 25% Poorest 25%

Rationed food consumption 22 93

Bought inferior foods 4 59

Relatives, friends helped 4 59

Borrowed/mortgaged crops 22 57

Sold livestock 48 52

Postponed debt repayment 15 52

Sold cash crops 57 48

Ate seeds for planting 0 33

Sent children to relatives 0 22

Postponed a funeral 0 8

Whole household migrated 0 3

Source: Devereux (2009) p. 8, reorganised by unit author.


© SOAS CeDEP 22

Look through the table in 2.2.3. What were the most common coping strategies

(a) for rich households (b) for poor households? Which strategies were used only

by the poorest 25% of households?

Answer

The answers should be obvious from 2.2.3, but here are a couple of points to

note.

— Stored crops and livestock function as a ‘savings bank’, to be sold any time

that money is needed (another common ‘bank’ is stored grain, although this is

not mentioned in the example). However, if everyone in an area is selling at

the same time in a ‘covariate shock’ such as a drought, prices will drop. This is

one of the reasons that pastoralists are often very badly affected in a drought.

— The most potentially damaging strategies such as eating seeds intended for

the next year’s crop, or migrating, were used only by a minority of poor

households, and not used by any of the richer households.

Households facing a shock need to make difficult decisions about the trade-offs

between current and future consumption – for example, the decision to eat less and

save the seed intended for next year’s planting, or the decision not to pay their debts

versus the chance that they will not be able to get credit the next time they need it. The

table in 2.2.4 lists some of the most common coping strategies (approximately in order

of ‘popularity’) and their disadvantages. Note that apparently short-term actions to

cope with a shock can have long-term consequences for the people concerned.

2.2.4 Common ‘coping strategies’ and their potential disadvantages

Strategy (most common at the top, least common at the bottom)

Potential disadvantages

Eating less-preferred foods. It is common to

cut back on animal products, vegetables

and fruit in the diet as they are most

expensive.

Micronutrient malnutrition may increase.

Shifting from special

‘complementary’/weaning foods for

infants (with higher nutrition) to infants

sharing the family’s main food.

Infant malnutrition may increase which has

serious impacts on a child’s lifetime

prospects of health, education and income.

Eating less at each meal; skipping meals. Malnutrition may increase, especially in

children and pregnant and breastfeeding

women.

Taking credit (in cash or kind) or delaying

repayment of debt. Social risks of non-repayment and more

serious asset risks, eg seizure of assets or

loss of pawned assets.

Getting help from social networks. May

include sending family members to

relatives or friends.

‘Social debts’ build up.


© SOAS CeDEP 23

Getting extra work to generate income:

for example, woodcutting and charcoal

burning, breaking stones. Stress migration

is common in some countries (eg Nepal).

Health problems. When mothers take on

additional work this may reduce childcare

quality and breastfeeding which may

increase infant malnutrition. Migration has

social and often health costs (such as an

increase in HIV). Woodcutting depletes

forests.

Cutting back on non-food expenses, for

example, health care, education. Long-term health, education and income

loss. Many children who ‘temporarily’ drop

out of school never return.

Selling or pawning non-productive assets

such as jewellery and radios, then in the

last resort productive assets such as oxen

or even land.

Loss of standard of living. For productive

assets, loss of future income-earning

opportunities.

Begging, stealing and prostitution. Socially unacceptable. Risks of violence

and disease.

Source: unit author

(b) Ex ante risk management strategies

Understandably, households prefer to avoid ex post strategies if possible. Ex ante risk

management involves taking actions that reduce exposure to risks (probable shocks)

and minimising their likely impact.

Some common ex ante actions taken by households are listed in the table in 2.2.5. These

fall into four main categories:

• low-risk activities: involving lower investments, thus lower losses if anything

goes wrong

• diversification of activities: so that a shock affecting one activity will not affect

all of them

• risk sharing: sharing both risks and rewards, such as share-cropping

• keeping a buffer: building up assets, keeping savings in cash or in kind (eg

animals or grain stores) or building up a social support network (‘social credit’).

The poorest households generally find it hardest to build up a buffer, so they can less

afford to invest in risky activities, and are therefore termed more risk-averse (risk-

avoiding). This is a rational response to difficult circumstances (Fafchamps, 2003).


© SOAS CeDEP 24

2.2.5 Ex ante options for management of risks

Strategy Potential

disadvantages

Choosing lower-risk production options. A classic example is low-

investment farm technologies (no or low fertiliser, self-saved seeds

instead of hybrid seeds, etc).

See exercise

below

Spreading risks by diversifying the production portfolio, eg cultivating a

range of varieties, crops or animals, or planting at different times of

year.

Diversifying household livelihoods portfolio, eg new jobs or sending

members to work in city or abroad.

Some authors (eg Vicarelli, 2010) have found that an inability to

diversify into higher-profit activities characterises the poorest

households who are exposed to the highest risks.

Keeping a ‘buffer’ of savings, eg cash or ‘buffer assets’, such as stored

grain or small animals, that can be sold quickly when cash is needed. In

some cultures, women’s jewellery also partially serves this function.

Sharing risk with others. For example, in share-cropping, tenants get

credit for farm inputs from landlords, payable by a share of the

harvest. Payment is lower if the harvest is poor.

Cash savings and credit. A complex web of credit is common in very

poor households.

Contributing to informal social networks including through formal

groups such as religious groups and funeral clubs — helping other

families in good times and getting help in bad times.

Formal insurance — this is still rare in poor rural areas, but increasing.

Insurance can be against various risks including health, crop and weather

insurance. Paying for vaccination of animals against disease (eg Newcastle

disease in chickens) can also be considered a form of insurance.

Source: unit author

Using your own experience, fill in the blank right hand side of the table in 2.2.5

with the potential disadvantages of each strategy. Then compare your answers

with the full table in the answer below.


© SOAS CeDEP 25

Answer

In most cases, it can be seen that there is a trade-off between avoiding risks and

maximising profits.


© SOAS CeDEP 26

The economic perspective: consumption, income and asset smoothing

Economics uses the terms consumption smoothing and income smoothing to

express the activities that people undertake to keep their consumption or income

stable in the face of a variable economic environment. (To visualise this, see the figure

in 2.2.6 and imagine ‘smoothing the waves’ on the graph, making the variation smaller –

for example in consumption, shown by the thick black line.) As discussed above, many

poor households undertake a mixture of consumption and income smoothing, using

both ex ante and ex post strategies, in order to deal with risks and shocks. Households

make inter-temporal (over time) trade-offs between present consumption and future

income.

The poorest households are concerned to avoid penury (an irretrievable loss of

livelihood) as well as to smooth their consumption, and therefore they always need to

maintain some assets against future shocks. Zimmerman and Carter (2003) show that

this often leads to what they call asset smoothing, ie a higher volatility of consumption

in poorer households following a ‘defensive strategy’ than in richer households, which

have sufficient assets to maintain a steadier level of consumption, so that they are able

to take more risks and tolerate a higher volatility of income (the ‘entrepreneurial

strategy’) (see 2.2.6). Put in simple terms, this model depicts why the poorest

households may seem to ‘enjoy the moment’ in good times, followed by ‘tightening

their belts’ in hard times, rather than using any surplus they may have to invest, which

might give them a higher level of income but at an unacceptable risk.

2.2.6 Stylised model of income and consumption for two contrasting risk

management strategies: ‘entrepreneurial’ (volatile income, fairly steady

consumption) and ‘defensive’ (varying consumption to preserve assets)

Source: Zimmerman and Carter (2003) p. 25.


© SOAS CeDEP 27

Poverty traps and implications for economic growth and equality

As can be seen from the tables in 2.2.4 and 2.2.5, risk-management strategies can be

costly. When households allocate their productive assets and labour to minimise the

impact of shocks ex ante, they are giving up potential income in return for greater

stability. On the other hand, ex post coping strategies can undercut the human and

physical capital of households and undermine their ability to develop their livelihoods

and sustain shocks in the future. These two factors create a poverty trap for individual

households.

Inequality is also affected by shocks. The poorest households are the most affected by

shocks, as explained above. One study in rural China found that the poorest tenth of

households were the most affected by shocks, ‘with 40% of an income shock being

passed on to current consumption. By contrast, consumption by the richest third of

households [was] protected from almost 90% of an income shock’ (Jalan & Ravallion

1997: summary). The result of this unequal effect is that inequality usually perpetuates

itself or increases with the incidence of shocks (Zimmerman & Carter, 2003), or in

colloquial terms: ‘the rich get richer and the poor get poorer’.

Finally, the implications of risk management potentially lower economic growth. On

the individual household level, the need to manage risk discourages investment. On the

community level, social and kinship networks designed to minimise risk by sharing

good fortune may also discourage investment that might create more wealth in future

(Jakiela & Ozier, 2012). (Have you come across this effect in your own life – eg difficulty

in saving because you have to help out poor relatives?)

For the above reasons, vulnerability to risks and shocks is a key aspect of poverty, and

minimising vulnerability is likely to have a major effect not only on individual welfare

but also on overall economic growth. This is a very important part of the argument in

favour of social protection.

2.3 Livelihoods approach

An influential way of thinking about poverty and poverty reduction, which incorporates

concepts of risk and vulnerability, is the ‘livelihoods’ approach.

‘Sustainable livelihoods’ thinking was first developed in the 1990s in the UK. It built on

the human capabilities approach to incorporate thinking about long-term social and

environmental sustainability as well as risk and vulnerability, particularly in the rural

context.

One definition of sustainable livelihoods (Scoones, 2009, simplified from Chambers &

Conway, 1992) is:

‘A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and

social resources) and activities for a means of living. A livelihood is

sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks,

maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the

natural resource base’

Source: Scoones (2009) p. 172.


© SOAS CeDEP 28

The original sustainable livelihoods approach represented an alternative paradigm

(way of thinking) to the dominant approach to poverty reduction and food insecurity

reduction that was based on maximising economic growth. The approach promoted an

alternative, bottom-up way of conceptualising and measuring poverty and livelihoods,

that could help frame the choices made by governments and international actors in

promoting certain types of growth. For example, a major hardwood logging operation

for export might increase GDP in the short term, and provide some local jobs, but might

not be viewed as very positive through a sustainable livelihoods lens. The livelihoods

approach also highlighted the diversity of income sources of poor households and the

importance of risk and vulnerability.

A number of frameworks have been developed for sustainable livelihoods which reflect

slightly different emphases. The version in 2.3.1 is probably the best known: it is from

the UK Department for International Development, which promoted its version of the

livelihoods approach heavily in the late 1990s. A central focus of this version has been

the so-called ‘livelihoods capitals pentagon’ which can be seen to the left on the

diagram. This presents a simplified model of human capabilities and assets, as being

composed of five ‘capitals’:

H – Human capital: eg education, good health, cognitive and non-cognitive skills.

N – Natural capital: eg access to land, water, woodland resources and other natural

resources (‘NR’ in the diagram).

S – Social capital: eg access to supportive networks of family, friends and neighbours,

political access. Note that some writers (eg Hulme et al, 2001) have argued that social

capital is too apolitical and general a term, and suggest that it should be divided into

‘socio-political’ and ‘socio-cultural’ capital.

F – Financial capital: eg income from wages or sales of produce, savings, credit and

financial assets (note that only the last of these is included in the ordinary meaning of

the term financial capital).

P – Physical capital: eg tools and equipment for work, house, electricity, bicycle.

2.3.1 UK Department for International Development version of Sustainable

Livelihoods Framework

Source: re-drawn from DFID (1999) p. 1.


© SOAS CeDEP 29

The concept of ‘capitals’ is useful for thinking about vulnerability to risks and shocks

that affect poverty and food insecurity. The capitals serve as a type of buffer to shocks,

and the approach recognises that different households may develop different kinds of

buffers. For example, if a poor farming family loses their harvest to drought, they may

be able to call on natural capital (picking wild food, selling firewood) which is not

available to an urban family. Similarly, a poor family with many friends and relatives

may be able to call on social capital for support (for example, with childcare while they

are out at work), while a rich but friendless urban couple may use their financial

capital to buy similar services.

The imaginary example above is depicted diagrammatically in 2.3.2. It is important,

however, to realise that no-one has developed a reliable method of measuring capitals,

so the diagram only reflects a qualitative impression. The further from the centre a

household is along each of the five axes of the pentagon, the greater their endowment

of the capital class in question. Thus, the poor rural household in this example has

greater natural and social capital than the rich urban one, but the rich urban one has

more human, physical and financial capital.

2.3.2 Livelihoods capitals diagram showing two imaginary households

Source: unit author

How is the livelihoods approach used in practice? It has mainly been used by

organisations working at the field level. The framework helps us think systematically

about different ‘entry points’ or ways of tackling a problem, as shown in the diagram in

2.3.3 (taken from a slightly different livelihoods framework used by the Swiss Agency

for Development and Cooperation). The strength of the approach is that it starts with

the household, rather than the macro-economy, and compels us to look at poverty from

a holistic perspective. It helps us think about the things that make households

vulnerable to poverty and food insecurity, the different kinds of ‘capitals’ that support

them and the policies and institutions that have an effect on their present and future

livelihoods. It also makes us think more systematically about potential sources of future

household vulnerability, for example, the effect on a rural household of loss of access to

common property resources such as pasture and woodlands (Alden Wily, 2012).


© SOAS CeDEP 30

2.3.3 Using the livelihoods approach to identify ‘entry points’ for tackling poverty:

example from Swiss Development Cooperation

Source: re-drawn from poverty-wellbeing.net (n.d.)

However, the livelihoods approach also has a number of limitations. It has been

criticised for failing to engage with some key areas of development thinking, for

example, markets and technology (Dorward et al, 2003), globalisation and other

‘fundamental transformatory shifts in rural economies’ (Scoones ,2009). Like other

holistic, participatory and qualitative methods, it is hard to scale up and hard to use

within sectoral institutions, such as a government ministry responsible for food

security (Devereux et al, 2004). Finally, although a ‘livelihoods perspective’ enables a

broad analysis of problems, it does not point to any particular type of solution. A

livelihoods analysis may be employed to give an air of objectivity and rationality to

what are in fact deeply political decisions (Scoones, 2009).

Like food security, the concept of sustainable livelihoods has gone through many

permutations (some of which drop the sustainability aspect), and has been used by

many institutions. It has proved useful in thinking through both food security and social

protection issues.


© SOAS CeDEP 31


3 True or false?

Relative poverty is when one country is just a little bit richer than another.

4 Which of these activities can be considered as consumption smoothing?

(a) Borrowing a cup of sugar from a neighbour

(b) Vaccinating your chickens against disease

(c) Storing most of your maize harvest

(d) Taking a microfinance loan

(e) Eating fewer meals when food prices rise

5 Apply each type of ‘livelihood capital’ to the appropriate segment in the diagram.

(a) The grazing area near your house

(b) The woodland near the house

(c) Your healthy baby girl

(d) Your income from vegetable sales

(e) Your membership of a trade union

(f) Your mother in the next village

(g) Your oxen and plough

(h) Your son finished primary school

(i) Your wage from labouring


© SOAS CeDEP 32

3.0 SOCIAL PROTECTION: A BRIEF INTRODUCTION

Section Overview

This section provides an initial introduction to social protection and its potential roles.

It also introduces the concept of values (‘normative underpinnings’) and their

importance in debates on social protection and food security. Finally, it explains some

of the key terms used regarding social protection, and explains the limitations of what

this module will cover.



• explain some of the main differences in definitions of social protection

• discuss the competing values and world views that underpin debates on social

protection and food security policy

• explain the key terms used in social protection.

3.1 Introduction

Watch the World Bank and UNDP videos (World Bank, 2012a, UNDP, 2011;

available in the Key Study Materials listing). Note down the types of social

protection described.

Many wealthy countries have so-called ‘cradle-to-grave welfare states’ where citizens

are assured of some financial support in their old age and in times of difficulty. In

contrast, in poor countries, the coverage of social protection measures has been much

lower and uneven, although many governments have provided some type of support to

citizens in hard times, in particular, food subsidies. This has a long history: for example,

grain was distributed to the poor in ancient Egypt and Rome. Until the beginning of this

century, the majority of international support for the poorest people was organised

through civil society organisations or humanitarian responses to disasters, rather than

as systematic support to long-term social protection.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, the International Financial Institutions (IFIs –

principally the International Monetary Fund and World Bank) took the view that large-

scale investment in social protection was a luxury that developing country governments

could not afford. The so-called ‘Washington Consensus’ promoted a development model

based on market liberalisation reforms, and a diminished role of the government in the

economy and society in favour of an increased role of the market in the provision of

social services. Poverty reduction was to be achieved through a ‘trickling down’ of the

benefits of growth to the poor through greater income-generating opportunities. The

Washington Consensus prioritised macroeconomic stability through the control of

inflation and the reduction of fiscal deficits, the opening of the national economy to

international trade and capital flows, and the liberalisation of domestic consumer and


© SOAS CeDEP 33

factor markets through privatisation and deregulation (Gore, 2000). Although some

social spending was supported by the IFIs, this was very limited:

‘In the social safety net approach, social policies were considered as

residual to economic development. The implementation of such measures

was driven by the need to provide relief to the poor and vulnerable during

structural reform by cushioning the effects of the structural adjustments

and facilitating political support to them. These measures were generally

temporary, fragmented and targeted to the poor and vulnerable in a

needs-based framework’

Source: Bachelet (2011) pp. 12–13.

A combination of factors changed the international discourse. These arguably included:

• the Mexican government introduced a very successful cash transfer programme

to poor households (Progresa, later called Oportunidades), and an evaluation

demonstrated rapid improvements in nutrition, health and education outcomes

for children

• the Indian government introduced an influential programme (National Rural

Employment Guarantee Act) giving the right to temporary employment to poor

rural people

• the Ethiopian government and its aid donors noted the large amounts of funding

going to foreign food aid year after year, and started investigating more sustainable

alternatives. This resulted in one of the world’s largest social protection

programmes in a very poor country (Productive Safety Nets Programme)

• the Millennium Development Goals and targets adopted in 2001 (now

superseded by the Sustainable Development Goals), which encouraged poor

countries and donors alike to prioritise social measures that would reduce

poverty more rapidly, together with pressure on major aid donors to fund these.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the coverage of social protection and other

social services in poor countries has shot up (Barrientos, 2011). There has also been

new light focused on older social support programmes, especially food subsidies, and a

lively discussion of how best to approach and support social protection aims.

3.2 Values and their influence on social policies

This seems a good moment for taking a little side trip to discuss some of the values

which underpin discussions of social policy, and to introduce some of the terminology

used in the economic literature in particular.

Different values and world views permeate thinking about social protection and food

security. It is important to look for implicit assumptions which may underlie apparently

neutral statements. These can include, for example:

• Different views on desirable social and moral objectives: For example, one

person may see improved gender equality as an essential part of poverty

reduction, and another may disagree.


© SOAS CeDEP 34

• Different ideological beliefs about individual responsibility for life outcomes. For example:

‘at least in theory [...] Americans overwhelmingly agree that individuals,

not society, are to blame for personal failures. ...Unlike Americans, about

seven in ten (72%) Germans, more than half (57%) of the French and

nearly four in ten (41%) of the British see success determined by forces

outside their influence.’

Source: Stokes (2013) p. 8, data from PEW Global attitudes survey, 2011.

• Different definitions and measurements: For example, different priorities

may result if poverty is defined from a happiness perspective, rather than as

income.

• Different underlying theories about how to reach the objectives. One

example is the balance between market-led and state-led views of growth and

human development. Many countries have lively debates about to what extent

the state has a right to intervene in household choices, for example, in

promoting nutritious food, or in insisting that all citizens must take out health

insurance.

• Different views about the desirable balance between different objectives, for

example, between growth and poverty reduction, or between equity and

economic efficiency.

• Absolute versus relative views of what should be done. A major example that

you will meet in food security and social protection is the Rights Based

Approach (Nyamu-Musembi & Cornwall, 2004; Gauri & Gloppen, 2012), which

takes the position that all human beings have equal rights, and that every

human being has the moral and legal right to a minimum standard of living,

including access to food. There are two main competing world views to the

Rights Based Approach. First, many economists take the view that given limited

economic resources and competing investments, immediate needs should be

viewed in the context of trade-offs between short-term and long-term objectives

(eg, they may estimate that education may be a more beneficial investment in

the long run for a particular group of people than immediate social protection

payments). Rights based approaches have also been challenged from the

cultural perspective: for example, not everyone in the world accepts that all

people (particularly men and women) should be equal, and there have been

questions as to whether international human rights should trump local cultural

norms. Both of these arguments take a relativist position in contrast to the

absolutist position that there are certain human rights which must be fulfilled

for all human beings, whatever the cost.


© SOAS CeDEP 35

Values can be closely correlated with how much support the tax-paying public wants to

give to social protection schemes, see 3.2.1.

3.2.1 Societal attitudes about poverty and spending on social welfare

Source: Alesina and Glaeser (2004) p. 188 via Grosh et al (2008) p. 59.

Terminology

Economics distinguishes between positive statements – factual statements that

attempt to describe reality – and normative statements, which incorporate a vision of

what ‘should be’ the case. For example, ‘one million people are poor’ is a positive

statement, while ‘social protection is needed to reduce poverty’ is a normative

statement. The words equality and equity are another example: ‘equality’ is

descriptive, while the word ‘equity’ usually has normative connotations of ‘fairness’, ie

that people should have equal chances or be less unequal.

The word underpinnings refers to the set of ideas underlying a normative statement,

which in their turn may be either explicit (clearly stated) or more often implicit

(hidden, perhaps even to the person making the statement). Related terms to

normative underpinnings include: moral and philosophical underpinnings, value

judgements and ideology.

Even positive statements may not be as neutral as they seem. Famously, Thomas

Kuhn in his 1962 book ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ (Kuhn, 1996) pointed out

that the paradigm ( world view) of a scientist affects the questions that s(h)e asks and

how the results are interpreted. A paradigm shift occurs when an accumulation of new

evidence results in the overturning of the previous world view.

Many of the debates that you will come across in social protection reflect strong

normative underpinnings – for example, whether everyone has the right to social

protection or only national citizens; or whether recipients of a benefit should be

identifiable or not (due to stigma).


© SOAS CeDEP 36

3.3 Definitions of social protection

The terminology of social protection is even more complex than that of food security.

Some definitions used by international agencies are in 3.3.1. As you can see from the

exercise below, there are various differences of detail, some of which have specific

policy implications.

3.3.1 Definitions of social protection published by some international agencies

Social protection is/comprises:

A. ‘the set of public measures that a society provides for its members to protect them

against economic and social distress that would be caused by the absence or a

substantial reduction of income from work as a result of various contingencies

(sickness, maternity, employment injury, unemployment, invalidity, old age, and

death of the breadwinner), the provision of health care, and the provision of

benefits for families with children.’ (ILO, cited by various authors including World

Bank, 2012b: p. 101)

B. ‘public interventions that help individuals, households, and communities to manage

risk [better] or that provide support to the critically poor.’ (World Bank, 2001: p. ix )

C. ‘A specific set of actions to address the vulnerability of people’s lives through

social insurance, offering protection against risk and adversity throughout life;

through social assistance, offering payments and in kind transfers to support and

enable the poor; and through inclusion efforts that enhance the capability of the

marginalised to access social insurance and assistance.’ (European Communities,

2010: p. 1)

D. ‘social protection and labor systems, policies, and programs that help individuals

and societies manage risk and volatility and protect them from poverty and

destitution — through instruments that improve resilience, equity, and

opportunity.’(World Bank, 2012b: p. xiii)

E. ‘policies and actions that enhance the capacity of poor and vulnerable people to

escape from poverty, and enable them to better manage risks and shocks. Social

protection measures include social insurance, social transfers and minimum labour

standards.’ (OECD-DAC, 2009: p. 2)

F. ‘the set of public and private policies and programmes aimed at preventing,

reducing and eliminating economic and social vulnerabilities to poverty and

deprivation.’ (UNICEF, 2012: p. 14)

G. ‘traditional family and community support structures, and the interventions by

state and non-state actors that support individuals, households and communities to

prevent, manage, and overcome the risks threatening their present and future

security and wellbeing.’ (Government of Tanzania, cited in Oduro (2010: p. 1)

Source: compiled by unit author from quoted sources

Study the definitions in 3.3.1. (Don’t worry if you don’t understand all the

details, as we will return to them later.)


© SOAS CeDEP 37

Firstly, which definitions of social protection mention:

(a) Management of risk and/or vulnerability (such as sickness and

unemployment)?

(b) Help to the poorest to meet basic needs/minimum standard of living?

(c) Support with lifecycle events (old age, maternity, etc)?

(d) The reduction of poverty/escape from poverty?

(e) Reducing inequalities in social status? (equity)

(f) Private and community interventions, as well as public?

Secondly, what are the changes in emphasis that you can see between the 2001

and 2012 definitions used by the World Bank?

Thirdly, note the distinction made in definition C between social insurance,

social assistance and social inclusion efforts.

Terminology in this area is not settled, and terms may not be used consistently, even by

the same organisation, so it is important to check what meaning is intended. Some of

the terms you may come across include:

Social transfers: This is the main focus of this module (and when we use the term

‘social protection’ or SP it usually means social transfers). Social transfers (or social

assistance) schemes are non-contributory schemes designed to assist the poorest

and reduce their risks, ie where the benefits obtained from the scheme do not depend

on the individual’s prior contributions. The term safety nets may also be used, for

example, in Grosh et al (2008), but we prefer the term social transfers in recognition

of the fact that this does involve transferring resources from wealthier people (in the

same country or elsewhere) to poorer people. You will also see the term social

security occasionally, especially in extracts and tables taken from papers from OECD

countries. Social transfers may be in various forms or instruments, for example, in

cash (financial, however, not necessarily in actual cash notes) or in kind (for example,

food). Transfers can also be ad hoc (eg emergency food aid) or regular (eg pensions).

There is no clear distinction between these as many instruments (eg public works

programmes or school feeding) can be used either temporarily or on a long-term basis.

Social insurance: This term generally is used to focus on reducing the impact of shocks

and lifecycle events through contributory schemes, ie where the person who receives

the benefit contributes payments in anticipation of benefiting at some point. This

includes, for example, many pension schemes, unemployment and sickness payments,

and national health insurance.

Social security or welfare: These terms are often used to refer to social assistance

programmes, particularly in OECD countries. However, the term welfare state usually

denotes a comprehensive approach to social protection that goes beyond social

assistance to include labour market policies and contributory social insurance

programmes.

Social protection system: this has been defined as ‘a country’s set of social protection

policies and programmes, along with the administrative infrastructure for delivering

them [...]’ (White et al, 2015: p. ix).


© SOAS CeDEP 38


6 The Rights Based Approach is an example of a(n) _______ perspective.

(a) absolutist

(b) relativist

7 Is the following a positive or a normative statement?

In several studies, social transfers were shown to have very little or no impact on

children’s nutritional levels.

8 Which of the following count as social transfers (also called social assistance)?

(a) Food aid

(b) Subsidised sales of food

(c) A minimum national pension which everyone receives

(d) A workplace pension to which you make monthly payments

(e) Free school meals

(f) Free primary education


© SOAS CeDEP 39

UNIT SUMMARY

This unit introduces some of the main concepts, frameworks and terms, including food

security, poverty, social protection and the linkages between them. The importance of

risk and vulnerability is highlighted. A key message of this unit is that definitions are

important: they can affect the policies that are chosen and the way that success is

understood. It is equally important to understand the values and world views that lie

behind policy debates.


© SOAS CeDEP 40

UNIT SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

1 Seasonal hunger – common in semi-arid rural areas of poor countries – is a common

manifestation of which of the four main components of food security?

2 Why is taking measures to increase national food production likely to be an inadequate

policy response to a survey reporting high levels of child malnutrition?

3 List two examples of an idiosyncratic shock and two examples of a covariate shock that

may affect household food security.

4 Poor people are sometimes criticised for ‘wasting their money’ contributing to social

events such as weddings and funerals, instead of investing it in productive, money-

making opportunities. Do you think this is a fair criticism? Make reference to concepts

from Unit 1 in your answer.


© SOAS CeDEP 41

KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS

stigma A mark of infamy or social disgrace arising from a person’s specific

circumstances or qualities.


© SOAS CeDEP 42

FURTHER STUDY MATERIALS

Two annual publications that are worth skimming through as general reading on food

security and nutrition:

FAO. (2016) The State of Food Insecurity in the World (SOFI). [Online]. Rome, Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Available from: http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/c2cda20d-ebeb-4467-

8a94-038087fe0f6e/

SOFI is one of FAO’s annual flagship publications. It presents the latest global estimates

on food insecurity and also focuses on a particular theme each year, usually with a slant

towards under-nutrition.

IFPRI. (2014) The Global Nutrition Report. [Online]. Washington DC, International Food

Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Available from: http://globalnutritionreport.org/

GNR is an initiative involving both countries and international organisations. The

annual reports present data on all aspects of nutrition and also track financing and

activities that tackle malnutrition in all its forms. Please note that the GNR is now

updated annually, so you can find the latest global data in the latest version (at the same

link). However, since each GNR has a different focus, it may be worth quickly looking at

the table of contents of the most recent two years.

Morduch, J. (1995) Income smoothing and consumption smoothing. Journal of Economic

Perspectives, 9 (3), 103–114.

Available from: http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.9.3.103

This classic paper introduces the concepts of risks and risk aversion and distinguishes

between income- and consumption-smoothing strategies adopted by households in the

backdrop of missing or incomplete insurance and credit markets. The discussion

highlights the role of, and costs associated with, the risk-mitigation strategies which

help smooth income, by affecting household production and employment decisions.

Sen, A.K. (1981) Ingredients of famine analysis: availability and entitlements. The

Quarterly Journal of Economics, 96 (3), 433–464.

Available from: http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/3/433.full.pdf+html

This seminal paper by Amartya Sen introduces what is known as the ‘entitlement’

framework. It was (together with Sen’s book ‘Poverty and Famines’, published in the

same year) influential in shifting the analysis of famine away from a focus on the decline

of food availability as a major cause of famine, to highlight the various channels through

which a household is able, or fails to, acquire enough food. The entitlement approach is

applied to analyse three large-scale famines (in Bengal, Ethiopia and Bangladesh) to

show how famines can occur as a result of direct and trade-based entitlement failures,

even in the absence of food availability decline.

http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/c2cda20d-ebeb-4467-8a94-038087fe0f6e/

http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/c2cda20d-ebeb-4467-8a94-038087fe0f6e/

http://globalnutritionreport.org/

http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.9.3.103

http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/3/433.full.pdf+html


© SOAS CeDEP 43

TV2Africa (21 January 2016) Ethiopia Drought and Food Crisis. [Video]. Duration 5:21

minutes.

Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur4UCBUxhHQ

The Times of India (9 February 2016) Children Starving amid ‘Alarming’ Somalia

Drought. [Video]. Duration 1:31 minutes.

Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkVpggzkKno

Update on the Somalian drought February 2016.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur4UCBUxhHQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkVpggzkKno


© SOAS CeDEP 44

REFERENCES

Al Jazeera News (20 July 2011) Millions Face Famine in Somalia. [Video]. Duration 4:13 minutes.

Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hr7wSDNgxI [Accessed 29 March 2016]

Alden Wily, L. (2012) Customary Land Tenure in the Modern World. Brief 1 of 5, Rights to

Resources in Crisis: Reviewing the Fate of Customary Tenure in Africa, Rights and Resources

Initiative (RRI). Brief 1 of 5. Available from: https://rmportal.net/library/content/

customary-land-tenure-rights-to-resources/view [Accessed 29 March 2016]

Alesina, A. & Glaeser, E.L. (2004) Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference.

Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.

Alkire, S. (2002) Dimensions of human development. World Development, 30 (2), 181–205.

Bachelet, M. (Chair) (2011) Social Protection Floor for a Fair and Inclusive Globalization. Report of

the Advisory Group chaired by Michelle Bachelet convened by the ILO with the collaboration

of the World Health Organization. Geneva, International Labour Organization (ILO).

Barrientos, A. (2011) Social protection and poverty. International Journal of Social Welfare, 20

(3), 240–249.

Benson, T. (2004) Africa’s Food and Nutrition Security Situation: Where Are We and How Did We

Get Here? Washington DC, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2020

Discussion Paper No 27. Available from: http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection

/p15738coll2/id/86135 [Accessed 29 March 2016]

Bradbury, M. (1998) Normalising the crisis in Africa. Disasters, 22 (4), 328–338.

Bradshaw, J., Middleton, S., Davis, A., Oldfield, N., Smith, N., Cusworth, L. & Williams, J. (2008) A

Minimum Income Standard for Britain: What People Think. York, Joseph Rowntree

Foundation. Available from: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/72622/1/Document.pdf

[Accessed 29 March 2016]

CFS. (2012a) Coming to Terms with Terminology. (Draft 30 April 2012). Rome, UN Committee on

World Food Security (CFS). 15–20 October 2012, Rome. 39th Session, CFS 2012/39/4. Available

from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/026/MD776E.pdf [Accessed 29 March 2016]

CFS. (2012b) Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition (GSF). (Second draft

May 2012). Rome, UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS). Available from:

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1112/WGs/GSF/MD976E_GSF_Draft_Tw

o.pdf [Accessed 29 March 2016]

CFS. (2012c) Report of the 39th Session of the Committee on World Food Security. 15–20 October

2012, Rome. UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS). Available from:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/026/mf120e.pdf [Accessed 6 April 2016]

CFS. (2014) Global Strategic Framework for Food Security & Nutrition (GSF). CFS Forty-first

Session ‘Making a Difference in Food Security and Nutrition’. 13–18 October 2014, Rome.

Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-ml200e.pdf [Accessed 6 April 2016]

Chambers, R. & Conway, G. (1992) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st

Century. Brighton, Institute for Development Studies (IDS). Discussion Paper 296. Available

from: http://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/123456789/775/Dp296.

pdf?sequence=1 [Accessed 29 March 2016]

Davis, P. (2006) Poverty in Time: Exploring Poverty Dynamics from Life History Interviews in

Bangladesh. Manchester, Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC). Working Paper 69.

Available from: http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/WP69_Davis.pdf


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hr7wSDNgxI

https://rmportal.net/library/content/‌customary-land-tenure-rights-to-resources/view

https://rmportal.net/library/content/‌customary-land-tenure-rights-to-resources/view

http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection‌/p15738coll2/id/86135

http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection‌/p15738coll2/id/86135

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/72622/1/Document.pdf

http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/026/MD776E.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1112/WGs/GSF/MD976E_GSF_Draft_Two.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1112/WGs/GSF/MD976E_GSF_Draft_Two.pdf

http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/026/mf120e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/a-ml200e.pdf

http://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/123456789/775/Dp296.‌pdf?sequence=1

http://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/123456789/775/Dp296.‌pdf?sequence=1

http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/WP69_Davis.pdf


© SOAS CeDEP 45

Dercon, S. & Krishnan, P. (2000) Vulnerability, seasonality and poverty in Ethiopia. Journal of

Development Studies, 30 (6), 25–53.

Dercon, S. (2006) Vulnerability: a Micro Perspective. Oxford, Queen Elizabeth House, University

of Oxford. Working Paper 149. Available from: http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/RePEc/qeh/

qehwps/qehwps149.pdf [Accessed 29 March 2016]

Devereux, S. (2006) Distinguishing Between Chronic and Transitory Food Insecurity in Emergency

Needs Assessments. Emergency Needs Assessment Branch (ODAN)/Strengthening

Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity (SENAC)/ Institute of Development Studies. Rome,

United Nations World Food Programme (WFP). Available from: http://documents.wfp.org/

stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp085331.pdf [Accessed 29 March 2016]

Devereux, S. (2009) Seasonality and Social Protection in Africa. Brighton, Future Agricultures

Consortium (FAC). Working Paper SP07.

Devereux, S., Baulch, B., Hussein, K., Shoham, J., Sida, H. & Wilcock, D. (2004) Improving the

Analysis of Food Insecurity. Food Insecurity Measurement, Livelihoods Approaches and Policy:

Applications in FIVIMS. Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems

(FIVIMS) Secretariat. Available from: http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/ppme/Final_

Paper5.pdf [Accessed 29 March 2016]

Devereux, S., Sabates-Wheeler, R. & Longhurst, R. (2011) Seasonality, Rural Livelihoods and

Development. Oxford, Routledge.

DFID. (1999) Section 2: Framework. In: Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. London,

Department for International Development (DFID). Available from: http://www.eldis.org/

vfile/upload/1/document/0901/section2.pdf [Accessed 29 March 2016]

Dilley, M. & Boudreau, T.E. (2001) Coming to terms with vulnerability: a critique of the food

security definition. Food Policy, 26 (3), 229–247.

Dorward, A., Poole, N., Morrison, J., Kydd, J. & Urey, I. (2003) Markets, institutions and technology:

missing links in livelihoods analysis. Development Policy Review, 21 (3), 319–332.

European Communities (2010) Social Protection for Inclusive Development: A New Perspective in

EU Co-operation with Africa. The 2010 European Report on Development. Available from:

http://erd.eui.eu/media/2010/Social_Protection_for_Inclusive_Development.pdf [Accessed

29 March 2016]

Fafchamps, M. (2003) Rural Poverty, Risk and Development. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar

Publishing Ltd.

FAO. (2002) The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001. Rome, Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

FAO. (2003) Trade Reforms and Food Security. Conceptualizing the Linkages. Commodity Policy

and Projection Services, Commodity and Trade Division. Rome, Food and Agricultural

Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Available from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005

/y4671e/y4671e00.pdf [Accessed 29 March 2016]

FAO. (2006) Food Security. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

(FAO), Rome. Policy Brief Issue 2. Available from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esa/policybriefs/pb_

02.pdf [Accessed 29 March 2016]

FAO. (2014) Glossary of Commonly Used Nutrition Terms in Arabic, English, Chinese, French,

Spanish and Russian. [Spreadsheet]. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO). Available from: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/faoterm

/PDF/ICN2Glossary-Nov2014.xls [Accessed 6 April 2016]

http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/RePEc/qeh/‌qehwps/qehwps149.pdf

http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/RePEc/qeh/‌qehwps/qehwps149.pdf

http://documents.wfp.org/‌stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp085331.pdf

http://documents.wfp.org/‌stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp085331.pdf

http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/ppme/Final_Paper5.pdf

http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/ppme/Final_Paper5.pdf

http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0901/section2.pdf

http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0901/section2.pdf

http://erd.eui.eu/media/2010/Social_Protection_for_Inclusive_Development.pdf

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y4671e/y4671e00.pdf

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y4671e/y4671e00.pdf

ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esa/policybriefs/pb_02.pdf

ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esa/policybriefs/pb_02.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/faoterm‌/PDF/ICN2Glossary-Nov2014.xls

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/faoterm‌/PDF/ICN2Glossary-Nov2014.xls


© SOAS CeDEP 46

Garrett, J. & Natalicchio, M. (Eds.) (2011) Working Multisectorally in Nutrition: Principles,

Practices, and Case Studies. Washington DC, International Food Policy Research Institute

(IFPRI). Available from: http://www.ifpri.org/publication/working-multisectorally-

nutrition-principles-practices-and-case-studies [Accessed 29 March 2016]

Gauri, V. & Gloppen, S. (2012) Human Rights Based Approaches to Development: Concepts,

Evidence, and Policy. Washington DC, The World Bank. Policy Research Working Paper No

5938. Available from: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContent

Server/WDSP/IB/2012/01/09/000158349_20120109120516/Rendered/PDF/WPS5938.p

df [Accessed 29 March 2016]

GIEWS. (n.d. a) Global Information and Early Warning System. [Online]. Rome, Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Available from: http://www.fao.org/

giews/english/index.htm [Accessed 5 April 2016]

GIEWS. (n.d. b) Countries Requiring External Assistance for Food. [Map]. Rome, Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Global Information and Early

Warning System (GIEWS). Available from: http://www.fao.org/giews/English/hotspots/

map.htm [Accessed 5 April 2016]

Gore, C. (2000) The rise and fall of the Washington consensus as a paradigm for developing

countries. World Development, 28 (5), 789–804.

Grosh, M., del Ninno, C., Tesliuc, E. & Ouerghi, A. (2008) For Protection and Promotion: The

Design and Implementation of Effective Safety Nets. Washington DC, The World Bank.

Hoddinott, J. (2001) Choosing outcome indicators of household food security. In: Hoddinott, J.

(Ed.) Methods for Rural Development Projects. Washington DC, International Food Policy

Research Institute (IFPRI).

Hulme, D., Moore, K. & Shepherd, A. (2001) Chronic Poverty: Meanings and Analytical

Frameworks. Manchester, Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC). CPRC Working Paper 2.

Available from: http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/WP02_Hulme

_et_al.pdf [Accessed 29 March 2016]

IFPRI. (2015) 2015 Global Nutrition Report. Actions and Accountability to Advance Nutrition and

Sustainable Development. Washington DC, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Jakiela, P. & Ozier, O. (2012) Does Africa Need a Rotten Kin Theorem ? Experimental Evidence

from Village Economies. Washington DC, The World Bank. Policy Research Working Paper

No 6085. Available from: http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/6085.html [Accessed 29

March 2016]

Jalan, J. & Ravallion, M. (1997) Are the Poor Less Well-Insured? Evidence on Vulnerability to

Income Risk in Rural China. Washington DC, The World Bank. Policy Research Working

Paper No 1863.

Kuhn, T.S. (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd edition. Chicago, University of

Chicago Press.

Levinson, J. (2002) Searching for a Home: The Institutionalization Issue in International Nutrition.

Washington DC and New York, The World Bank–UNICEF Nutrition Assessment. Background

Paper, pp. 131–143.

Maslow, A.H. (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4), 370–396.

Merriam-Webster (n.d.) Dictionary. [Online]. Available from: http://www.merriam-webster.com


http://www.ifpri.org/publication/working-multisectorally-nutrition-principles-practices-and-case-studies

http://www.ifpri.org/publication/working-multisectorally-nutrition-principles-practices-and-case-studies

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/01/09/000158349_20120109120516/Rendered/PDF/WPS5938.pdf



http://www.fao.org/giews/english/index.htm

http://www.fao.org/giews/english/index.htm

http://www.fao.org/giews/English/hotspots/map.htm

http://www.fao.org/giews/English/hotspots/map.htm

http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/WP02_Hulme_et_al.pdf

http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/WP02_Hulme_et_al.pdf

http://ideas.repec.org/s/wbk/wbrwps.html

http://ideas.repec.org/s/wbk/wbrwps.html

http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/6085.html

http://www.merriam-webster.com/


© SOAS CeDEP 47

Narayan, D., Chambers, R., Shah, M. & Petesch, P. (1999) Global Synthesis: Consultations with the

Poor. Draft. Washington DC, The World Bank. Available from: http://siteresources.world

bank.org/INTPOVERTY/Resources/335642-1124115102975/1555199-

1124138742310/synthes.pdf [Accessed 29 March 2016]

Narayan, D., Chambers, R., Shah, M. K., & Petesch, P. (2000) Voices of the Poor: Crying out for

Change. New York, Oxford University Press for The World Bank.

Nyamu-Musembi, C. & Cornwall, A. (2004) What is the ‘Rights-based Approach’ All About?

Perspectives from International Development Agencies. Brighton, Institute of Development

Studies (IDS). Working Paper No 234. Available from: http://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/

what-is-the-rights-based-approach-all-about-perspectives-from-international-development

-agencies [Accessed 29 March 2016]

Oduro, A.D. (2010) Formal and Informal Social Protection in sub‐Saharan Africa. Paper Prepared

for the European Report on Development (ERD), August 2010. Available from:

http://erd.eui.eu/media/2010/Oduro_Formal%20and%20Informal%20Social%20Protecti

on%20in%20Africa.pdf [Accessed 6 April 2016]

OECD. (2011) How’s Life? Measuring Well-Being. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development (OECD).

OECD-DAC. (2009) The Role of Employment and Social Protection: Making Economic Growth More

Pro-Poor. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development–Development

Assistance Committee.

poverty-wellbeing.net (n.d.) The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach – a Reference Frame for SDC.

[Online]. Available from: https://www.shareweb.ch/site/Poverty-Wellbeing [Accessed 29

March 2016]

Ravallion, M. & Chen, S. (2010) Weakly relative poverty. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93

(4), 1251–1261.

Ravallion, M. (2012) Poor, or Just Feeling Poor? On Using Subjective Data in Measuring Poverty.

Washington DC, The World Bank. Policy Research Working Paper No 5968. Available from:

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/02/13/

000158349_20120213135845/Rendered/PDF/WPS5968.pdf [Accessed 29 March 2016]

Rosenzweig, M.R. & Binswanger, H.P. (1993) Wealth, weather risk and the composition and

profitability of agricultural investments. Economic Journal, 103 (416), 56–78.

Scoones, I. (2009) Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. Journal of Peasant Studies,

36 (1), 171–196.

Sen, A.K. (1981) Ingredients of famine analysis: availability and entitlements. The Quarterly

Journal of Economics, 96 (3), 433–464. Available from: http://qje.oxfordjournals.org

/content/96/3/433.full.pdf+html [Accessed 29 March 2016]

Sen, A.K. (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Stokes, B. (2013) Public Attitudes Toward the Next Social Contract. PEW Research Center.

Washington DC, New America Foundation. Available from: http://www.pewglobal.org/files

/pdf/Stokes_Bruce_NAF_Public_Attitudes_1_2013.pdf [Accessed 6 April 2016]

UNDP. (1990) Human Development Report 1990. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

UNDP. (2011) A Social Protection Floor for All. [Video.]. Geneva, International Labour

Organization (ILO). Duration 6:50 minutes. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=VhdfxHnJAl0 [Accessed 29 March 2016]

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVERTY/Resources/335642-1124115102975/1555199-1124138742310/synthes.pdf



http://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/what-is-the-rights-based-approach-all-about-perspectives-from-international-development-agencies



http://erd.eui.eu/media/2010/Oduro_Formal%20and%20Informal%20Social%20Protection%20in%20Africa.pdf

http://erd.eui.eu/media/2010/Oduro_Formal%20and%20Informal%20Social%20Protection%20in%20Africa.pdf

https://www.shareweb.ch/site/Poverty-Wellbeing

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/02/13/000158349_20120213135845/Rendered/PDF/WPS5968.pdf

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/02/13/000158349_20120213135845/Rendered/PDF/WPS5968.pdf



http://www.pewglobal.org/files/pdf/Stokes_Bruce_NAF_Public_Attitudes_1_2013.pdf

http://www.pewglobal.org/files/pdf/Stokes_Bruce_NAF_Public_Attitudes_1_2013.pdf




© SOAS CeDEP 48

UNICEF. (2009) Tracking Progress on Child and Maternal Nutrition: A Survival and Development

Priority. New York, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Available from:

http://www.unicef.org/nutrition/files/Tracking_Progress_on_Child_and_Maternal_Nutritio

n_EN_110309.pdf [Accessed 29 March 2016]

UNICEF. (2012) Integrated Social Protection Systems: Enhancing Equity for Children. UNICEF

Social Protection Strategic Framework. New York, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).

Available from: https://www.unicef.org/socialprotection/framework/files/UNICEF_Social_

Protection_Strategic_Framework_full_doc_std%281%29.pdf [Accessed 29 March 2016]

UNICEF. (2015) UNICEF, WHO, World Bank Joint Child Malnutrition Dataset. September 2015

Edition. New York, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Available from:

http://data.unicef.org/nutrition/malnutrition.html [Accessed 5 April 2016]

Ura, K., Alkire, S. & Zangmo, T. (2012) Case study: Bhutan. Gross National Happiness and the

GNH Index. In: Helliwell, J., Layard, R. & Sachs, J. (Eds.) World Happiness Report. New York,

United Nations/Columbia University. pp. 108–148. Available from: http://www.earth

.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Sachs%20Writing/2012/World%20Happiness%20Report.pdf


Vicarelli, M. (2010) Exogenous Income Shocks and Consumption Smoothing Strategies Among

Rural Households in Mexico. Harvard, Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Available

from: http://yale.academia.edu/MartaVicarelli/Papers/1369512/Exogenous_Income_

Shocks_and_Consumption_Smoothing_Strategies_Among_Rural_Households_in_Mexico


White, P., Hodges, A. & Greenslade, M. (2015) Measuring and Maximising Value for Money in

Social Protection Systems. London, UK Department for International Development (DFID).

Available from: http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/outputs/ChronicPoverty/61479_ValueFor

MoneyInSocialProtectionSystems_24Nov2015.pdf [Accessed 6 April 2016]

WHO. (2015) Prevalence of Obesity. Washington DC, The World Bank. Available from:

http://gamapserver.who.int/mapLibrary/Files/Maps/Global_Obesity_2014_Female.png


World Bank (2001) Social Protection Sector Strategy: From Safety Net to Springboard.

Washington DC, The World Bank. Available from: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/extern

al/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/01/26/000094946_01011705303891/Ren

dered/PDF/multi_page.pdf [Accessed 29 March 2016]

World Bank (2012a) Catching Hope: Safety Nets Change Lives in Brazil and Ethiopia. Washington

DC, The World Bank. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bovGA93Q5-

s&feature=relmfu [Accessed 29 March 2016]

World Bank (2012b) Resilience, Equity, and Opportunity: The World Bank’s Social Protection and

Labor Strategy 2012–2022. Washington DC, The World Bank. Available from:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/Resources/280558-

1274453001167/7089867-1279223745454/7253917-1291314603217/SPL_Strategy

_2012-22_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 29 March 2016]

Zimmerman, F.J. & Carter, M.R. (2003) Asset smoothing, consumption smoothing and the

reproduction of inequality under risk and subsistence constraints. Journal of Development

Economics, 71 (2), 233–260.

http://www.unicef.org/nutrition/files/Tracking_Progress_on_Child_and_Maternal_Nutrition_EN_110309.pdf

http://www.unicef.org/nutrition/files/Tracking_Progress_on_Child_and_Maternal_Nutrition_EN_110309.pdf

https://www.unicef.org/socialprotection/framework/files/UNICEF_Social_‌Protection_Strategic_Framework_full_doc_std%281%29.pdf

https://www.unicef.org/socialprotection/framework/files/UNICEF_Social_‌Protection_Strategic_Framework_full_doc_std%281%29.pdf

http://data.unicef.org/nutrition/malnutrition.html

http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Sachs%20Writing/2012/World%20Happiness%20Report.pdf

http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Sachs%20Writing/2012/World%20Happiness%20Report.pdf

http://yale.academia.edu/MartaVicarelli/Papers/1369512/Exogenous_Income_Shocks_and_Consumption_Smoothing_Strategies_Among_Rural_Households_in_Mexico

http://yale.academia.edu/MartaVicarelli/Papers/1369512/Exogenous_Income_Shocks_and_Consumption_Smoothing_Strategies_Among_Rural_Households_in_Mexico

http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/outputs/ChronicPoverty/61479_ValueForMoneyInSocialProtectionSystems_24Nov2015.pdf

http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/outputs/ChronicPoverty/61479_ValueForMoneyInSocialProtectionSystems_24Nov2015.pdf

http://gamapserver.who.int/mapLibrary/Files/Maps/Global_Obesity_2014_Female.png

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/01/26/000094946_01011705303891/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf





http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/Resources/280558-1274453001167/7089867-1279223745454/7253917-1291314603217/SPL_Strategy_2012-22_FINAL.pdf



P126 Food Security and Social Protection · Food Security and Social Protection Authored by Julia...

Documents

Transcript of P126 Food Security and Social Protection · Food Security and Social Protection Authored by Julia...