Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ABSTRACT
The study aims to assess the impact of two short term demand-side policies on the food security of landless rural
households. A conceptual model is designed to work out the policy impact pathways using a partial equilibrium
technique. Primary data from 576 landless rural households was analyzed using a two-stage (fold) regression model. The
first stage of the analysis shows that food subsidies significantly improve food intake along with monthly income,
livestock assets (large animals) and household heads education The second stage shows that monthly income increases
due to the minimum wage rate, joint family system, livestock assets (large animals), and education level of intermediate
and graduation.
Keywords: Demand-side policies; impact assessment; rural food security; landless households; Punjab; Pakistan
Despite its importance and contribution, the proportion of
the undernourished population in the country is high,
namely 17.2 percent (FAO, 2013).
The Punjab is a home to the largest population
of the country, accommodating 54.34 percent of the total
population. Its agriculture sector contributes the most
towards the countrys agricultural GDP (57 percent). It
has more than 3.8 million farms out of 6.6 million in
Pakistan (GOP, 2013). However, more than 70 percent of
the households in the province are landless. They earn
most of their income from non-agricultural sources and
are mostly engaged in informal activities. Usually, they
earn their livelihood from paid employment and self
employment (Anwar et al., 2004). Such households are
the most vulnerable ones to food insecurity (Yasin,
2000).
In Pakistan, like other developing countries, the
governments have considered short term policies to deal
with food insecurity. Two demand-side policies have in
particular been implemented by the government: a food
subsidy and a minimum wage rate. Despite being in
operation for a long time, the high number of currently
undernourished population calls into question the real
contribution of these policies. This study aims to assess
the impact of these policies on effective household food
security, especially regarding the landless rural
households. To achieve this aim, the specific research
questions are: What is the role of selected policies in
INTRODUCTION
Today, food insecurity is a worldwide concern
as the number of undernourished people soars to 842
million, about 12% of the worlds population.
Undernourishment is most severe in developing
countries. This is especially true of Africa and Asia
where more than 92percent of the worlds
undernourished people live, i.e. 226.4 and 552 million,
respectively. In South Asia only, 294.7 million people are
undernourished, which comprises 35 percent of the total
undernourishment of the world (FAO, 2013).
Governments in these countries are trying hard to deal
with this problem. Their investments in food security
policies have been increasing through several
development programs, but their contribution to reducing
food insecurity appears so far to have been negligible
(Babatunde et al., 2007; Fayeye and Ola, 2007; and
Oriola, 2009).
Pakistan gained food self sufficiency in 1980s
(Gera, 2004) and continuously retained this status (Bashir
et al., 2007; and Bashir et al., 2012). Its economy is
mostly agrarian and the share of agriculture is 21.4
percent of GDP. The agriculture sector employs about 45
percent of the total labour force and provides shelter to 65
percent of the total population (GOP, 2013). Pakistan is
one of the leading producers of many important
agricultural commodities in the world1 (FAO, 2011).
1World
1554
Bashir et al.,
1555
Bashir et al.,
1556
Bashir et al.,
ln Cal
8 EM
1 fSub
9 EI
ln 2 mI
10 EG
3 hS
4 hhA
5 hD
6 LS
Li
7 EP
(4)
Where:
ln Cal i
LS Li
th
household
EPi
fSubi
ln mI i
th
household
EM i
ith household
hS i
hhAi
EI i
th
hDi
1557
Bashir et al.,
EGi
010
i
= coefficients of regression
= error term
mI i 0 1 mwr 2 hhA i 3 TE i 4 Ft i 5 LS ( L ) i 6 LS ( S ) i 7 EP i 8 EM
9 EI i
10 EG i 2 i
(5)
Where:
mI i
mwri
hhAi
TE i
household
Ft i
LS( L)i
LS( S )i
EPi
EM i
EI i
EGi
010
2i
= coefficients of regression
= error term
There are three common variables in both the
models i.e. household heads age, livestock assets (large
animals) and household heads educational status. In the
first-stage model, household heads age is expected to
1558
Bashir et al.,
Std.
Dev
590 4980 3006 879
3000 48792 13210 6424
23
75
45
10
Min
Max Mean
2
1
0
18
5
15
6
1
1
2
1
2
10
Education levels
Illiterate
Number of households
171 (29.69%)
Household distribution by getting food subsidy
Primary
210 (36.46%)
Number of households
Household distribution by off-farm work
Number of households
Household distribution by getting minimum wage
Number of households
Household distribution by decision making
Number of households
Household distribution by family structure
Number of households
Middle
65 (11.28%)
Intermediate
86 (14.93%)
Graduation
44 (7.64%)
Yes
506 (87.8%)
No
70 (12.2%)
Got
472 (93.28%)
females
149 (25.9%)
Males
427 (74.1%)
Nuclear
413 (71.7%)
Joint
163 (28.3%)
1559
Bashir et al.,
3For
log-log variables, = i |
For log-linear variables, = i(mean of independent
variable)
1560
Bashir et al.,
Variables
Minimum wage rate
(MWRi)
Household heads age
(HHHAi)
Total earning members
(Teari)
Family structure (FSti)
Livestock large animals
(LSA(L)i)
Livestock small animal
(LSA(S)i)
Education primary (Edu(P)i)
Education middle (Edu(M)i)
Education intermediate
(Edu(I)i)
Education graduation
(Edu(G)i)
(Constant)
Robust t
S.E. value 4
2646.63** 548.35 4.83
0.163
-65.60** 20.82 -3.15
-0.224
-210.30 358.260-0.60
-0.021
4924.55** 531.35 9.27 0.105
1169.68 ** 390.62 2.99
0.064
-197.19 487.14 -0.40
-0.008
-244.50 480.31 -0.51 -0.007
-228.56 688.03 -0.33 -0.002
1779.50* 697.52 2.55
0.020
5517.76** 1346.30 4.1
0.032
11587.36** 1091.1510.62 N/A
4For
1561
Bashir et al.,
REFERENCES
Ahmed, A.U., H.E. Bouis, T. Gutner and H. Lfgren
(2001). The Egyptian food subsidy system:
structure, performance, and options for reform.
Research Report 119, International Food Policy
Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
AIOU (2001). Food composition table for Pakistan.
Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad,
Pakistan.
Aikaeli, J (2010). Determinants of rural income in
Tanzania: an empirical approach. Research
Report 10/4, Dares Salaam, REPOA.
Ali, A. and M.A. Khan (2013). Livestock ownership in
ensuring rural household food security in
Pakistan. The J. Anim. Plant Sci., 23(1):313318.
Amaza, P.S., J.C. Umeh, J. Helsen and A.O. Adejobi
(2006). Determinants and measurement of food
insecurity in Nigeria: some empirical policy
guide. Presented at international association of
agricultural economists annual meeting, August
12-18, Queensland, Australia, online available at
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream
/25357/1/pp060591.pdf,
accessed
on
04/01/2014.
Anwar, T., S.K. Qureshi and H. Ali (2004). Landlessness
and rural poverty in Pakistan. The Pakistan
Development Review, 43: 855-874.
Babatunde R.O., O.A. Omotesho and O.S. Sholotan
(2007). Socio-economic characteristics and food
security status of farming households in Kwara
State, North-Central Nigeria. Pakistan J.
Nutrition, 6: 49-58.
Barkley, A.P (1992). Wheat price policy in Pakistan: a
welfare economics approach. The Pakistan
Development Review, 31: 1145-1156.
Barrett, C.B (2002). Food security and food assistance
programs.
Chapter
40,
Handbook
of
Agricultural Economics, 2, Edited by B.
Gardner and G. Rausser, Elsevier Science.
Bashir, M.K., A. Amin and M.K. Naeem (2010a). Microcredit and poverty alleviation in Pakistan. World
Applied Sciences J., 8: 1381-1386.
Bashir, M.K., M.K. Naeem and S.A.K. Niazi (2010b).
Rural and peri-urban food security: a case of
1562
Bashir et al.,
1563
Bashir et al.,
Peyrot,
1564