Agricultural Economics Research ReviewVol 30 No1 JanuaryJune 20 - PDF document

Agricultural Economics Research ReviewVol. 30 (No.1) January-June 2017 pp 23-35Tracking Transition in Calorie-Intake among IndianICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi-110 012NITI Aayog, New Delhi-110 001the year 2009-10 which got reversed during 2011-12. The reversal in the trend in calorie-intake hasseveral important implications for dietary transition and nutritional interventions. The improvement innourishment during 2011-12 is accompanied by a decline in inequality in calorie-intake. Among theeconomic forces, squeezed food budget has been the major factor responsible for the decline in dietaryenergy intake during 1993-94 to 2004-05, while the sufficiently large increase in income along withimproved PDS after 2004-05 has triggered the upward trend in energy intake during the recent years. Thepaper has indicated that effect of subsidies spent on in-kind PDS transfer on calorie-intake is 3.5-3.9times the effect of direct cash transfer of food subsidy. Therefore, the study has underlined the strengtheningUndernourishment, inequality, trend reversal, PDS, cash transferIntroductionIndia since independence. This was sought to beefforts, no significant progress could be achieved inreducing the incidence of hunger and under-Meenkashi and Vishwanathan, 2003; Deaton andthough there exists a wide variation in the estimates ofundernourished population among different sources.nutrition over time (Meenakshi and Vishwanathan,and Basole, 2012). However, adequate explanation onwhy the increase in per-capita income and foodproduction could not bring a significant decline inunder-nutrition, is not available in the literature, exceptsome plausible answers like voluntary hunger, poor while big increases in per-capita income and foodperiod. The per-capita real income in India increased *Author for correspondenceEmail: shivendraiari@gmail.com A few studies have estimated the incidence of under-

nutri-tion during the year 2009-10 also, but it was an agricultur-ally abnormal year. 24Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol.30 (No.1) January-June 2017to 2011-12. Similarly, per-capita food production2.79 per cent annual growth during 2004-05 to 2011-annum during 1993-94 to 2004-05. The farmers’during 2004-05 to 2011-12 (Chand et al., 2015). Thefrom 37.2 per cent in 2004-05 to 21.9 per cent in 2011-12 based on Tendulkar methodology (GoI, 2013). Itin growth rates of per-capita income and food05, have affected the level of nutrition in the country.to food after 2004-05. The paper has also estimatedinfluencing under-nourishment. Using the evidencesvarious rounds, the paper has compared the effect ofcash transfer and physical distribution of grains throughNational Sample Survey Office (NSSO) pertaining tothe years 1993-94, 2004-05, 2009-10 and 2011-12. Thelevel of under-nutrition was estimated from the gapbetween actual dietary intake of energy (calories) andrecommended dietary norms. The per-capita actualcommodities reported in the surveys (GoI, 2014a). Aswas examined separately for the rural and urban areastherein. The expenditure-classes were constructed byon monthly per-capita consumption expenditure(MPCE). The mean calorie-intake was compared withactive life, based on different norms, to assess thelarge difference exists in the use of calorie normsamong different agencies. Indian Council of MedicalResearch (ICMR) recommends per-person per-daykcal for urban areas, while Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO) uses a common minimum requiredcalorie norm of 1800 kcal per-person per-day for bothrural and urban population. Therefore, the estimatesof under-nutrition were prepared by estimating calorie-intake than recommended norms) andrecommended norms of ICMR and FAO.estimating gini coefficient. The gini coefficient in thisIt ranges from zero to one and the coefficient valuecloser to one indicates higher inequalit

y. For estimatinginequality, households were grouped into ten equaldecile classes based on per-capita daily calorie-intakeand gini coefficient was estimated by the formula (1); =The per-capita calorie intake of and =Number of households in each decile class,=Total number of households, and=Weighted mean per capita calorie intake.years 1993-94, 2004-05 and 2011-12. The monetaryand urban areas, respectively (GoI, 2014b). The Srivastava and Chand : Tracking Transition in Calorie-Intake among Indian Households + * PDSSUPPLY+* FARMING + * FAMILSIZE +* AGE + * EDUCATION+ YEARDUMMY2011 + CALPC=The perREALCONSUMPEXP=Real per-capitaCALPRICE=Real FOODSHARE=PDSSUPPLY=FARMING=FAMILSIZE=Family size (No.)AGE=Age of household-head (years)EDUCATION=Years of schooling of household-YEARDUMMY2004=Dummy for the year 2004-YEARDUMMY2011=Dummy for the year 2011-12 (1=2011-12, 0= other = State specific dummies, (intake per-day. The reason for calorie-intake exceedingmight be treated as household consumption. Variousoutliers, the upper cut off values for daily calorie- intakein rural areas were 7,162 kcal, 10,134 kcal, and 5,679kcal during 1993-94, 2004-05 and 2011-12,respectively. For urban areas, the cut off values were6,573 kcal, 11,818 kcal and 5,368 kcal during 1993-94, 2004-05 and 2011-12, respectively. At the lowerremoved from the data set. The regression function wasfitted for rural and urban areas separately. For urbanthe function. Based on the estimated coefficients,marginal effects of different factors on calorie-intakewere quantified to explain the changes in calorie-intakeduring 1993-94 to 2004-05, and 2004-05 to 2011-12.For comparing efficacy of PDS with cash transfer,nutritional effects of PDS supplies were expressed ineffect of equivalent increase in consumptionTrends in Calorie Intake and Under-nourishmentBetween 1993-94 and 2004-05, the per-capitaenergy intake declined from 2153 kcal to 2047 kcal inareas (Figure 1). The dieta

ry energy intake followed athe per-capita calorie intake showed a sharp increasein 2011-12. Even if the year 2009-10 is excluded fromcountry, the per-capita calorie-intake in the year 2011-12 shows increase over the year 2004-05. An averageIndian consumed 54 more calories in 2011-12 than in Figure 1. Trend in calorie-intake in India: 1993-94 to2011-12Year1993-942004-052009-102011-12 26Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol.30 (No.1) January-June 20172004-05. These changes suggest that downward trendin per-capita calorie-intake witnessed reversal of the2011-12. However, the existing level of calorie-intakeand 2100 kcal in urban areas. Across the major states& Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana,Rajasthan, and Andhra Pradesh in urban areasThe incidence of under-nourishment was examinedand FAO norms. Based on the conventional ICMR2011-12 consumed less calories than the prescribedminimum requirement (Table 1). Even in the states withpopulation in urban areas was under-nourished(Appendix 2). On the other hand, based on FAO normsof 1800 kcal, the HCR of under-nourished personsthe conclusions about the pattern and level of under-ICMR norms, calorie deficit in rural areas was higherthan in urban areas while it was the opposite based onFAO norms (Table 1). This contrasting pattern isbecause of the same cut-off value for rural and urbanareas in FAO norms, and relatively higher calorie-(Figure 1). However, temporally incidence of under-ICMR and FAO norms, though with varying rate ofpercentage points as per FAO norms. This was followedbetween 2004-05 and 2011-12 based on ICMR andFAO norms, respectively. By and large, there is aninconclusive debate on the cut-off line for minimumVishwanathan, 2003; Chand and Jumrani, 2013).Overall, it can be concluded that the trend showingdeterioration in under-nourishment has been reversedduring the recent years. However, there exists a large-even based on a lower norm.Calorie Inta

ke across Expenditure-Classes andThe per-capita calorie-intake varied considerablyacross different expenditure-classes with low-incomecategories (Table 2). Between 1993-94 and 2011-12,have reduced dietary energy intake during the past 18to consume food, the under-nourishment was increasinghunger’ in the literature (Chand and Jumrani, 2013).Table 1. Incidence of under-nourishment among Indian households: 1993-94 to 2011-12 YearHCR based on ICMR normsHCR based on FAO normsRuralUrbanOverallRuralUrbanOverallpopulationpopulationpopulationpopulationpopulationpopulation 1993-9471.0156.2967.3630.9934.3131.812004-0580.0864.1476.0437.0738.3637.32 2011-1277.2459.4172.1428.3932.8729.55 Srivastava and Chand : Tracking Transition in Calorie-Intake among Indian HouseholdsThe consequence of such differential trends acrossThe difference in the mean calorie-intake between thecapita/day during 2011-12 in rural India. Similarly, inurban areas, the mean difference has declined fromthe same period. The increasing convergence ordeclining inequality in dietary energy intake wascoefficients from 0.16 to 0.13 in rural areas and 0.182011-12 (Table 2). Srivastava a tendency of convergence in calorie-intake acrossexpenditure-classes between 1993-94 and 2011-12 atintake is a desirable trend from nutritional point of view.determinant of nutritional intake. The estimates derivedundernourished. The gap in nutritional intake (actualand recommended dietary energy intake) was 30 per2011-12 (Figure 2). On the other hand, in the top decileTable 2. Expenditure class-wise changes in calorie-intake in India: 1993-94 to 2011-12 Expenditure classRural areasUrban areas1993-942004-052011-121993-942004-052011-12 0-1014431477166814301507167810-2017281676181617151683180920-3018481798190818331833190230-4019651877197519291853198940-5020451957202720521942207450-6021602038210021472019216360-7022602151216522792106225870-8023982257226324742208236580-902592237023672738233325

4690-100318627822751348226852934 Gini coefficient0.160.150.130.180.170.14 Figure 2. Expenditure class-wise changes in per cent deviation of calorie-intake from the recommended ICMRnorms between 1993-94 and 2011-12Urban households 28Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol.30 (No.1) January-June 2017rich urban households were undernourished in 2011-12. Thus, measures are needed for fast increase inenergy needs and increased physical activities to absorbthe added energy, particularly among high-incomefactors. The following section discusses the effect of05 and 2011-12. The marginal effect of various factorswith the actual changes in per-capita calorie-intake into 2011-12. The idea of this exercise was to find outcould explain the decline in dietary energy intaketherein during 2004-05 to 2011-12. This will be usefulin designing effective policies needed to address under-nutrition in the country. The estimates derived fromthe regression equation are presented in Table 3.showed highly significant effect on per-capita calorie-intake in the rural as well as urban households. Theeffect of real consumption expenditure, which was usedeffect of real price of calorie was negative. An increaseof one rupee in per-capita daily expenditure resultedin an increase in per-capita calorie-intake of 5.37 inthe rural areas and 3.20 in urban areas. The effect ofpopulation. The effect of PDS supply of rice and wheatareas. The estimate showed that one kg increase in PDSkcal in dietary energy intake in rural areas and 308Table 3.Estimated calorie consumption function: 1993-94, 2004-05, 2011-12 VariableRuralUrbanareasareas Dietary energy intakeReal consumption expenditure5.37***3.20***/capita/day)(0.030)(0.023)Real calorie price-12.54***-8.88***/1000 kcal)(0.425)(0.328)PDS supplies (kg of rice and464.37***308.23***wheat/capita/day)(13.934)Food share (per cent)8.11***8.77***(0.105)(0.129)Farming (0= no, 1= yes)200.62***-Family size (No. of-6

6.84***-112.06***household members)(0.550)(0.779)7.55***6.70 ***(0.099)(0.128)22.91***23.22***(years of schooling)(0.287)(0.335) Year dummy (2011=1)-125.37***-154.66***(3.685)(4.434)Year dummy (2004=1)-122.71***-130.82**(3.125)(4.276)State dummiesYesYesIntercept1466.17***1791.42***(21.164)(22.529)0.29190.3400 206892131087kcal in urban areas. This is a very interesting resultrice or wheat contains around 3400 kcal energy. Thesubstitution of non-PDS consumption of cereals. Thethe rural areas and 90 grams in urban areas. This is Srivastava and Chand : Tracking Transition in Calorie-Intake among Indian Householdswhy the net marginal effect of PDS supply on caloriesupply. The study has also shown that households,engaged in farming, consume more energy comparedto non-farming households. The main reasons for thisinclude the availability factor and higher energywas found to cause an adverse effect on per-capitadietary intake of energy, whereas the age and educationof household-head had a positive effect on nutritionalestimates of marginal effect of various factors on per-between 1993-94 to 2004-05 and 2004-05 to 2011-12.transition among Indian households. The results arepresented in Table 4.Between 1993-94 and 2004-05, the per-capita 80 and real price per 1000 calorie declined from 9.30 to 9.10 showing a change of -0.20 (Table 4and Appendix 3). The multiplication of these changeswith their marginal effects would result in the increaseof 14.28 kcal and 3.05 kcal per day calorie-intake,respectively. In the same period, the PDS supply amongintake by 7.55 units. Similarly, the changes in familybetween 1993-94 and 2004-05 in rural areas. However,positive effects of above factors on calorie-intake werenegated by a stronger negative effect of squeezed foodbudget. Interestingly, food consumption during thistotal expenditure (Appendix 3). This might be becauseTable 4. Effects of factors driving changes in calorie-intake among Indian ho

useholds Particulars Rural areas Urban areas1993-94 to2004-05 to1993-94 to2004-05 to2004-052011-122004-052011-12 /capita/month)80270311591/1000 kcal)-0.200.70-1.001.800.491.28-0.070.58Food share (percentage points)-9.8-6.2-15.1-3.9Family size (No.)-0.10-0.40-0.10-0.401.100.701.700.40Real expenditure14.2848.3633.2062.95Real calorie price3.05-8.948.76-15.83PDS supply7.5519.80-0.675.98Food share-79.61-50.28-132.87-33.95Family size0.5627.7618.3238.16Age of household-head8.295.2411.892.50Sum of marginal effects-4642-6160Change in mean calorie-intake of retained sample*-12567-8548 Change in calorie as per official report-10652-5138*The changes in estimated mean calorie intake differ from officially reported figures due to non-inclusion of intoxicants 30Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol.30 (No.1) January-June 2017expenditure. Consequently, the share of food in total1993-94 and 2004-05 in rural areas. This whenmultiplied with the regression coefficient of “fooddaily calorie-intake. The net effect of inter-play of thesefactors was a decline in dietary energy intake of 4694 and 2004-05. The nutritional effect of such changeamong urban households. Further, the increase in PDSsupply could not neutralize the negative effects ofuniversal PDS to targeted PDS in 1997 (Himanshu andSen, 2013). In fact, the per-capita monthly consumptionfrom 0.77 kg in 1993-94 to 0.70 kg in 2004-05. Thenegative effects of squeezed food budget and PDS onnutrition outweighed the positive effects of increaseddemographic changes. The sum of these effects comes94 to 2004-05 in both rural and urban areas (Table 4).also increased. However, the positive effect of largeincrease in income on energy-intake was much strongerthan the negative effect of price rise during 2004-05 to2011-12. It is to be noted that although householdstotal expenditure was sufficiently large to raise the levelturn was large enoug

h to negate the effect of price-riseon food consumption. This also led to a comparativelyafter 2004-05 as compared to the previous period. Thus,the negative nutritional effect of changing expenditureduring 2004-05 to 2011-11 than during 1993-94 tosupplies doubled between 2004-05 and 2011-12. Thekcal to per-capita daily dietary energy-intake amongrural households during this period. The changes incalories. The net effect of above factors was the increasein per-capita daily dietary energy by 42 kcal as againstadded up to 60 kcal in daily dietary energy, whereasbetween 2004-05 and 2011-12. The higher estimatedeffect than the actual change in calorie-intake mightnegative effects in the analysis. Overall, it can beconcluded from the preceding discussion that squeezedsufficiently large increase in total and consequent foodafter 2004-05 triggered the upward trend in energy-Amidst burgeoning food subsidy bill resulting fromthe rising difference between economic cost offoodgrains to FCI and prices charged from the PDSinefficient management of PDS, it is often proposed towhich option is better. As food subsidy is meant toeffect of each option on nutrition level. However, Srivastava and Chand : Tracking Transition in Calorie-Intake among Indian Householdsnutritional effects of in-kind food transfer and directcash transfer. Specifically, the study estimates the effectcalorie-intake. The results are presented in Table 5.3.20 kcal among urban households. Though one rupeeover various heads. Thus, empirical evidences indicateIn the case of PDS supply, one kg of wheat and 13.23 in the year 2011-12 (FCI, 2011-12), which is translated into the netof food subsidy. However, as a part of PDS supply isthe PDS with cash transfer. Our estimates have shownthat there is a difference of 46 per cent in the PDSsupply at household level and offtake, implying thatbeneficiaries (Appendix 4). After accounting for thisfound to raise calorie intake by 18.9

7 kcal in rural and12.54 kcal in urban areas. These results show, that evenafter netting out for the difference/leakage betweenofftake and quantity received by the household, thePDS effect on calorie-intake would be 3.5 to 3.9 timesthe effect of cash transfer. These results clearly establishaddressing the problem of under-nutrition in thecountry. However, the direct cash transfer will havetransfer of food subsidies. The nutritional outcome ofpresent paper.2009-10 and thereafter moved upward. This change indietary energy- intake is significant and offers evidencein income. There is also a need to develop someTable 5.Comparative effects of out-of-pocket expenditure (cash transfer) and PDS transfer on calorie intake amongIndian households, 2011-12 SectorMarginal effect of PDSEstimatedMarginal effect of oneMarginaltransfer (kcal/kg of PDSleakages*rupee food subsidy oneffect ofsupplies)(per cent)PDS (kcal/ food subsidy)expenditureWithoutAt 46%WithoutAt 46%(kcal/leakageleakageleakageleakage Rural4642514635.0718.975.37 Urban3081664623.2812.543.20*Refer Appendix-3 for estimation of leakages in food supply; Leakages have been assumed to be same in rural and 13.23 per kg during 2011-12 (FCI,2011: 89) 32Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol.30 (No.1) January-June 2017shown large variations in the proportion of populationwith lower than required dietary energy intake and thuscreates a confusion regarding the severity of hungerand under-nutrition in the country.from the recent NSS round for the year 2011-12, thereexists a large-scale calorie deprivation across states andEven the FAO norms of calorie requirement, which isundernourished in the recent year. The study hasexpenditure-classes. The healthy development is thatthe mean per-capita calorie-intake increased among thehouseholds. This has resulted in narrowing down thehunger’ due to ignorance about nutrition. The richerhouseholds may be targeted to generate awarenessreg

arding the importance of minimum energy needsenergy.The transition in dietary energy intake is influencedby a complex set of inter-related factors such aspattern, occupation structure, public supportprogrammes, demographic changes, etc. As expected,the effect of real consumption expenditure, which hasintake has been found positive and the effect of realprice of calorie was negative. Thus, improving incomeimprove nutritional status of Indian households. Theregression analysis has revealed positive marginaleffects of PDS on calorie intake. Among demographicfactors, family-size has been found to cause an adverseeffect on the per-capita dietary intake of energy,head have been found to have a positive effect onnutritional status of households. The positivenutrition. Similarly, the study has underlined theand higher energy requirement in performing farmThe marginal effects of above factors on calorieexplained to a large extent the decline in dietary energyupward trend after 2004-05. The squeezed food budgetsufficiently large increase in total and food expenditurehave triggered an upward trend in energy intake.The study has found that effects of in-kind PDSof losses and leakages in PDS supply. In case suchleakages are checked, the nutritional effects of PDSwould increase by 46 per cent. The study has underlined: The material, views and results presentedorganizations to which the authors are affiliated.ReferencesBasu, D. and Basole, A. (2012) Puzzle in India: An Empirical InvestigationDepartment working paper series, Paper 147. AvailableFrom Slowdown to Fast Track: IndianAgriculture since 1995. Working Paper 01/2014. ICAR-National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policyundernourishment in India: Assessment of alternativenorms and the income effect. Srivastava and Chand : Tracking Transition in Calorie-Intake among Indian Householdsanalysis of farm income in India: 1983-84 to 2011-12.Economic and Political Weekly, Deaton, A

. and Dreze, J. (2009) Nutrition in India: FactsEconomic and Political WeeklyFCI (Food Corporation of India) (2011-12) 2011-12Press Note on PovertyEstimates, 2011-12India, 2011-12. Ministry of Statistics and ProgrammeConsumer Expenditure, 2011-12. Ministry of StatisticsGulati, A. and Saini, S. (2015) Leakages from PublicDistribution System (PDS) and the Way ForwardICRIER Working Paper No. 294. Indian Council forHimanshu and Sen, A. (2013) In-kind food transfer-I: Impacton nutrition and implications for food security and itsEconomic and Political Weekly, Meenakshi, J.V. and Vishwanathan, B. (2003) Calorieand Political Weekly, Patnaik, U. (2010) A critical look at some propositions onconsumption and poverty. WeeklySrivastava, S.K., Kumar, R., Hema, M. and Hasan, R.(2013a) Inter-regional variations and future householdJournal of Spices and Aromatic CropsSrivastava, S.K., Mathur, V.C., Kumar, R., Sivaramane, N.and Jha, G.K. (2013b) Household demand and supplyAgricultural and Statistical SciencesSrivastava, S.K., Mathur, V.C., Sivaramane, N., Kumar, R.,Hasan, R. and Meena, P.C. (2013c) Unravelling foodbasket of Indian households: Revisiting underlyingSrivastava, S.K., Balaji, S.J., and Kolady, D. (2016) Is therea convergence in dietary energy intake amongResearch Review(Conference Number):119-128.Sukhatme, P.V. (1993) Note in Report of the Expert Groupon Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor Received: December, 2016; Accepted May, 2017 34Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol.30 (No.1) January-June 2017Appendix 1. State-wise average calorie-intake in India StateRural areasUrban areas1993-942004-052011-121993-942004-052011-12 Jammu & Kashmir249523582356243123032352Himachal Pradesh231723232501250123822511Punjab241722362327210821482171Haryana248522242254216220322164Rajasthan245721722263220021142150Uttar Pradesh231621982112214421222004Bihar212020452057223421882080Assam196820402009215221252037West Bengal22242067209

2219920082026Odisha220620182116233221362093Madhya Pradesh216219262110210519512028Gujarat199919191914207119882068Maharashtra193918932103203918432038Andhra Pradesh205519862185201219962150Karnataka207218382003205719412005Kerala199920001971204719892025 Tamil Nadu190218371924196919311972Appendix 2. State-wise head count ratio of undernourished persons: 1993-94 to 2011-12 StateRural areasUrban areas1993-942004-052011-121993-942004-052011-12 Jammu & Kashmir456557324033Himachal Pradesh636650322931Punjab586763575449Haryana586769546250Rajasthan517466475852Uttar Pradesh637376545865Bihar727979475457Assam888686525459West Bengal697879516561Odisha727878395353Madhya Pradesh728776566860Gujarat728488602463Maharashtra728778627660Andhra Pradesh788473616753Karnataka729083597064Kerala728082626464 Tamil Nadu838988667067 Srivastava and Chand : Tracking Transition in Calorie-Intake among Indian Households ParticularsRural areasUrban areas1993-942004-052011-121993-942004-052011-12 Estimated food calories (kcal/capita/day)214920242091208620012049/capita/month)93210121282156618772468/1000 kcal)9.39.19.813.812.814.6/capita/month)600552619881771919Food share in total expenditure (%)64.354.548.356.241.137.2Family size (No.)6.16.05.65.75.65.2Age of household-head (years)44.946.046.744.446.146.5 0.661.152.430.770.701.28Appendix 4. Estimation of leakages in food supplies through PDS during 2011-12 Sl No.ParticularsRural areasUrban areasAll areas (a)Foodgrains (rice & wheat) offtake (million tonnes)--56.28(b)Consumption of rice and wheat purchased from PDS (kg/capita/month) 2.411.29-(c)Population as on 1January, 2012 (million)841.56385.891227.45(d)Annual consumption through PDS (million tonnes): (b/1000)*12*c24.385.9630.34 (e)Leakages from PDS (%): {1-(d/a)}*100--46.09Data source: Ministry of Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution, Government of IndiaNSS report No. 558 National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Impl