Chapter 6 Undernutrition: Who, Where, When

1
Chapter 6 Undernutrition Who, Where, When?
2
I. Long-term perspective on undernutrition

• Worldwide the number of malnourished people has
  declined (Table 6.2-p.76)
• 1. All countries 35 ? 17
• 2. 918 million ? 798 million
• 3. Still a significant number of people

3

• B. Regionally
• 1. East and Southeast Asia 41?12
• 2. South Asia
• 33 ?22
• 3. Sub-Saharan Africa
• 38 ? 43 ? 33

4
C. Food production per person has gone up (Figure
6.1-p.77)

• What does this mean for food prices?

Food prices have gone down, for the most part
(Figure 6.2-p.78)
5
D. Indexes
An index is a percentage comparison from a fixed
point of reference (base period)

• If base period is 1961, index for
• 1961 100

6
D. Indexes

• If increase from 1961 to 1997 was 25, then index
  for 1997 is 125
• If decrease from 1961 to 1997 was 50, then index
  for 1997 is 50

7
II. Seasonality of Undernutrition

• A. Linked to the growing season
• 1. Hungry season (May through August)
• a. Work is scarce (wages are low)
• b. Food is scarce (prices are high)
• c. Families increase their consumption
  of wild fruits and vegetables

8

• 2. Harvest season
• a. Food is abundant (price is low)
• b. With irrigation the harvest season can be
  extended (planting of rice normally begins
  during the monsoon.

9
III. Who is undernourished?

• How to measure (Table 6.5-p.83)
• 1. Calories available per person
• Worst countries
• Congo D.R., Burundi, Tajikistan

10
How to measure the who- Cont.

• 2. Mortality rates for children under 5
• Worst countries Sierra Leone, Angola,
  Afghanistan
• 3. Percentage of underweight children
• Worst countries Korea, Afghanistan,
  Bangladesh

11

• B. Looking at all 3 measures
• 1. Most of the worst countries are in
  sub-Saharan Africa

12
C. Rural areas worse off than urban

• Rural incomes lower than urban
• Many policies favor urban areas

13

• D. Children most vulnerable during weaning
• E. Pregnant and nursing women next worse off
• F. Old women also vulnerable to undernutrition

14
IV. Variables that influence percentage of
weight-for-age

• Correlation coefficient tells size and direction
  of influence
• (Table 6.8-p.88)

15

• Number of years of education of mother and father
  has a positive correlation coefficient
• a. More education increases percentage of
  weight-for-age

16

• 2. Positive coefficient on income
• a. Higher income implies higher percentage
  weight for age
• b. Less important in farming families than in
  nonfarming families

17

• 3. Age of weaning has positive coefficient
• a. The later a child is weaned the higher the
  percentage weight-for- age

18

• 4. Negative coefficient on total number of
  household members
• a. More people in the family implies lower
  percentage weight-for-age

19

• 5. Birth order has a negative coefficient
• a. Children born after other children are more
  likely to have a lower percentage of
  weight-for-age

20

• 6. Negative coefficient on type of infant feeding
  
• a. implies that babies that are only bottle fed
  have a lower percentage weight-for-age compared
  to children who are breast fed