Professional Documents
Culture Documents
+
= = =
From equation 2, the probability of a household being food insecure is given by (1-
i
) which
gives equation 3, which can be written as
) 3 .....( .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
1
1
) 1 (
i
z
i
e +
=
Therefore the odds ratio, i.e.,
i
/(1-
i
) is given by equation 4 as
) 4 .....( .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
1
1
1
i
z
i
z
i
z
i
i
e
e
e
=
+
+
=
The natural logarithm of equation 4 gives rise to equation 5
) 5 .....( .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
1
1
i
n k
j i
i
ij Ln
+ + =
=
=
Rearranging equation 5, with the dependent variable (food security) in log odds, the logistic
regression can be manipulated to calculate conditional probabilities as
) 6 ..( .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
1
1
1
=
=
+
=
=
+
+
=
xij
n k
j
j
ij
x
n k
i
j
i
e
e
11
Once the conditional probabilities have been calculated for each sample household, the partial
effects of the continuous individual variables on household food security can be calculated by the
expression
) 7 ..( .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ) 1 (
j i i
ij
i
x
The partial effects of the discrete variables are calculated by taking the difference of the
probabilities estimated when value of the variable is set to 1 and 0 ( 1 , 0 = =
i i
x x ), respectively.
4. Results and discussion
4.1 Descriptive results
8
This section reports the descriptive results of the relationship between food security and
determinants of food security. Out of the 108 observed households in the sample, 29 are food
secure (26.9 %) and 79 (73.1 %) are food insecure.
Table 1: Household Food Security Rates for significant variables
Variables Food insecure Food secure
Average farm land size (ha) 3.34 4.85
Average per capita production (kg) 74.32 160.85
Non fertilizer users (%) 43.04 13.79
Fertilizer users (%) 56.96 86.21
Average ox ownership 0.87 1.24
Average household size 7.5 6.7
Illiterate (%) 87.5 12.5
Primary (%) 58.33 41.67
Secondary 47.62 52.38
Source: Authors computation based on survey data
8 Only descriptive statistics of significant determinants are reported in this section. Results of non-significant
determinants can be provided upon request.
12
According to Table 1, average farm land size, average per capita production, average ox
ownership and fertilizer application of food secure households are higher than by food insecure
households. On the other hand, household size and the percentage of households with illiterate
heads are higher among food insecure households than among food secure households.
Therefore, the results confirm the findings of the literature regarding the relationship between
food security and the major determinants of food security.
4.2 Empirical results (model characteristics)
In this section, results of the test for significance of the determinants of food security and of the
predictive efficiency of the model are discussed
9
. The former was conducted using the likelihood
ratio chi-square statistic
10
while the Pesaran-Timmermann test statistic was used to test for the
latter. According to results shown in Table 2, the log likelihood value of 40, with p<0.001
indicate that at least one of the parameters of the determinants of food security shown in equation
1 is significant.
Table 2: Parameter estimates of the logistic regression
Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Probabilities
Constant -3.0588 1.0420 -2.9354 0.004
Fertilizer application (FAPP) 1.7765 0.81325 2.1844 0.031
Farm land size (LANSIZE) 0.45849 0.18624 2.4618 0.016
Household size (HHSIZE) -0.39548 0.15301 -2.5847 0.011
Ox ownership (OXOWN) 0.33826 0.22153 1.5269 0.130
Education (EDU) 1.3040 0.58993 2.2104 0.029
Per capita production(PCAPRO) 0.0058236 0.0033776 1.7242 0.088
9 Before a logit model was fitted i.e. to check for the determinants of household food security a correlation matrix
was computed all explanatory variables included. According to the results found no severe multicollinearity problem
could be detected. Results are available upon request.
10 Calculated on the basis of the formula LR=2(ULLF-RLLF) where ULLF and RLLF are, respectively,
unrestricted log-likelihood function and restricted log-likelihood function. It is chi-square distributed with 6 degrees
of freedom.
13
Percentage of correct prediction 0.852
The Pesaran-Timmermann test statistic 6.4229 <0.001
Log likelihood value 40 <0.001
Source: Authors computation based on survey data
With regard to the predictive efficacy of the model, Table 2 shows that, of the 108 sample
households included in the model, 92 (85.02%) are correctly predicted. According to the
Pesaran-Timmermann test statistic, a significant association exists between the observed and the
models prediction of a households food security status.
4.3 Parameter estimates of determinants of food security
First, all 11 factors were considered for the model. Then a step by step process of deletion of
insignificant variables reduced the number of significant variables to six. The six factors that
were retained were farmland size, per capita aggregate production, fertilizer application,
household size, ox ownership and educational level of farm household heads (Table 2).
The marginal effects of a unit change in the continuous variables, computed at sample means, on
the probability of food security were estimated. Tables 3 and 4 give results on the partial effects
of continuous and discrete variables respectively (see equation 7 for explanation of how the
partial effects were computed).
Table 3 : Partial effects for continuous determinants
Determinants "Partial Effects
Farmland size (ha) 0.062
Per capita aggregate Production (kg) 0.001
Household size (#) -0.0542
Ox ownership (#) 0.046
Source: Authors calculations
14
4.3.1. Farm land size
According to results reported in Tables 2 and 3, and keeping the other variables in the model
constant, land size is positively and significantly related to the probability of a household being
food secure (Table 2). According to Table 3, the marginal effect of a unit change in farm size,
computed at sample mean of holding size, on the probability of food security is 0.062. This
means that the probability of food security increases by 0.062 (about 6%) for a one hectare
increase in farm size.
4.3.2. Fertilizer application
Use of fertilizer is another factor which was found to have a significant impact on household
food security. A positive and significant relationship was found between fertilizer usage and the
probability of a household being food secure (Table 2). This means that the likelihood of food
security increases with farmers use of fertilizer. In other words, fertilizer users are more likely
to be food secure than non-users. According to Table 4, a unit increase in fertilizer use defined
by the shift from non fertilizer user (X
i
=0) to fertilizer user (X
i
=1) increases the probability of
food security from 0.338 to 0.443 i.e. by 11%.
Table 4: Change in probabilities between X
i
=0 & X
i
=1 for the significant discrete determinants
Determinants Probabilities Change in probabilities
Education attainment
Illiterate
Literate
0.143
0.325 0.182
Fertilizer Use
Non users
Users
0.338
0.443
0.105
Note: The change in probabilities of household food security due to the change in the significant discrete
explanatory variables can be calculated by taking the difference of the mean probabilities estimated for the
respective discrete variables 0 =
i
X and 1 =
i
X
Source: Authors calculation based on survey data
15
4.3.3 Ox ownership
Ox ownership was found to have a significant and positive relationship with household food
security (Table 2). According to Table 3, a unit increase in ox ownership, computed at average
ox owned by sampled households, increases the probability of food security by 5%.
4.3.4. Education
Education was found to have a significant and positive relationship with household food security
(Table 2). This indicates that households with relatively better educated household heads are
more likely to be food secure than those headed by uneducated household heads. According to
results reported in Table 4, an improvement in education level defined by the shift in educational
level from illiterate (X
i
=0) to literate (X
i
=1) results in increase in probability of a household
being food secure from 0.14 to 0.325 i.e. by 18%.
4.3.5. Household size
According to Table 2, household size has a negative and significant relationship with the
probability of food security. Table 3 shows that the probability of being food secure, calculated
at average family size of sampled households, decreases with an increase in family size. Each
additional member of the household decreases the probability of food security by 5%.
4.3.6. Per capita production
Per capita aggregate production has a significant and positive influence on food security (Table
2). As shown by Table 3, a unit change in per capita aggregate production, calculated at sample
means, results in a 0.1% increase in the probability of food security.
16
4.4 Impact on food security of major determinants of food security
This section reports simulation results for the levels of change in the conditional probability of
being food secure following improvement in any of the significant factors. Simulations were
conducted with reference to a base group of households representing food insecure households.
The results are reported in Table 5. The base group represents food insecure households with an
average farm land size of 3.34 ha, aggregate per capita production of 74.32 kg, average
household size of 7.5 members, and average ox ownership of 0.87 units. In addition, the dummy
variables for educational attainment and fertilizer application were set to zero.
Table 5: Simulated impact of determinants on the probability of household food security
Variables Predicted probabilities
Base 0.02
Farm size increased by one hectare 0.04
Increase in per capita production by 70 kg 0.05
If the households adopt fertilizer 0.12
Increase of ox ownership to two 0.03
If the household size is reduced by 1 0.07
If education level of household head improves 0.08
Source: Authors computation
According to Table 5, the conditional probability of food security for the base group of
households is 0.02. This means that, of 100 farm households, two are food-secure. If a group of
households with characteristics similar to that of the base group of farmers apply fertilizer, the
number of food secure farmers will increase to 12. Improvement in the educational level of
household heads of the base group of farmers will increase the number of food secure
households to 8. Furthermore, Table 5 shows that an increase in the average farmland size of the
base group of farmers by one hectare results in an increase in the number of food secure
households from two to four. It is also shown in Table 5 that ownership of an additional ox by
each household will increase the number of food secure households from two to three. A
decrease in the average family size of farmers from 6.7 to 5.7 will lead to an increase in the
probability of food security from 0.02 to 0.07. A 70 kg increase in aggregate per capita
17
production (in wheat equivalent) for the base group of farmers will increase the number of food
secure households from two to five.
5. CONCLUSION
The objective of this study was to determine the causes of seasonal food insecurity among
members of the Koredegaga Peasant Association in the Eastern Oromia region of Ethiopia.
According to descriptive statistics of the sample households, a priori expectations about the
relationships between indices of food security and factors influencing it are satisfied for majority
of the cases considered. This was further supported by a binary logistic regression model applied
to randomly selected primary data of 108 sample farm households. Factors identified as having a
significant influence on food security by the logistic regression model include farmland size, per
capita aggregate production, fertilizer application, household size, ox ownership, and educational
attainment level of farm household heads.
Partial effects, computed at sample means using results from the logistic regression model,
indicate that a unit change in farmers access to fertilizer or educational level of household heads
or farmers access to land or farmers access to family planning improve the probability of food
security in the study area.
Simulations were conducted with reference to a base group of food insecure households. Results
showed that an increase in land holding size, increase in ox ownership, decrease in family size,
increase in per capita production, increase in fertilizer use, and an increase in education level of
food insecure households have the potential to increase the number of food secure households in
the study area. For example, increase in the availability of fertilizer to food insecure households
will increase the probability of food security by 10%. Similarly, improvements in the education
level of food insecure household heads and reduction of family size of food insecure households
will increase the probability of food security by 5% and 6% respectively. It is therefore
recommended that introducing institutions which foster agricultural research and extension,
18
family planning, efficient use of land use, and schools, should receive priority attention in policy
making.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the Centre for the Study of African Economies at the University of
Oxford for permission to use their data for this study.
REFERENCES
ALEMU, ZG, OOSTHUIZEN, LK & VAN SCHALKWYK, HD(2002). Agricultural
development policies of Ethiopia since 1957. South African Journal of Economic History,
Volume 17, No. 1 & 2: 1:24.
ASSEFA T & MESFIN T (1996). Ethiopian village studies. Produced jointly by Department of
Sociology, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and the Centre for the Study of African Economies, Oxford,
UK.
BROWN LR (2004). World Food Security Deteriorating:
Food Crunch in 2005 Now Likely: Earth Policy institute.
Centre For Studies Of African Economies (CSAE) 2003.
http://www.csae.ox.ac.uk/dataset/main.html.
CHEN MA (1991).Coping with Seasonality and Draught. Sage Publications, NY.
DEVEREUX S (1993). Goats Before Ploughs: Dilemmas of Household Response Sequencing
during Food Shortages. Institute for Development Studies Bulletin 24: 29-43.
FAO (1999). North and South Gonder - Food Security Assessment in Parts of the Tekeze River
Watershed. UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME, Emergencies Unit for
Ethiopia, Assessment Mission: May 26-June 7, 1999, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
19
FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA (FDRE) (1996).Food Security
Strategy. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
FOOD & AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION (FAO)(2001). Crop and food supply
assessment mission to Ethiopia. FAO Global Information and Early Warning System on Food
and Agriculture. World Food Program.Rome, Italy.
FOOD & AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION (FAO) (1998). Crop and food supply
assessment mission to Ethiopia. FAO Global Information and Early Warning System on Food
and Agriculture. World Food Program. Rome, Italy.
FOOD & AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION (FAO) (1996). Rome Declaration on World
Food Security and World Food. Rome, Italy.
FOOD & AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION (FAO) (1983). World food security: A
reappraisal of the concepts and approaches. Director Generals Report. Rome, Italy.
FOSTER P (1992). The World Food Problem: Tackling the causes of under nutrition in the third
World, Lynee Rienner publishers, Boulder, Colorado, In: FELEKE S (2003). Determinants of
Food Security in Southern Ethiopia. Selected paper presented at the 2003 American Agricultural
Economics Association Meetings in Montreal, Canada, University of Florida, USA.
GOVEREH J & JAYNE TS (1999). Policy Synthesis: Effects of Cash Crop Production on Food
Crop Productivity in Zimbabwe: Synergies Or Trade-Offs?. USAID - Africa Bureau, Office of
Sustainable Development No 40.
HODDINOTT, J 1999. Operationalizing household security and development strategies,
International Food Policy Research Institute, Technical Guideline, No. 1.Wasshington,DC.
HOFFERTH SL (2003).Persistence and Change in the Food Security of Families with Children,
1997-1999. Department of Family Studies, University of Maryland. Available
online:http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_3_40/ai_111027115
20
JIGGINS J (1986). Women and Seasonality: Coping with Crisis and Calamity. IDS Bulletin.
17(1): 9-18.
KANGARA JN, NGOROI EH, MUTURI JM, AMBOGA SA, NGUGI FK & MWANGI
I(2001).The Role of Livestock in Soil No Fertility, Biodiversity, Land use, Cultural and Welfare
change in Nduuri Embu, Kenya.
KASSA H, GIBBON D, SINGH BP (2002). Livestock Improve Household Food Security and
Sustainability of Ethiopian Small Farms. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 21(2):35:36.
MAXWELL S & FRANKENBERGER T (1992). Household Food Security, Concepts,
Indicators and Measurements: a Technical Review. UNICEF/IFAD, New York/Rome.
MAXWELL S (1996). Food security: A post modern perspective. Food Policy. Vol. 21, No. 2:
155-170.
NAJAFI B (2003). An Overview of Current Land Utilization Systems and Their Contribution to
Agricultural Productivity. Report of the APO Seminar on Impact of Land Utilization Systems on
Agricultural Productivity. Productivity Organization, Islamic Republic of Iran Asian.
OBAMIRO EO, DOPPLER, KORMAWA PM(2003). Pillars of Food Security in Rural Areas of
Nigeria. Food Africa, Internet Forum 31 March 11 April, Internet Paper accepted for the Food
Security Theme. Available online
http://foodafrica.nri.org/security/internetpapers/ObamiroEunice.pdf
PADDY F (2003). Gender differentials in land ownership and their impact on household food
security: a case study of Masaka district. Master thesis. Uganda. Available on:
http://www.troz.uni-hohenheim.de/research/Thesis/MScAES/Paddy.pdf
21
RAMAKRISHANA G & DEMEKE A (2002).An Empirical Analysis of Food Insecurity in
Ethiopia: The Case of North Wollo. Africa Development 27(1&2).
RUTSCH H (2003). The Role of Sustainable Fertilization - Global Food
Security.Availableonline:http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2003/issue3/030
SAH RP (2002).Sustainable Livelihoods and Poverty Alleviation: Case Study in Improving Food
Security and Livelihood of Mountain People through Development of Agriculture. A paper
presented at the International Seminar on Mountains (ISM), Kathmandu, Nepal, March 6-8,
2002, Agriculture Research Station, Lumle, Kaski, Nepal.
SEN A (1981). Poverty and famines. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
SEN A (1986). Food, economics, and entitlements. Lloyds Bank Review. 160: 1-20.
SHIFERAW F, KILMER RL, GLADWIN C(2003). Determinants of food security in Southern
Ethiopia: A selected paper presented at the 2003 American Agricultural Economics Association
Meetings in Montreal, Canada.
SMITH H & HUANG Y. (2000). Achieving Food Security in North Korea. Australian National
University. Available online: http://www.mi.infn.it/~landnet/corea/proc/039.pdf
STEPHEN DS (2000). Food Insecurity In Ethiopia: A discussion paper for DFID, IDS Sussex.
THOMAS RB & LEATHERMAN TL .(1990). Household Coping strategies and Contradictions
in Response to Seasonal Food Shortage. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 44(1):103-111.
USAID 1992. Policy determination: Definition of food security, PD-19. Washington, DC.
WEBB P, VON BRAUN J & YISEHAC YOHANNES(1992). Famine in Ethiopia: Policy
implication of the coping failure at national and household levels. Research Report 92.
Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
22
WORLD BANK (1986). Poverty and hunger: issues and options for food security in developing
countries. Washington DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The
World Bank.
YARED A, YIGREMEW, A, DEGAFA, T, A. PETER CASTRO (1999). Food security and
resource access: A final report on community assessments in South Wello and Oromiya Zones
of Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: IDR/BASIS.