Impact of Weather Shock on Food Insecurity: A Study on India
345
farmers, and hence allocate a considerable amount of farm produce on household
consumption.
The odds ratio for remittances (Remit) has turned out to be 0.92. This implies
that remittances into a household reduce its likelihood to be food insecure. More
precisely, the households receiving remittances are 8% less likely to be food insecure
than others. This is because receipt of remittances enhances liquidity and hence the
household can spend more on food.
The odds ratio of Pov is found to be as high as 12.51. This implies that the
probability of food insecurity for the poor households is higher than others. Food
insecurity of a poor household is 12.51 times of a non-poor household. This is quite
intuitive. The poor do not have enough resources to purchase the required amount of
food items for their household which raises their probability of being food insecure.
Finally, the Pseudo R squared is found to be reasonably high at 28.94%.
6 Conclusion
This chapter makes a novel attempt to examine food insecurity in India and its
variations across space and different social and religious groups. Around 28% of
the household in the country are found to be food insecure with large scale variations across the states and union territories. The percentage of food insecure sample
households in the country is found to be varying between 0% in Goa and Tripura, and
58% in Chhattisgarh. There is prevalence of large scale inequality in food insecurity
among various social and religious groups. Around 45% of the households belonging to scheduled tribes are food insecure and the corresponding figure for general
category households is 17%. Likewise, around 11% of the Sikh households are food
insecure and the same for religions other than Hindu, Muslims, Christians and Sikhs
are as high as 45%.
This chapter further examines the impact of weather shock on household level food
insecurity and explores the socio-economic determinants of the same. The results of
our analysis reveals that rainfall deviations from normal rainfall, which is used as a
proxy of weather shocks, have a positive impact on the probability of a household
to be food insecure. Moreover, size of households, dependency ratio, poverty and
urban residence make a household more likely to be food insecure. On the other
hand, per capita income, female adult education, remittances and cultivation as the
main occupation reduce the probability of food insecurity.
345
farmers, and hence allocate a considerable amount of farm produce on household
consumption.
The odds ratio for remittances (Remit) has turned out to be 0.92. This implies
that remittances into a household reduce its likelihood to be food insecure. More
precisely, the households receiving remittances are 8% less likely to be food insecure
than others. This is because receipt of remittances enhances liquidity and hence the
household can spend more on food.
The odds ratio of Pov is found to be as high as 12.51. This implies that the
probability of food insecurity for the poor households is higher than others. Food
insecurity of a poor household is 12.51 times of a non-poor household. This is quite
intuitive. The poor do not have enough resources to purchase the required amount of
food items for their household which raises their probability of being food insecure.
Finally, the Pseudo R squared is found to be reasonably high at 28.94%.
6 Conclusion
This chapter makes a novel attempt to examine food insecurity in India and its
variations across space and different social and religious groups. Around 28% of
the household in the country are found to be food insecure with large scale variations across the states and union territories. The percentage of food insecure sample
households in the country is found to be varying between 0% in Goa and Tripura, and
58% in Chhattisgarh. There is prevalence of large scale inequality in food insecurity
among various social and religious groups. Around 45% of the households belonging to scheduled tribes are food insecure and the corresponding figure for general
category households is 17%. Likewise, around 11% of the Sikh households are food
insecure and the same for religions other than Hindu, Muslims, Christians and Sikhs
are as high as 45%.
This chapter further examines the impact of weather shock on household level food
insecurity and explores the socio-economic determinants of the same. The results of
our analysis reveals that rainfall deviations from normal rainfall, which is used as a
proxy of weather shocks, have a positive impact on the probability of a household
to be food insecure. Moreover, size of households, dependency ratio, poverty and
urban residence make a household more likely to be food insecure. On the other
hand, per capita income, female adult education, remittances and cultivation as the
main occupation reduce the probability of food insecurity.