124 CHAPTER 8
the household expenditure dedicated to food, although this had no impact on reducing hunger. On the other hand, the number of female pensioners in the household was associated with a lower prevalence of hunger but had no impact on the share of the household expenditure on food. These results are consistent with the theory of the nonunitary household in which increases in household expenditures do not automatically translate into improved house- hold consumption for all household members. Male pensioners may have spent pension money on food for themselves instead of other household mem- bers, while female pensioners may have allocated more of the pension to young children and other household members (Samson et al. 2004, 82). In Namibia, 27 percent of pension income was dedicated to food for the family and 10.6 percent to food for the pensioner (Devereux 2001). A 2006 evaluation of Ethiopia’s PSNP found that 80 percent of beneficia-
ries used some cash to purchase staple foods, and 11 percent used some of the transfer for other foods (Devereux et al. 2006, 34). The 2007 PSNP evalu- ation found no significant effect of PSNP transfers on per capita food con- sumption, although other measures of food security improved (Gilligan, Hoddi- nott, and Taffessee 2007, 39, 42). On average, beneficiaries of Kenya’s Cash Transfer for OVC spent at least
half of the transfer on expenditures related to program objectives (food, health, and education) (Acacia Consultants 2007, 16). Eighty-six percent of households reported spending some of the transfer on food, mostly purchas- ing maize, as well as tea, sugar, beans, rice, and fruit. The relatively smaller share of the transfer spent on food (25 percent) than in other programs (Fig- ure 8.1) may have occurred because the transfer was given in a six-month lump sum, making it difficult to spend all the money on immediate consum- ables (Acacia Consultants 2007, 15).
Bazo (1998) noted that in Maputo, Mozambique’s GAPVU cash transfer had
no effect on food consumption because the transfer was too small. If the entire monthly subsidy ($3–$6 per month) had been used to purchase food (which, in general, it was not), it would have provided only 225 calories per day for one person. The study found that the mean per capita calories were nearly identi- cal for beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries, with the sample of 41 elderly ben- eficiaries consuming 1,403 kilocalories per day compared to 1,453 per day for the 40 elderly nonbeneficiaries. However, there were other program impacts. Reliance on food donations from family and friends and begging declined among beneficiaries as they began to purchase more food in the market (Bazo 1998, as cited in Low, Garrett, and Ginja 1999, 39; Tarp et al. 2002, 108). In Lesotho, about one-third of pension income, on average, was used for
food for the household, often for the purchase of items such as meat, eggs, and sugar. However, pensioners themselves ate only 40 percent of this extra
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237