Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013
description
Transcript of Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013
![Page 1: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Comparative Analysis of Food and Nutrients Demand in the Context of the Conditional Cash Transfer
Program Oportunidades in Mexico
Ana Elena Meza González
Supervisor: Dr. Christine WieckUCL – UBonn08.07.2013
![Page 2: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
1. Introductiona) Oportunidadesb) Research questions
2. Conditional Cash Transfers3. Analytical Framework4. Methodology5. Results6. Conclusions7. Recommendations
2
Content
![Page 3: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
᠐ 18.2% of Mexican population suffers from food poverty (2008) ~ 3.4 million households ~ 19.5 million people
1. Introduction
3
Source: taken from (CONEVAL, 2010)
Figure 1.1 Percentage of people suffering from food poverty. 1992 - 2008
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Results
Conclusion
Method
![Page 4: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Components of the Program (Irala Burgos, 2012)
᠐ Direct cash transfer to women to improve quantity, quality and diversity of food, and thus provide better nutrition.
᠐ Nutritional supplements: children 4 mo. – 2 years. Lactating and pregnant women.
᠐ In 2008 – Aid for a Better Living
Conditions:᠐ Grants to children under 18 who regularly attend school
between 3rd grade and 3rd year of High school. ᠐ Girls grant > Boys grant in secondary school.᠐ Regular visits to health centers.᠐ Health and nutritional workshops targeted to women.
᠐ The cash transferred represents on average 25% of the total income received by rural families, and between 15 to 20% of urban families’ income
1.a Oportunidades
4
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Results
Conclusion
Method
![Page 5: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Nutritional Impact :᠐ Oportunidades has lead to a significant increase in
children anthropometry. ᠐ One year after the implementation of the program:
beneficiary children in rural areas (44%) were found to be anemic, compared to 55% of the children in the control group. In urban areas, there was no significant difference among anemia rates.
᠐ There were not found statistically differences in the serum concentration of ferritin or soluble ferritin receptor, nor in serum zinc and retinol concentration.
᠐ (Behrman & Hoddinott, 2005) (Leroy, Ruel, & Verhofstadt, 2009)
᠐ There has not been an improvement on the micronutrient status even after the delivery of food supplements.
1.a Oportunidades
5
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Results
Conclusion
Method
![Page 6: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
᠐ The aim of this study is to assess the impact of the Cash Transfer Program Oportunidades on nutrition of beneficiary households.
᠐ The objective is to analyze the food and nutrient demand of
the recipients of the cash transfer program Oportunidades by estimating their food and nutrient elasticities with respect to income and price.
᠐ This study will try to answer the following research questions: 1. Has the Conditional Cash Transfer Program
Oportunidades achieved to improve food availability of the households recipients of the transfer compared to no beneficiaries?
2. Has the Conditional Cash Transfer Program Oportunidades lead to diverse and nutrient-rich food consumption?
1.b Research questions
6
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Results
Conclusion
Method
![Page 7: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
2. Conditional Cash Transfer
7
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Results
Conclusion
Method
Cash to Women
Fortified Products
Education in Health &
Nutrition to Women
Health Visits (Condition)
Education (Condition)
Program
HH Income & Women’s Income Control
Women’s Time
Use of Health and Nutrition
Services
School Enrolment & Attendance
HH Food Security-Diet
Quality /Quantity
Feeding & Care Practices Educated
Girls
Food / Nutrient Intake Health
Household Members’ Nutrition
Underlying C
ausesInterm
ediate C
auses
Women’s Knowledge &
Awareness
Education supply
Health Supply
Long Term
᠐ Figure 2.1 Mechanisms by which conditional cash transfer programs may affect nutritional status
Source: adapted from (Leroy, Ruel, & Verhofstadt, 2009)
![Page 8: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
2. Conditional Cash Transfer
8
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Results
Conclusion
Method
Cash to Women
Fortified Products
Education in Health &
Nutrition to Women
Health Visits (Condition)
Education (Condition)
Program
HH Income & Women’s Income Control
Women’s Time
Use of Health and Nutrition
Services
School Enrolment & Attendance
HH Food Security-Diet
Quality /Quantity
Feeding & Care Practices Educated
Girls
Food / Nutrient Intake
Health
Household Members’ Nutrition
Underlying C
ausesInterm
ediate C
auses
Women’s Knowledge &
Awareness
Education supply
Health Supply
Long Term
᠐ Figure 2.1 Mechanisms by which conditional cash transfer programs may affect nutritional status
Source: adapted from (Leroy, Ruel, & Verhofstadt, 2009)
![Page 9: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
3. Analytical Framework
9
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Method
Results
Conclusion
Y (Food)
X (Education, Health)
B
A
E
F
DXmin
Non-beneficiary Household
C
Beneficiary Household
᠐ Figure 2.3 Beneficiary and No Beneficiary Households of Conditional Cash Transfer Programs.
![Page 10: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
3. Analytical Framework
10
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Method
Results
Conclusion
᠐ Data: 2010 National Survey of Households’ Income and Expenditure (ENIGH).
᠐ “Mexican System of Equivalent Food” (Pérez Lizaur et al., 2008).
᠐ Table 1. Household Characteristics
![Page 11: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
3. Analytical Framework
11
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Method
Results
Conclusion
᠐ Figure 3.1 Multistage Demand System
![Page 12: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
4. Methodology
12
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Results
Conclusion
Method
Unit value Quality Elasticity
First Stage Food-at-home Leser’s approach
Second & Third Stage
1. QUAIDS
Ecker, O., & Qaim, M. (2011)Tafere, K., Taffesse, A. S., & Tamiru, S. (2010).
![Page 13: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
4. Methodology
13
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Results
Conclusion
Method
Second & Third Stage
2. Two step Censoring
3. Endogeneity
Elasticity
€
E i = μ i +1− β iIncome Elasticity
Marshallian Price Elasticity
Hicksian Price Elasticity
![Page 14: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
4. Methodology
14
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Results
Conclusion
Method
Elasticity
Unconditional Elasticity
Nutrient Elasticity wrt Expenditure
Nutrient Elasticity wrt
Price
![Page 15: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
4. Methodology
15
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Results
Conclusion
Method
᠐ Limitations of the study
᠐ The disturbance terms of the final model are heteroscedastic (Tafere, Taffesse, & Tamiru, 2010),
᠐ The adding-up restriction cannot be imposed via parametric restrictions (Tafere, Taffesse, & Tamiru, 2010),
᠐ under- or overestimation of expenditure,᠐ food purchased but not actually consumed,᠐ intra-household food allocation,᠐ food preparation,᠐ number of food items considered in this research.
![Page 16: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
5. Results
16
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Method
Results
Conclusion
Expenditure Elasticity Expenditure Share
Beneficiaries Non-Beneficiaries
Test H0: Eopor = Eno-opor
Benef. Non- Benef.
1. Stage
Food-at-home 0.411*** 0.321*** 0.000 0.500 0.421
2. Stage
Staple Food 0.997*** 0.840*** 0.000 0.328 0.330Animal Products 0.835*** 0.958*** 0.000 0.245 0.274
Vegetables 0.843*** 0.888*** 0.021 0.180 0.167Fruits 0.795*** 0.935*** 0.041 0.089 0.085Complements 1.187*** 1.120*** 0.000 0.157 0.144
3. Stage
Maize 0.981*** 0.960*** 0.133 0.321 0.373Rice 0.949*** 0.908*** 0.000 0.107 0.058Beef 1.018*** 0.966*** 0.489 0.119 0.174Chicken 0.937*** 0.898*** 0.001 0.168 0.214Zucchini 0.555** 0.466** 0.723 0.155 0.160Tomato 0.722*** 0.833*** 0.000 0.394 0.387Apple 0.968*** 0.733*** 0.081 0.274 0.252Banana 1.024*** 0.510*** 0.000 0.417 0.402Soda 0.963*** 1.024*** 0.321 0.366 0.435Alcohol 2.498*** 0.783*** 0.000 0.077 0.102
![Page 17: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
5. Results
17
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Method
Results
Conclusion
Expenditure Elasticity Expenditure Share
Beneficiaries Non-Beneficiaries
Test H0: Eopor = Eno-opor
Benef. Non- Benef.
1. Stage Food-at-home 0.411*** 0.321*** 0.000 0.500 0.421
2. Stage
Staple Food 0.997*** 0.840*** 0.000 0.328 0.330Animal Products 0.835*** 0.958*** 0.000 0.245 0.274
Vegetables 0.843*** 0.888*** 0.021 0.180 0.167Fruits 0.795*** 0.935*** 0.041 0.089 0.085Complements 1.187*** 1.120*** 0.000 0.157 0.144
3. Stage
Maize 0.981*** 0.960*** 0.133 0.321 0.373Rice 0.949*** 0.908*** 0.000 0.107 0.058Beef 1.018*** 0.966*** 0.489 0.119 0.174Chicken 0.937*** 0.898*** 0.001 0.168 0.214Zucchini 0.555** 0.466** 0.723 0.155 0.160Tomato 0.722*** 0.833*** 0.000 0.394 0.387Apple 0.968*** 0.733*** 0.081 0.274 0.252Banana 1.024*** 0.510*** 0.000 0.417 0.402Soda 0.963*** 1.024*** 0.321 0.366 0.435Alcohol 2.498*** 0.783*** 0.000 0.077 0.102
![Page 18: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
5. Results
18
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Method
Results
Conclusion
Expenditure Elasticity Expenditure Share
Beneficiaries Non-Beneficiaries
Test H0: Eopor = Eno-opor
Benef. Non- Benef.
1. Stage Food-at-home 0.411 *** 0.321*** 0.000 0.500 0.421
2. Stage
Staple Food 0.997 *** 0.840*** 0.000 0.328 0.330Animal Products 0.835 *** 0.958*** 0.000 0.245 0.274Vegetables 0.843 *** 0.888*** 0.021 0.180 0.167Fruits 0.795 *** 0.935*** 0.041 0.089 0.085
Complements 1.187 *** 1.120*** 0.000 0.157 0.144
3. Stage
Maize 0.981*** 0.960*** 0.133 0.321 0.373Rice 0.949*** 0.908*** 0.000 0.107 0.058Beef 1.018*** 0.966*** 0.489 0.119 0.174Chicken 0.937*** 0.898*** 0.001 0.168 0.214Zucchini 0.555** 0.466** 0.723 0.155 0.160Tomato 0.722*** 0.833*** 0.000 0.394 0.387Apple 0.968*** 0.733*** 0.081 0.274 0.252Banana 1.024*** 0.510*** 0.000 0.417 0.402Soda 0.963*** 1.024*** 0.321 0.366 0.435Alcohol 2.498*** 0.783*** 0.000 0.077 0.102
![Page 19: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
5. Results
19
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Method
Results
Conclusion
Calorie Elasticity with respect to Income
Food-at-home Expenditure
elasticityBeneficiaries 0.457 0.411
Non-beneficiares 0.334 0.321
![Page 20: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
5. Results
20
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Method
Results
Conclusion
Beneficiary Households - Nutrient elasticity with respect to price
Energ
yProtei
n Lipids Carb. Fiber Vit. A Vit. C Folate Fe K Ca
Maize-
0.044
-0.103 0.162 -0.220 -0.272 0.029 0.069 0.203 -0.258 0.123 -0.590
Wheat -0.023 -0.096 0.077 -0.088 0.071 0.027 0.076 -0.097 -0.055 0.106 0.107
Beans -0.007 -0.107 0.130 -0.109 -0.210 0.021 0.012 -0.123 -0.129 0.112 -0.153
Rice 0.000 -0.012 0.044 -0.032 0.062 0.011 0.037 -0.231 -0.018 0.041 0.081Beef 0.016 -0.019 0.034 0.009 0.005 0.114 0.000 0.005 -0.007 -0.002 0.019
Chicken 0.036 0.045 0.060 0.013 0.008 0.152 0.000 0.003 0.030 -0.002 0.032Milk 0.018 0.010 0.035 0.005 0.006 -0.008 0.000 0.004 0.012 -0.002 -0.022Eggs 0.059 -0.091 0.118 0.037 0.027 -0.507 0.000 0.024 -0.026 -0.008 -0.015
Zucchini 0.013 0.008 0.014 0.013 0.010 -0.002 -0.014 0.005 0.012 -0.019 0.013Onion 0.019 0.011 0.022 0.017 0.008 0.002 -0.051 -0.004 0.018 -0.071 0.021
Tomato 0.034 0.019 0.035 0.036 0.019 -0.140 -0.305 -0.006 0.027 -0.396 0.035Potato 0.033 0.021 0.036 0.031 0.019 -0.010 0.006 0.010 0.032 -0.001 0.037Apple -0.004 0.016 -0.032 0.016 0.015 0.003 0.032 0.024 0.019 0.001 0.021
Banana -0.006 0.023 -0.048 0.024 0.017 0.001 -0.225 0.017 0.027 -0.030 0.033Oranges -0.005 0.007 -0.014 0.003 0.010 -0.006 -0.023 -0.009 0.013 -0.123 0.010Lemon -0.003 0.010 -0.022 0.010 0.009 0.005 0.128 0.021 0.010 -0.028 0.014Soda 0.085 0.104 0.111 0.054 0.095 0.078 -0.014 0.094 0.110 -0.064 0.119
Alcohol 0.019 0.024 0.031 0.022 0.022 0.016 0.003 0.020 0.025 -0.013 0.025Chips -0.043 0.029 -0.139 0.025 0.027 0.022 -0.005 0.027 0.031 -0.018 0.034
Fat & Oil-
0.276
0.123 -0.813 0.108 0.111 0.097 -0.036 0.117 0.132 -0.079 0.146
![Page 21: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
5. Results
21
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Method
Results
Conclusion
Beneficiary Households - Nutrient elasticity with respect to price
Energ
yProte
in Lipids Carb. Fiber Vit. A Vit. C Folate Fe K Ca
Maize -0.044-
0.103
0.162 -0.220 -0.272 0.029 0.069 0.203 -0.258 0.123 -0.590
Wheat -0.023 -0.096 0.077 -0.088 0.071 0.027 0.076 -0.097 -0.055 0.106 0.107
Beans -0.007-
0.107
0.130 -0.109 -0.210 0.021 0.012 -0.123 -0.129 0.112 -0.153
Rice 0.000 -0.012 0.044 -0.032 0.062 0.011 0.037 -0.231 -0.018 0.041 0.081
Beef 0.016 -0.019 0.034 0.009 0.005 0.114 0.000 0.005 -0.007 -0.002 0.019
Chicken 0.036 0.045 0.060 0.013 0.008 0.152 0.000 0.003 0.030 -0.002 0.032Milk 0.018 0.010 0.035 0.005 0.006 -0.008 0.000 0.004 0.012 -0.002 -0.022
Eggs 0.059 -0.091 0.118 0.037 0.027 -0.507 0.000 0.024 -0.026 -0.008 -0.015
Zucchini 0.013 0.008 0.014 0.013 0.010 -0.002 -0.014 0.005 0.012 -0.019 0.013Onion 0.019 0.011 0.022 0.017 0.008 0.002 -0.051 -0.004 0.018 -0.071 0.021
Tomato 0.034 0.019 0.035 0.036 0.019 -0.140 -0.305 -0.006 0.027 -0.396 0.035Potato 0.033 0.021 0.036 0.031 0.019 -0.010 0.006 0.010 0.032 -0.001 0.037Apple -0.004 0.016 -0.032 0.016 0.015 0.003 0.032 0.024 0.019 0.001 0.021
Banana -0.006 0.023 -0.048 0.024 0.017 0.001 -0.225 0.017 0.027 -0.030 0.033Oranges -0.005 0.007 -0.014 0.003 0.010 -0.006 -0.023 -0.009 0.013 -0.123 0.010Lemon -0.003 0.010 -0.022 0.010 0.009 0.005 0.128 0.021 0.010 -0.028 0.014Soda 0.085 0.104 0.111 0.054 0.095 0.078 -0.014 0.094 0.110 -0.064 0.119
Alcohol 0.019 0.024 0.031 0.022 0.022 0.016 0.003 0.020 0.025 -0.013 0.025Chips -0.043 0.029 -0.139 0.025 0.027 0.022 -0.005 0.027 0.031 -0.018 0.034
Fat & Oil -0.276 0.123 -0.813 0.108 0.111 0.097 -0.036 0.117 0.132 -0.079 0.146
![Page 22: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
5. Results
22
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Method
Results
Conclusion
Beneficiary Households - Nutrient elasticity with respect to price
Energ
yProte
in Lipids Carb. Fiber Vit. A Vit. C Folate Fe K Ca
Maize -0.044
-0.103 0.162 -0.220 -
0.272 0.029 0.069 0.203 -0.258 0.123 -
0.590Wheat -0.023 -0.096 0.077 -0.088 0.071 0.027 0.076 -0.097 -0.055 0.106 0.107Beans -0.007 -
0.107 0.130 -0.109 -0.210 0.021 0.012 -
0.123-
0.129 0.112 -0.153
Rice 0.000 -0.012 0.044 -0.032 0.062 0.011 0.037 -0.231 -0.018 0.041 0.081
Beef 0.016 -0.019 0.034 0.009 0.005 0.114 0.000 0.005 -0.007 -0.002 0.019Chicken 0.036 0.045 0.060 0.013 0.008 0.152 0.000 0.003 0.030 -0.002 0.032
Milk 0.018 0.010 0.035 0.005 0.006 -0.008 0.000 0.004 0.012 -0.002 -0.022Eggs 0.059 -
0.091 0.118 0.037 0.027 -0.507 0.000 0.024 -0.026 -0.008 -0.015
Zucchini 0.013 0.008 0.014 0.013 0.010 -0.002 -0.014 0.005 0.012 -0.019 0.013Onion 0.019 0.011 0.022 0.017 0.008 0.002 -0.051 -0.004 0.018 -0.071 0.021
Tomato 0.034 0.019 0.035 0.036 0.019 -0.140 -0.305 -0.006 0.027 -
0.396 0.035Potato 0.033 0.021 0.036 0.031 0.019 -0.010 0.006 0.010 0.032 -0.001 0.037Apple -0.004 0.016 -0.032 0.016 0.015 0.003 0.032 0.024 0.019 0.001 0.021
Banana -0.006 0.023 -0.048 0.024 0.017 0.001 -0.225 0.017 0.027 -0.030 0.033Oranges -0.005 0.007 -0.014 0.003 0.010 -0.006 -0.023 -0.009 0.013 -
0.123 0.010Lemon -0.003 0.010 -0.022 0.010 0.009 0.005 0.128 0.021 0.010 -0.028 0.014Soda 0.085 0.104 0.111 0.054 0.095 0.078 -0.014 0.094 0.110 -0.064 0.119
Alcohol 0.019 0.024 0.031 0.022 0.022 0.016 0.003 0.020 0.025 -0.013 0.025Chips -0.043 0.029 -
0.139 0.025 0.027 0.022 -0.005 0.027 0.031 -0.018 0.034
Fat & Oil -0.276 0.123 -
0.813 0.108 0.111 0.097 -0.036 0.117 0.132 -0.079 0.146
![Page 23: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
5. Results
23
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Method
Results
Conclusion
Beneficiary Households - Nutrient elasticity with respect to price
Energ
yProte
in Lipids Carb. Fiber Vit. A Vit. C Folate Fe K Ca
Maize-
0.044
-0.10
30.162 -0.220
-0.27
20.029 0.069 0.203
-0.25
80.123
-0.59
0Wheat -0.023 -0.096 0.077 -0.088 0.071 0.027 0.076 -0.097 -0.055 0.106 0.107
Beans -0.007
-0.10
70.130 -0.109
-0.21
00.021 0.012
-0.12
3
-0.12
90.112
-0.15
3Rice 0.000 -0.012 0.044 -0.032 0.062 0.011 0.037 -
0.231 -0.018 0.041 0.081Beef 0.016 -0.019 0.034 0.009 0.005 0.114 0.000 0.005 -0.007 -0.002 0.019
Chicken 0.036 0.045 0.060 0.013 0.008 0.152 0.000 0.003 0.030 -0.002 0.032Milk 0.018 0.010 0.035 0.005 0.006 -0.008 0.000 0.004 0.012 -0.002 -0.022
Eggs 0.059-
0.091
0.118 0.037 0.027-
0.507
0.000 0.024 -0.026
-0.008
-0.015
Zucchini 0.013 0.008 0.014 0.013 0.010 -0.002 -0.014 0.005 0.012 -0.019 0.013Onion 0.019 0.011 0.022 0.017 0.008 0.002 -0.051 -0.004 0.018 -0.071 0.021
Tomato 0.034 0.019 0.035 0.036 0.019-
0.140
-0.305
-0.006 0.027
-0.39
60.035
Potato 0.033 0.021 0.036 0.031 0.019 -0.010 0.006 0.010 0.032 -0.001 0.037Apple -0.004 0.016 -0.032 0.016 0.015 0.003 0.032 0.024 0.019 0.001 0.021
Banana -0.006 0.023 -0.048 0.024 0.017 0.001 -0.225 0.017 0.027 -0.030 0.033Oranges -0.005 0.007 -0.014 0.003 0.010 -0.006 -0.023 -0.009 0.013 -
0.123 0.010Lemon -0.003 0.010 -0.022 0.010 0.009 0.005 0.128 0.021 0.010 -0.028 0.014Soda 0.085 0.104 0.111 0.054 0.095 0.078 -0.014 0.094 0.110 -0.064 0.119
Alcohol 0.019 0.024 0.031 0.022 0.022 0.016 0.003 0.020 0.025 -0.013 0.025Chips -0.043 0.029 -
0.139 0.025 0.027 0.022 -0.005 0.027 0.031 -0.018 0.034
Fat & Oil -0.276 0.123 -
0.813 0.108 0.111 0.097 -0.036 0.117 0.132 -0.079 0.146
![Page 24: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
5. Results
24
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Method
Results
Conclusion
Beneficiary Households - Nutrient elasticity with respect to price
Energ
yProte
in Lipids Carb. Fiber Vit. A Vit. C Folate Fe K Ca
Maize -0.044 -0.103 0.162 -0.220 -0.272 0.029 0.069 0.203 -0.258 0.123 -0.590Wheat -0.023 -0.096 0.077 -0.088 0.071 0.027 0.076 -0.097 -0.055 0.106 0.107Beans -0.007 -0.107 0.130 -0.109 -0.210 0.021 0.012 -0.123 -0.129 0.112 -0.153Rice 0.000 -0.012 0.044 -0.032 0.062 0.011 0.037 -0.231 -0.018 0.041 0.081Beef 0.016 -0.019 0.034 0.009 0.005 0.114 0.000 0.005 -0.007 -0.002 0.019
Chicken 0.036 0.045 0.060 0.013 0.008 0.152 0.000 0.003 0.030 -0.002 0.032Milk 0.018 0.010 0.035 0.005 0.006 -0.008 0.000 0.004 0.012 -0.002 -0.022Eggs 0.059 -0.091 0.118 0.037 0.027 -0.507 0.000 0.024 -0.026 -0.008 -0.015
Zucchini 0.013 0.008 0.014 0.013 0.010 -0.002 -0.014 0.005 0.012 -0.019 0.013Onion 0.019 0.011 0.022 0.017 0.008 0.002 -0.051 -0.004 0.018 -0.071 0.021
Tomato 0.034 0.019 0.035 0.036 0.019 -0.140 -0.305 -0.006 0.027 -0.396 0.035Potato 0.033 0.021 0.036 0.031 0.019 -0.010 0.006 0.010 0.032 -0.001 0.037Apple -0.004 0.016 -0.032 0.016 0.015 0.003 0.032 0.024 0.019 0.001 0.021
Banana -0.006 0.023 -0.048 0.024 0.017 0.001 -0.225 0.017 0.027 -0.030 0.033Oranges -0.005 0.007 -0.014 0.003 0.010 -0.006 -0.023 -0.009 0.013 -0.123 0.010Lemon -0.003 0.010 -0.022 0.010 0.009 0.005 0.128 0.021 0.010 -0.028 0.014Soda 0.085 0.104 0.111 0.054 0.095 0.078 -0.014 0.094 0.110 -0.064 0.119
Alcohol 0.019 0.024 0.031 0.022 0.022 0.016 0.003 0.020 0.025 -0.013 0.025Chips -0.043 0.029 -0.139 0.025 0.027 0.022 -0.005 0.027 0.031 -0.018 0.034
Fat & Oil -0.276 0.123 -0.813 0.108 0.111 0.097 -0.036 0.117 0.132 -0.079 0.146
![Page 25: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
5. Results
25
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Method
Results
Conclusion
Beneficiary Households - Nutrient elasticity with respect to price
Energ
yProte
in Lipids Carb. Fiber Vit. A Vit. C Folate Fe K Ca
Maize -0.044 -0.103 0.162 -0.220 -0.272 0.029 0.069 0.203 -0.258 0.123 -0.590Wheat -0.023 -0.096 0.077 -0.088 0.071 0.027 0.076 -0.097 -0.055 0.106 0.107Beans -0.007 -0.107 0.130 -0.109 -0.210 0.021 0.012 -0.123 -0.129 0.112 -0.153Rice 0.000 -0.012 0.044 -0.032 0.062 0.011 0.037 -0.231 -0.018 0.041 0.081Beef 0.016 -0.019 0.034 0.009 0.005 0.114 0.000 0.005 -0.007 -0.002 0.019
Chicken 0.036 0.045 0.060 0.013 0.008 0.152 0.000 0.003 0.030 -0.002 0.032Milk 0.018 0.010 0.035 0.005 0.006 -0.008 0.000 0.004 0.012 -0.002 -0.022Eggs 0.059 -0.091 0.118 0.037 0.027 -0.507 0.000 0.024 -0.026 -0.008 -0.015
Zucchini 0.013 0.008 0.014 0.013 0.010 -0.002 -0.014 0.005 0.012 -0.019 0.013Onion 0.019 0.011 0.022 0.017 0.008 0.002 -0.051 -0.004 0.018 -0.071 0.021
Tomato 0.034 0.019 0.035 0.036 0.019 -0.140 -0.305 -0.006 0.027 -0.396 0.035Potato 0.033 0.021 0.036 0.031 0.019 -0.010 0.006 0.010 0.032 -0.001 0.037Apple -0.004 0.016 -0.032 0.016 0.015 0.003 0.032 0.024 0.019 0.001 0.021
Banana -0.006 0.023 -0.048 0.024 0.017 0.001 -0.225 0.017 0.027 -0.030 0.033Oranges -0.005 0.007 -0.014 0.003 0.010 -0.006 -0.023 -0.009 0.013 -0.123 0.010Lemon -0.003 0.010 -0.022 0.010 0.009 0.005 0.128 0.021 0.010 -0.028 0.014Soda 0.08
50.10
40.11
1 0.054 0.095 0.078 -0.014 0.094 0.110
-0.064
0.119
Alcohol 0.019 0.024 0.031 0.022 0.022 0.016 0.003 0.020 0.025 -0.013 0.025Chips -0.043 0.029 -0.139 0.025 0.027 0.022 -0.005 0.027 0.031 -0.018 0.034
Fat & Oil -0.276 0.123 -0.813 0.108 0.111 0.097 -0.036 0.117 0.132 -0.079 0.146
![Page 26: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
᠐ Quantity᠐ May not be enough to cover the necessity for food.᠐ The cash transfer may be diverted into other type of expenditure.
᠐ Diversity᠐ Increased within food groups.᠐ Similar among groups.
᠐ Quality᠐ Beneficiaries depend on few products (maize, beans, eggs, tomatoes)
to get most of macro- and micronutrients.᠐ An increase in income would increase staple food and complement
consumption, more than animal products, vegetables and fruits.
᠐ Positive effect of nutritional and health education.
6. Conclusion
26
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Method
Results
Conclusion
![Page 27: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
᠐ Future research:᠐ Increase the number of food items in the
study. ᠐ Survey on consumption not on expenditure.
᠐ Other policy impacts.
᠐ Policy recommendation:᠐ Near-to-cash transfer to meet the objective of
the program.
7. Recommendations
27
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Method
Results
Conclusion
![Page 28: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
᠐ Illustration: Marcelo Romero
Thank you.
28
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Method
Results
Conclusion
![Page 29: Ana Elena Meza González Supervisor: Dr. Christi ne Wieck UCL – UBonn 08.07.2013](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062816/56816731550346895ddbd990/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
᠐ Illustration: Marcelo Romero 29
Intro
Oportu-
nidades
Hypothesis
CCT
Framework
Method
Results
Conclusion
References
᠐ Behrman, J. R., & Hoddinott, J. F. (2005). “Programme Evaluation with Unobserved Heterogeneity and Selective Implementation: The Mexican ‘PROGRESA’ Impact on Child Nutrition.”. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics , 67 (4), 547-569.
᠐ Ecker, O., & Qaim, M. (2011). Analyzing Nutritional Impacts of Policies. An Empirical Study for Malawi. World Development , 39 (3), 412-428.
᠐ Leroy, J. L., Ruel, M., & Verhofstadt, E. (2009). The Impact of Conditional Cash Transfer Programmes on Child Nutrition: a Review of Evidence using a Programme Theory Framework. Journal of Development Effectiveness , 1 (2), 103-129.
᠐ Pérez Lizaur, A. B., Marván Laborde, L., & Palicios, B. (2008). Sistema Mexicano de Alimentos Equivalentes (3rd Edition ed.). Mexico: Fomento de Nutrición y Salud, A. C.
᠐ Tafere, K., Taffesse, A. S., & Tamiru, S. (2010, April). Food Demand Elasticities in Ethiopia: Estimates Using Household Income Consumption Expenditure (HICE) Survey Data . Discussion Paper No. ESSP2 011.