Malnutrition and income: Are we being misled? (A dissenting view about a confusing literature)

Abstract

This article takes issue with mainstream evidence in the literature purporting to show that increasing household income alone is not enough to do something significant towards combatting malnutrition in the world. It argues that poverty lines used as a threshold to surpass (in order to show measurable improvements in the nutritional status of vulnerable women and children in the short term) are too low. It further points out that the primary determinant of nutritional status of young children may actually not be total household income, but rather that portion of it earned and controlled by the mother. Modernization and market expansion have created consumption preferences that compete with food as a need thus leading to decreasing percentages of household income being spent on food. With competing expenditure options, the relative poverty line for a given location (based on current local food prices plus the prices of other needs) is clearly at a higher household income cut‐off point than the absolute poverty line that researchers reviewed are using as a threshold. Households that raise their income barely beyond the poverty‐line‐set‐too‐low still do not show the expected improvements in the nutritional status of vulnerable household members. The point is made that poverty alleviation of an order of magnitude significantly beyond absolute poverty is needed for lasting nutritional improvement to occur; providing for an adequate minimum nutrition of all household members year‐round is simply taking more, because the percentage of total income being spent on food is lower due to competing needs. It is concluded that poverty‐redressing interventions—as much as they may be in the economic realm only—remain central in the ultimate battle against malnutrition worldwide. The paper also explores how further income elasticity of demand assessments are key to redress the misleading perception that improvements in income alone do not lead to measurable improved nutritional status of vulnerable groups. Ultimately, the paper warns of the dangers of basing mainstream policy to revert malnutrition in the Third World on the conclusions drawn from studies using what the author thinks is misleading data interpretation.