Are Female-Headed Households Less Food Secure Are Female-Headed Households Less Food Secure? Evidence from Nigeria and Ethiopia. Seyi S. Akadiri*, Ikechukwu D. Nwaka** and Glenn P. Jenkins *Department of Economics, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta-North Cyprus, Via Mersin 10-Turkey. **Department of Economics, Girne American University, Kyrenia-North Cyprus, Via Mersin 10-Turkey. seyi.saint@emu.edu.tr 1 AFEA Session—Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, 5h – 7rd January, 2018 1

Structure of the presentation Introduction Review in brief. Data and variable definitions Key findings AFEA Session—Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, 5h – 7rd January, 2018 2

Background Sub-Saharan Africa is generally blessed with fertile soils and rich agricultural productivities. However, in the past 25 years there has been a rise in the number of undernourished people. The region has been experiencing 3% decline in food availability since 1990, this is significantly high, when compare to the rise in the per capita of 20% and 30% in Latin America and Asia (FAO, 2015). AFEA Session—Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, 5h – 7rd January, 2018 3

Table 1: Number of undernourished people across Africa. African region Population No of Undernourished % of Population   2014-16 East 410.6 124.2 30.2* Middle 158.5 58.9 37 Southern 64.3 3.2 4.9 Western 362.2 31.5 8.7* Total 995.6 217.8  21.9 Source: FAO (2015) and Worldometer (2017) AFEA Session—Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, 5h – 7rd January, 2018 4

Research Objectives Despite these regional differences, country specific factors could also affect the level of food availability and security. This study considers these differences by analyzing comparative cases of food security across for Ethiopia and Nigeria. We carry out a comparative study on the determinants of food security amongst male head of household (MHH) and female head of household (FHH) in Ethiopia and Nigeria, using the Ethiopia Socioeconomic Survey (ESS) and Nigeria General Household Survey (NGHS) cross-sectional panel data. AFEA Session—Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, 5h – 7rd January, 2018 5

Why Nigeria and Ethiopia?. Ethiopia has been the fastest growing non-oil dependent African economy, and has witnessed rapid economic growth, averaging 10.9 per cent between 2004 and 2014. It is the second most populous country in Africa with a population of over 102 million people—yet having a per capita income of $660 as of 2016. Ethiopia is not a petroleum producer but has a well developed and functioning electricity sector. Nigeria has the largest population in Africa of about 196 million people with a per capita income of $2178. Nigeria is the 12th largest oil producer and 8th largest oil exporter in the world. The electricity sector has been a disaster. A major constraint to development. AFEA Session—Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, 5h – 7rd January, 2018 6

Definitions… Food security prevails when individual and/or households have access to require dietary and sufficient food at all times to meet their desired levels of consumption (World Bank 1980; FAO 1992; Siamwalla and Valdes 1994). Food insecurity on the other hand, is a situation in which access to adequate food either by individual or households is limited by a lack of money or other resources at times during a day, week, month or year. (USDA, 2015) AFEA Session—Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, 5h – 7rd January, 2018 7

Previous Studies Quisumbing (1995), Fuwa (2000), Gangopadhyay and Wadhwa (2004), Duflo and Udry (2004), Mallick and Rafi, (2010), Kassie, Stage, Teklewold and Erenstein (2015) among others What we added to food security literature: First, comparative analysis regarding the existing studies for Ethiopia and Nigeria specifically. Second, we introduced Perceptive food security measures, and Experiential food security measures AFEA Session—Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, 5h – 7rd January, 2018 8

Data Data obtained from the Nigerian General Household and Ethiopia Socioeconomic Survey-cross sectional panel (2nd wave) 2011-2012 contains 14,691 households for Nigeria and 12,806 households for Ethiopia. Perceptive food insecurity indicator: In the past 12 months, have you been faced with a situation when you did not have enough food to feed the household? Food secure = 1, Food insecure = 0 AFEA Session—Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, 5h – 7rd January, 2018 9

Data Experiential food insecurity indicator. Ask questions such as, in the past 7 days, how many days have you or someone in your household had to: Limit the variety of foods eaten? (Food limitation) Reduce number of meals eaten in a day? (Food reduction) Restrict consumption by adults in order for small children to eat? (Food restriction) Households responding (1,…., 7) days to these experiential food insecurity indicators questions are perceived to be suffering from increasing days of food insecurity. Data show that the FHHs are indeed less food secured than their MHHs in Ethiopia and Nigeria. AFEA Session—Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, 5h – 7rd January, 2018 10

Percentage of Households by Gender of Head of Household. Proportion of Households Ethiopia Nigeria Male-Headed 75.3 80.6 Female-Headed 27.7 19.4 Total Household 100.0 29.4 24.2 33.2 32.5 Food insecurity for country as % of total households 30.4 25.8 Source: Authors’ Computation using the 2013/2014 Ethiopian Socioeconomic Surveys (ESS) and 2011/2012 General Household Surveys (GHS) for Nigeria. AFEA Session—Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, 5h – 7rd January, 2018 11

Median Monthly Exp. on Food (USD) Household heads by primary employments and food expenditure Ethiopia Nigeria MHH FHH Agriculture 90.02 70.07 47.05 45.75 Non-Agriculture 9.98 29.93 52.95 54.25 Total 100 Median Monthly Exp. on Food (USD) 25.42 21.92 139.86 63.57 Source: Self computed from the cross-sectional GHS- panel data (NBS 2012) AFEA Session—Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, 5h – 7rd January, 2018 12

Approach of data analysis….. The study uses probit and tobit regression models to capture food security levels among the MHHs and FHHs. Probit regression model accounts for binary outcomes. Perceptive Indicators (Dependent variable). Food security = 1 (Otherwise 0 = Food insecurity) Tobit regression model is employed for censored data. Experiential Indicators (Dependent variables). Food limitation (0, 1, ……, 7) Food reduction (0, 1, ……, 7) Food restrictive (0, 1, ……, 7) Households answering zero (0) days to the experiential questions are perceived to be food secured. AFEA Session—Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, 5h – 7rd January, 2018 13

Empirical results and discussion Table 5A: Determinants of Food Security for MHHs and FHHs combined.   Probit Model Variables Food security Secure =1 Insecure = 0 Nigeria Ethiopia HH_Gender (M=1, F=0) 0.484** (0.039) 0.135*** (0.168) HH_Agric 0.146** (0.027) 0.119*** (0.244) HH_Ysch 0.026*** (0.002) 0.047*** (0.020) Hhsize 0.021*** (0.003) 0.017*** (0.020) Prox to Makt 0.140** (0.024) 0.044*** (0.024) HH_Exp (USD) 0.041*** (0.000) 0.016*** (0.002) Children < 15 -0.031 (0.028) 0..002 (0.029) Children > 15 0.080** (0.029) 0.109*** (0.025) Urban 0.003 (0.030) 0.227*** (0.043) Own-Home 0.173*** (0.030) 0.002*** (0.039) Constant 0.073*** (0.058) 0.233*** (0.059) Observations 14,675 12,778 AFEA Session—Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, 5h – 7rd January, 2018 14

Days of Food Reduction (0-7) Empirical results and discussion Table 5B: Determinants of Food Security for MHHs and FHHs combined.   Tobit Model Variables Days of Food Variety Limitations (0-7) Nigeria Ethiopia Days of Food Reduction (0-7) HH_Gender (M=1, F=0) -1.449*** (0.101) -0.450*** (0.168) -2.208*** (0.125) -1.114*** (0.193) HH_Agric -0.687** (0.074) -0.770*** (0.244) -0.613*** (0.095) -0.001*** (0.265) HH_Ysch -0.090*** (0.007) -0.127*** (0.020) -0.083*** (0.009) -0.256*** (0.023) Hhsize -0.054*** (0.011) -0.086*** (0.020) -0.029*** (0.013) 0.019 (0.022) Prox to Makt -0.723*** (0.069) -0.536*** (0.135) -1.079*** (0.086) -0.398*** (0.155) HH_Exp (USD) 0.007*** (0.000) -0.019*** (0.006) -0.013*** (0.000) -0.036*** (0.013) Children < 15 -0.006 (0.081) 0.119 (0.162) 0.026 (0.101) -0.263 (0.190) Children > 15 -0.256*** (0.083) -0.543*** (0.174) -0.395*** (0.102) -0.421*** (0.195) Urban -0.134 (0.082) -0.694*** (0.236) -0.231*** (0.106) -1.412*** (0.254) Own-Home -0.681*** (0.086) -1.174*** (0.196) -0.920*** (0.109) -1.495*** (0.222) Constant -2.172*** (0.154) -1.541*** (0.321) -0.905*** (0.191) -3.653*** (0.355) Observations 14,687 12,806 14,691 12,790 15

Days of Restrictive Food (0-7) Empirical results and discussion Table 5B: Determinants of Food Security for MHHs and FHHs combined.   Tobit Model Variables Days of Restrictive Food (0-7) Nigeria Ethiopia HH_Gender (M=1, F=0) -2.264*** (0.158) -1.194*** (0.255) HH_Agric -0.102* (0.122) -0.699* (0.122) HH_Ysch -0.083*** (0.012) -0.251*** (0.031) Hhsize 0.037** (0.017) 0.066** (0.027) Prox to Makt -1.085*** (0.110) -0.725*** (0.205) HH_Exp (USD) -0.004*** (0.000) -0.044** (0.019) Children < 15 -0.366*** (0.129) -1.102*** (0.249) Children > 15 -0.216 (0.134) -2.351*** (0.284) Urban 0.208*** (0.133) 1.648*** (0.328) Own-Home -1.188*** (0.137) -1.121*** (0.298) Constant -1.158*** (0.250) -6.637*** (0.481) Observations 14,691 12,806 16

Empirical findings On Perceptive Indicators (Table 5A) In both Ethiopia and Nigeria MHH are significantly more food secure than FHH. The impact of MHH on food security is much greater in Nigeria than in Ethiopia. In Ethiopia (14.5%) of MHH are more food secure than the FHH. In Nigeria (62.3%) of MHH are more food secure than the FHH. Proximity to market increases food security. AFEA Session—Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, 5h – 7rd January, 2018 17

Empirical findings An increase in year of schooling reduces food insecurity. Important for both countries, particularly for Ethiopia. Children over 15 at home increases food security On Experiential Indicators (Table 5B) The MHH with above self-evaluation have less days of; Food limitations, food reduction and days of food restriction. AFEA Session—Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, 5h – 7rd January, 2018 18

Key findings - Household gender is more important in reducing food insecurity in Ethiopia than in Nigeria. Agriculture improves food security in Nigeria more than in Ethiopia. This is probably due to longer periods (10-15years) of drought experienced in Ethiopia. Years of schooling is much more important in Ethiopia in reducing food insecurity than in Nigeria. Proximity to market is more important in Nigeria than Ethiopia due to drought. AFEA Session—Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, 5h – 7rd January, 2018 19 19

Key findings - The hypothesis that household heads would restrict their food consumption in order to feed their children is supported by our results. Children above the age of 15 tend to improve the food security of the family. Urbanization reduces food insecurity more in Ethiopia than in Nigeria, lastly Experiential and perceptive food (in)security measures are major food indicators in both countries. AFEA Session—Allied Social Science Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, 5h – 7rd January, 2018 20

Thank you! seyi.saint@emu.edu.tr 21