1. Do Remittances Improve Food Consumption of Migrant’s Household? Evidence from Nigeria Babatunde Raphael Olanrewaju Department of Agricultural Economics and Farm Management, University of Ilorin, Nigeria Poster paper presented at the Poverty Reduction, Equity and Growth Network (PEGNet) Conference 2015, Kalkscheune Centre, Berlin, Germany, October 8 – 9, 2015.. The Author gratefully acknowledges the financial support of African Growth and Development Policy Modeling Consortium (AGRODEP) and the Centre for International Cooperation and Development (CICOPS), University of Pavia, Italy for this research. 1. Introduction 3. Data and Methodology Primary data were collected using a survey questionnaire from 220 households spread across 40 villages in Kwara State, Nigeria. The sample, which consisted of 134 remittances recipient and 86 non-recipient households, were selected through a three-stage random sampling techniques. Data on migration, remittances, food intake, children anthropometry, socioeconomic characteristics and various institutional variables were collected through personal visit and interview. The data was analyze using different econometric techniques. 4. Results Remittances recipient households (N = 134) Remittances non- recipient households (N = 86) Two sample (t-stat) Household assets Farm size (ha)1.911.891.41 Assets (naira)79350.465054.01.67* Education (years)7.426.040.72 Calorie and micronutrients intake Calorie intake (kcal/day/AE)2462.62372.73.48*** Dietary quality (kcal/day/AE)443.2427.11.12 Dietary diversity (number)5.375.150.98 Iron intake (mg/day/AE)27.425.31.87* Vitamin A intake (µg RE/day/AE)291.0285.9-1.20 Children nutritional status Height-for-age Z-score0.992-0.1242.01** Weight-for-age Z-score-0.415-0.771-0.09 Weight-for-height Z-score-1.15-0.8111.01 Notes: AE is adult equivalent. RE is retinol equivalent. *, **, *** indicate that differences between remittances recipient and non-recipient households are statistically significant at 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively. Table 1: Household assets, calorie consumption and nutritional outcomes disaggregated by access to remittances Calorie intake (2SLS) Food security status (IV-Probit) Dietary quality (2SLS) Dietary diversity (POISSON) Iron intake (2SLS) Vitamin A intake (2SLS) Constant2972.1*** (3.74) 0.641** (2.47) 439.3*** (4.42) 1.94*** (5.65) 22.71*** (3.51) 270.5*** (3.70) HH_SIZE-184.44 (-0.06) -0.031* (-1.88) -14.22* (-1.92) -0.054** (-2.01) -0.068* (-1.88) -7.52 (-0.96) GENDER452.6** (2.12) -0.056 (-0.99) 49.11** (2.00) 0.181 (1.62) 4.19*** (2.62) 29.48* (1.93) AGE_HHH-10.8 (-1.43) -0.311 (-1.20) -2.37** (-2.19) -0.01 (-1.09) -0.149** (-2.12) -1.47* (-1.85) EDU_HHH13.6 (1.21) 0.043 (1.19) 4.68 (1.18) 0.016** (2.42) 0.019** (2.29) -3.13 (-1.08) FAM_SIZE261.5** (2.34) 0.710* (2.01) 30.37* (1.79) 0.027 (0.51) 0.010 (0.01) 21.48* (1.72) MARKET DISTANCE -16.8** (2.19) -12.4 (-0.19) 0.428 (0.42) -0.002* (-1.88) 0.029 (0.44) 0.464 (0.61) REM_INC a 0.010** (2.18) 1.1E-05* (1.89) 0.0001 (0.24) 1.29E-06 (0.81) 0.0002 (1.06) 0.002 (0.92) NET_INC a 0.021*** (3.76) 9.8E-04** (2.32) 0.0004*** (2.69) 2.29E-06** (2.34) 0.0002*** (2.64) 0.003** (2.57) Adjusted R 2 / χ 2 0.386-0.28744.040.3410.177 Durbin-Wu- Hausman chi 2 10.8921.425.55-12.616.39 Table 2: Regression results of the impact of remittances on households’ food and micronutrients intake Notes: The number of observations in all models is 220. Figures in bracket are t-values. *, **, *** indicate statistically significant at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively. a These are instrumental variables, predicted by household assets, access to electricity, tapped water and tarred road Figure 1: Maps of Nigeria and Kwara State Height-for-age (Z-score) Weight-for-age (Z-score) Weight-for-height (Z-score) Constant 7.37*** (2.88) -1.10 (-0.97) -6.72*** (-3.62) HH_SIZE -0.047 (-0.21) 0.099 (0.99) 0.092 (0.56) GENDER 0.765 (1.57) 0.338 (1.55) -0.191 (-0.54) AGE -0.137*** (-4.10) -0.063 (-1.56) -0.067*** (-2.80) EDU_HHH 0.169** (0.21) 0.023 (0.66) 0.021 (0.37) EDU_MOTHER 0.043** (2.47) 0.071* (1.74) 0.139** (2.07) FARM_SIZE 0.736* (1.67) 0.342* (1.73) 0.147 (0.46) MARKET DISTANCE 0.015 (0.67) 0.018 (1.43) 0.008 (0.48) ACCESS TO TOILET 1.00* (1.95) 1.39*** (6.09) 1.08*** (2.91) REM_INC 0.000 (1.00) -0.001 (-1.01) 0.0001 (1.12) NET_INC 0.0001 (0.74) 0.0001** (2.00) 0.000 (1.55) Adjusted R 2 0.1380.3620.278 Table 3: Regression results of the impact of remittances on children nutritional status 5. Conclusion Remittances recipient households are better off in terms of assets, calorie intake, micronutrients intake, as well as, child nutritional status. Econometric analyses show that remittances contribute to improved calorie intake at the household level. Remittance income has no significant effect on diet quality, micronutrients supply and child nutritional status, thus limiting the extent to which nutrition programmes will benefit from remittances increase. Many studies have questioned whether remittances are actually spent on food consumption, the results here suggest that remittances are important for food consumption, but it appears they are not spent on quality foods and micronutrients apart from that which is use for buying starchy staple foods. *, **, *** indicate statistically significant at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively. Migration has become an important livelihood strategy among poor households in developing countries. This is because it provides migrant households with remittances that are uncorrelated with agricultural income. Globally, it is estimated that there are over 100 million migrants from developing countries working outside their country of origin. Remittances sent back home by these migrants are believed to have a huge impact on the welfare of families left behind at home. The volume of remittances to developing countries has increased on average by 16% annually since 2000 totaling about US$ 221 billion in 2006. In Sub-Saharan Africa, Nigeria is the highest receiver of remittances, with an estimated US$ 3.3 billion in 2008. In development economics literatures, considerable attention has been given to the poverty effects of remittance income. In contrast, much less is known about the food consumption and nutrition impact of remittances at the household level in developing countries. As a result, relatively little policy efforts have been made to utilize the welfare and developmental potentials of remittances. 2. Objective of the study To assess the impact of remittances on calorie intake, dietary diversity, micronutrients intake and nutritional status of under-five children among recipient households.