The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0828-8666.htm

H
33,4 Determinants of household’s
education and nutrition
spending
470 A gender-based empirical analysis
Rakshananda Kousar
Institute of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad, Pakistan
Tahira Sadaf
Institution of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences,
University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
Muhammad Sohail Amjad Makhdum
Department of Economics, Government College University Faisalabad,
Faisalabad, Pakistan, and
Ayesha Ijaz
Institute of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad, Pakistan

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to estimate the determinants of household spending on education and nutrition.
Education and nutrition are noteworthy elements for human development and welfare. Separate estimates are
being provided for male and female as gender determines household welfare and gender-based analysis of
household spending evaluates the aptitude of decision power as well as measures their influential role in
human welfare.
Design/methodology/approach – Fruits, milk and dairy products are taken as proxy of substantial
portion of nutrition. The study used primary urban household-level data that collected from Faisalabad city.
The authors used double hurdle model.
Findings – The findings of the study show that females are more likely to spend on education. Household
size and number of children negatively determine the household spending on education and nutrition.
Number of employed household members, level of income and education are positively associated with
household spending on education and nutrition by male- and female-headed households. A very low public
spending on education and nutrition have led to upsurge the hurdles of households in Pakistan.
Practical implications – The study recommends that government should provide the employment
opportunities, especially for females for stable and increased household income that leads to improve the
household welfare.
Originality/value – Several studies have examined the education spending (Mbanefoh et al., 1997; Ichoku
and Leibbrandt, 2003; Donkoh and Amikuzuno, 2011; Cisse, 2011), but these studies ignored to investigate the
gender role and household spending on nutrition and education. This study is crucial in drawing suitable
policy recommendations for household welfare. This study filled the gaps and scrutinized the issues that
Humanomics interrelated with household spending.
Vol. 33 No. 4, 2017
pp. 470-483
© Emerald Publishing Limited Keywords Gender, Nutrition, Education, Household spending, Double hurdle model
0828-8666
DOI 10.1108/H-06-2016-0050 Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction Education and
Household welfare depends upon health, education and nutrition (Linnemayr et al., 2008). nutrition
Education and nutrition are the key aspects of the human capital. Mostly, the idea of human
capital is used for education, health and other abilities of human beings that can improve
spending
their efficiency and competence. Human capital and household welfare, both are related to
each other. Human capital is the foremost element of economic growth. Human capital
depends on five main sets of investments in human beings: health and nutrition, job
opportunities, job training, proper education and study programs (Schultz, 1961). In fact, 471
human capital has a positive implication with growth and development (Barro, 1991).
Education is positively associated with labor productivity (Hanushek and Wobmann,
2007). Education is the most imperative element which plays a foremost role in the
household welfare. In addition, educated households have a higher possibility to choose
valuable goals in life. However, most of the studies within the endogenous growth theory
exposed the theory of human capital concentrating in terms of educational factor (Schultz,
1961). Similarly, nutrition is an indication of healthy life and closely linked with household
welfare, as health generates positive externalities for the society. A healthy person is an
energetic human resource for himself and the society.
In developing countries, household-spending behavior is the only influential asset to
improve the household welfare. There is a need of proper utilization of household spending
on education and nutrition, especially to tackle malnutrition and poor situation of education.
Household’s spending choices depend upon various determinants such as gender, household
size, age, income, education level, occupation, number of children and location of the house.
Pakistan is among top ten most populated countries in the world with a large population
of above 195 million, with a growth rate of 1.89. Life expectancy of females is 68 and that of
males is 66, which has remained almost stagnant during past three years, which reflects the
poor health condition of the masses. Health problems and lack of opportunities for education
are among the major problems in Pakistan. There is a lack of proper healthcare system for
the population including kids, men and women. People do not have enough sources to feed
their families and earn livelihood. Education ratio of our youth is also deplorable, as most of
them cannot even write their own names. Government schools are there but in worst
condition. Despite the bad situation of health and education in Pakistan, the government has
failed to allocate more than 2.1 per cent to education and 0.45 per cent to health sector (GOP,
2016).
Public spendings on education and nutrition were 2 and 7 per cent of total expenditure,
respectively, in Pakistan (GOP, 2015) in the past year. Hence, households are provided with
poor education facilities and low-quality food. The leading difficulties people are facing in
Pakistan are malnutrition and poor education situation. Malnutrition is an extreme form,
owing to deficiency of one or more nutrient elements, which creates severe malnutrition
signs like stunting and dwarfing (reference). As stated above, nutrition situation in Pakistan
is very poor and more than 20 per cent people have been suffered directly (FAO, 2015). In
Pakistan, a large portion of population is unable to spend on fruit, milk and dairy products.
Therefore, severe malnutrition has been seen in Pakistan. Despite the provision of free
education in public schools in Pakistan, more than five million children are out of school
(GOP, 2015). However, the quality of the public institutes has weakened from past decades,
forcing mostly urban households to send their children to private schools. In fact, household
spending on education and nutrition are decisive to encourage household welfare. The
institutional support for the education and food of the households is equal to none.
Households are themselves trying to tackle the problem. Gender of the household
head has a significant impact on the household spending. In fact, females like to spend
H more on the education of their children than males (Blackden and Bhanu, 1999).
33,4 Female and household welfare is underpinned by two imperative concerns: first,
female-headed household access to income; and the second, control over the
distribution of assets. In fact, these poor females survive in a society of developing
countries that is extremely stratified in terms of class, caste and culture that support
male-headed households in Pakistan. Mothers definitely are assigned with a higher
472 significance to the comfort of their children in terms of providing more resources
regarding health and nutrition. Therefore, a more active role of a female in household
is likely to lead to an upsurge in the household welfare.
Keeping in view the significance of household expenditures on education and nutrition in
raising the human welfare in developing countries, several empirical studies have
investigated the pattern of household expenditures on education (Tilak, 2002; Connelly and
Zheng, 2003), food items (Sher et al., 2012; Wynand and Grobler, 2013; Da and Su, 2014),
inequality in health expenditures (Deaton, 2003), gender bias regarding education spending
(Li and Tsang, 2002; Masterson, 2012) and driving forces behind the household expenditures
(Donkoh and Amikuzuno, 2011). Many of the studies focused on the decision of spending on
education and health services, but they did not investigate the amount of spending after the
decision to spend had been made (Quang, 2012; Beech et al., 2014). The present study
contributes to the literature by using gender-based analysis of household decision and
amount of spending on education and nutrition by using household-level data of Pakistan.
In this study, we used a double-hurdle model that helps to examine the decision of male and
female to spend and how much to spend on education and nutrition. The hurdle model is
unique in two aspects: it calculates unbiased estimates of explanatory variables on
spending; and it separates two distinct decisions on decision to spend and how much to
spend, which allows to eliminate the assumption that the decisions are made jointly.

1.1 Problem background and inspiration

Malnutrition and illiteracy are the major issues of developing countries like Pakistan. For
instance, more than five million children are out of school and more than 20 per cent people
have been undernourished since 1990 in Pakistan (GOP, 2015). Malnutrition is the result of
the cycle of poverty, which encircles the lives of low-income households. Minimum or even
zero household spending on nutritious items such as fruit milk and dairy products has
generated poor physical status and is the cause of various diseases. Same is the case of
education: zero household spending on education decreases the household human capital
development, exerting a negative impact on welfare. There is a need of proper utilization of
household spending on education and nutrition from available sources of household head.
Several studies have examined the education spending (Mbanefoh et al., 1997; Ichoku and
Leibbrandt, 2003; Donkoh and Amikuzuno, 2011; Cisse, 2011), but these studies ignored to
investigate the gender role and household spending on nutrition and education. This study
is crucial in drawing suitable policy recommendations for the household welfare. This study
fills the gap and scrutinizes the issues that are interrelated to household spending and
welfare.

1.2 Objectives of the study

The foremost objective of this study is to inspect the determinants of household spending on
education and nutrition by male- and female-headed households in Faisalabad (Pakistan).
Further, the specific objectives include the following:

to examine the decision to spend on education and nutrition by the household head; Education and

to analyze the impact of gender on household spending regarding education and nutrition
nutrition; and spending

To suggest a suitable policy recommendation.

1.3 Significance of the study 473

Gender analysis and household spending decisions are substantial stimulus on human
welfare. Women play an imperative role in the household welfare by the household spending
on education and nutrition, but the household decision-making of women has always been
ignored in developing countries and Pakistan is not an exception. Specifically, this study
emphasizes on the gender-based analysis in household decision-making in aspects related to
food and education. Thus, this investigation is significantly important in drawing policy
recommendation for improving household welfare in Pakistan. The study is significant in
identifying the constraints of poor households regarding household spending on education
and nutrition. This study provides better understanding toward suitable policy
interventions that can be helpful to proliferate the standards of education and nutrition.

2. Data description
Pakistan is a populous country where geographical distribution of population shows an
increasing trend of rural-urban migration. Pakistan has 60 per cent of rural population
and 40 per cent urban population as of 2016. The rural population is showing a
decreasing trend that was 82 per cent in 1951, which came down to 67 per cent in 1998
and now stands at 60 per cent (GOP, 2016). This increasing trend of urban population
has created many challenges, particularly in highly populated cities of Pakistan.
Faisalabad being the third largest city of the country has a very high rate of urban
population growth (4.6 per cent). Basic life-sustaining services are under stress

Variables Mean SD Table I.

Income and
Income 25150 32330.6 household spending
Nutrition sending 14818.7 7617.32
Education sending 7827.5 9333.73
on education and
Total sending 22328.17 29240.22 nutrition by male-
headed household for
Note: Spending is stated in Pakistani currency, rupees (US$1= 102 Pakistani rupees) 30 days

Variables Mean SD Table II.

Income and
Income 14346.15 17086.43 household spending
Total nutrition spending 5343.58 2924.39
Total education spending 8766.67 8261.57
on education and
Total spending 16517.11 14777.21 nutrition by female-
headed household for
Note: Spending is stated in Pakistani currency, rupees (US$1= 102 Pakistani rupees) 30 days
H including facilities of education and health. The available facilities of both education
33,4 and health lack in quality and accessibility. Most of the people are thereby compelled to
depend on high-cost private service providers.
In this study, a two-stage stratified random sampling technique was used to collect data
from 200 households. First, five areas were randomly chosen from the whole city to ensure
the representation of all categories of households. At the second stage, male- and female-
474 headed households were randomly selected from each stratum. The five areas considered
include Madina Town, Samnabad, Ghulam Muhammad Abad, Kahkasha Colony and
Sarsaeed Town.
A well-designed questionnaire was used to collect information from households’
personal, demographic, locational and income variables. Detailed data on education and
nutritional spending were also collected. The selection of variables likely to influence
household spending pattern are based on previous literature (McCracken and Brandt, 1987;
Steward et al., 2004).

3. Conceptual framework and estimation strategy

3.1 Theoretical model
Theoretical model is derived from the imperative household production models (Schultz,
1961; Becker, 1965; Behrman and Deolalika, 1988; Ogundari and Abdulai, 2014). In this
model, we employed household utility function that is strictly concave:

Variables Coefficients Standard errors Z-value

Income 2.021 0.01 2.02**

totalspend 5.636 0.41 13.74***
ernhand 4.634 1.30 3.56***
cage1 1.011 0.648 1.54
cage10-17 2.274 1.63 1.39
adults 4.889 2.90 1.69
totlch 2.763 0.09 3.05***
hhsize 1.731 0.26 6.43***
primry 0.6174 0.567 1.08
midl 1.234 15.3 0.08
high 0.202 8.52 0.02
hisecond 1.172 0.90 1.91*
grdu 1.797 1.51 2.06**
mastr 2.051 1.06 1.93*
hage<35 2.078 1.89 1.03
hage36-45 1.462 1.18 1.23
hage46-55 5.885 1.71 3.44***
hage56-65 0.696 1.73 0.40
p-job 1.071 0.820 1.30*
ownbus 0.1110 1.06 0.12
lab 0.726 8.52 0.08
Table III. loc1 0.6372 0.947 0.67
Determinants of loc3 1.583 0.823 1.92*
loc4 1.729 1.90 0.97
education spending
loc5 0.4987 0.717 0.69
for male-headed
household (first Note: ***, ** and * indicate that the estimated parameters are significantly changed from zero at 1%, 5%
hurdle: spend or not) and 10% level of significance
 U ¼ u ðGi ; Ei ; Ni ; L; WÞ (1) Education and
nutrition
It is assumed that households tend to maximize utility, where U is household utility, which
is depended upon the spending of goods and services Gi, quality of education Ei, quality of
spending
nutrition Ni, leisure Li and household and individual characteristics of the respondents W.
The quality of a household’s nutrition is described by the nutrition production function:

Ni ¼ n ðWi ; ei Þ (2) 475

where Wi signifies household and individual features and ei denotes the unobservable
elements of Ni. Correspondingly, the household education production function is signified as
follows:

Ei ¼ eðWi ; ei Þ (3)

W vector in both production functions shows the household characteristics. As noted by

Ogundari and Abdulai (2014), the household spending choices are supposed to be made
conditional as follows:

Variables Coefficients Standard errors Z-value

Income 3.591 1.32 2.70**

totalspend 1.566 0.37 4.22***
ernhand 3.911 0.87 4.49***
cage1 0.066 1.23 0.05
cage1-9 4.192 6.91 0.67
adults 2.033 9.72 0.20
totlch 2.294 1.20 1.91*
hhsize 3.532 0.36 9.80***
hn0edu 0.843 7.12 0.11
primry 2.063 3.22 0.64
midl 1.960 2.21 0.88
high 0.483 2.46 0.19
hisecond
grdu 1.822 5.03 0.34
mastr 3.621 1.37 2.63**
hage<35 2.437 5.21 0.46
hage36-45 3.192 4.40 0.72
hage46-55 3.673 1.23 2.98**
hage56-65 1.986 1.17 1.56*
g-job 2.097 0.76 2.75**
p-job 1.837 1.21 2.32*
ownbus 0.596 0.28 1.51 Table IV.
loc1 0.981 3.96 0.26 Determinants of
loc2 1.924 4.67 0.41 education spending
loc3 0.851 1.06 0.80
for male-headed
loc4 0.032 2.04 0.14
household (second
Note: ***, ** and * indicate that the estimated parameters are significantly changed from zero at 1%, 5% hurdle: extent of
and 10% level of significance education spending)
 X
H Pi Gi ¼ 1 (4)
33,4
where Pi is a vector of exogenous prices and I is income. Household characteristics affect
nutrition and education spending. Thus, maximization of equation (1) subjects to the
nutrition and education production functions, household conditional functions for goods and
services as follows:
476  0

Gi ¼ g W; I; Pi ; ei ; « i (5)

Ei ¼ e ðWi ; I; Pi ; ei Þ (6)

 0

Ni ¼ n Wi ; I; Pi « i (7)

The conditional functions (with respect to income and price) for education E and Nutrition N
of the households may be expressed as equation (5). Equations (6) and (7) clearly show the
relationship between variables that determine the household spending on education and
nutrition by male- and female-headed households. In fact, both equations show that
household spending on education and nutrition depends upon demographic elements,

Variables Coefficients Standard errors Z-value

Income 1.762 0.361 4.87***

otherspend 1.732 1.09 1.58
ernhand 3.935 2.18 1.79**
cage1 5.376 5.52 0.96
cage1-9 1.436 1.51 1.80*
cage10-17 3.398 1.35 2.51**
adults 3.863 1.30 2.97**
totlch 6.163 1.34 4.59***
hhsize 0.1086 0.216 0.51
primry 0.8407 0.616 1.37
midl 5.485 3.63 1.51
high 1.599 0.69 2.30*
hisecond 4.744 1.67 2.84**
grdu 5.084 2.63 1.93*
mastr 1.735 0.26 7.35***
hage<35 0.387 1.36 0.28
hage36-45 2.823 1.22 1.93*
hage46-55 2.410 2.81 2.31**
hage56-65 1.199 1.06 1.13
p-job 1.045 0.854 1.23
ownbus 0.1495 0.972 0.15
lab 2.721 2.71 1.03
Table V. loc1 0.1717 2.81 0.22
Determinants of loc2 1.542 0.730 0.06
loc3 1.036 0.639 1.62
education spending
loc4 0.729 0.591 1.23
for female-headed
household (first Note: ***, ** and * indicate that the estimated parameters are significantly changed from zero at 1%, 5%
hurdle: spend or not) and 10% level of significance
household income and price, but in the analysis of household spending, assume that price of Education and
goods and services is keep constant. nutrition
spending
3.2 Empirical model
By using the assumption of constant prices, the nutrition and education equations in (7) and
(8) can be used to propose the household conditional function for nutrition and education as
follows: 477
0
Hij ¼ b 0 þ b 1 Ii þ Rd v Wvi « ij j ¼ 1; 2 (8)

where Hij represents the household spending on nutrition (j = 1) and education (j = 2). The
vector W captures the households’ characteristics that determine the household spending;
b 0, b 1 and d are parameters to be estimated, and «
ij is a random error term (Ogundari and
Abdulai, 2014). A foremost trial connected with the analysis of households spending on
education and nutrition, it is the fact that some portion of the data often accounts zero
spending. Ordinary least square (OLS) technique only takes into account positive spending
values; by using OLS technique, zero outcomes can lead to bias results (Maddala, 1983). To
examine the choice to spend on education and nutrition by the household heads, common
method used to account the zero observations is the Tobit Model. However, the Tobit model

Variables Coefficients Standard errors Z-value

Income 3.623 0.95 3.79***

otherspend 0.124 0.09 1.30
ernhand 2.303 0.54 4.26**
cage1 0.721 0.51 1.41
Cage1-9 2.048 0.51 4.00***
Cage10-17 3.368 1.04 3.23***
adults 2.228 0.81 2.75***
totlch 1.558 0.60 2.59**
hhsize 2.935 1.35 2.17**
hn0edu 0.339 0.40 0.84
midl 0.343 0.36 0.94
high 1.726 3.27 2.12**
hisecond 2.385 2.26 2.27**
grdu 2.291 1.27 1.80*
mastr 3.459 1.77 1.95*
hage<35 2.475 1.22 2.06**
hage36-45 2.751 1.64 1.67*
hage46-55 1.750 1.14 1.53*
hage56-65 1.170 1.50 0.78
g.job 2.681 1.25 2.14**
ownbus 1.848 0.47 3.93***
lab 1.565 1.20 1.30 Table VI.
loc1 2.351 1.41 1.66* Determinants of
loc2 0.050 0.83 0.06 education spending
loc3 1.975 0.37 5.33***
for female-headed
loc4 0.881 1.33 0.66
household (second
Note: ***, ** and * indicate that the estimated parameters are significantly changed from zero at 1%, 5% hurdle: extent of
and 10% level of significance education spending)
H is useless to take into account the positive and zero observations (Masterson, 2012). In fact,
33,4 double hurdle model is a suitable method to deal zero and positive values. Finally, the
double hurdle model is used to analyze the determinants of education and nutrition of male
and female separately.
3.2.1 Double hurdle model. The double hurdle model, originally presented by Cragg
(1971), assumes that households make two independent decisions. The first hurdle is
478 whether to spend on education and nutrition, and the second hurdle is the level of
expenditure, given the choice to acquire this spending. The household’s spending first
hurdle choice also identified the equation can be stated as follows:

1; Dij > 0
Dij ¼ Xi r þ 2ij Dij ¼ (9)
0; otherwise

where Dij is the latent variable, which signifies the choice to spend on education or nutrition
of households headed. Xi is a vector of variables (age, education level, occupation, household
size, number of children, etc.) to explain the first hurdle. Pi is the parameter to be estimated;
and fiij is a random error. The household’s second hurdle, known as intensity of spending
equation, can be signified by the following:

Variables Coefficients Standard errors Z-value

othersend 1.74 0.30 5.79***

ernhand 3.77 0.64 5.89***
cage1 0.372 1.13 0.33
Cage1-9 0.404 1.10 0.57
Cage10-17 0.570 1.00 0.57
adults 0.758 1.14 0.67
chnumb 0.457 0.10 4.57***
hhsize 1.23 1.15 1.06
Hn0edu 5.491 3.02 1.81*
primry 0.273 0.23 1.18
midl 0.302 0.01 3.03***
high 3.842 1.60 0.04
hisecond 2.292 0.71 3.22***
grdu 1.142 0.61 1.87*
hage<35 0.9414 0.98 0.96
hage36-45 1.217 1.02 1.20*
hage46-55 1.033 1.00 1.03*
hage56-65 7.544 2.75 2.74***
p-job 1.036 0.68 1.52
ownbus 0.568 0.74 0.76
lab 0.979 0.83 1.17
Table VII. loc1 0.424* 0.48 0.86
Determinants of Loc2 0.196 0.43 0.45
loc3 0.802* 0.48 1.62
nutrition’s spending
Loc4 0.322* 0.44 0.72
for male-headed
household (first Note: ***, ** and * indicate that the estimated parameters are significantly changed from zero at 1%, 5%
hurdle: spend or not) and 10% level of significance
 
0 1; Dij > 0 and H ij > 0 Education and
Hij ¼ Ci l þ « ij Hij ¼ (10)
0; otherwise nutrition
spending
where the latent variable signifies the extent of education and nutrition spending by the
household’s head. Ci is a vector of explanatory variables that regulate the household
spending. l is the parameter to be estimated, and «
ij is the random error term.
479
4. Results and discussion
The study used descriptive statistics and econometric technique to analyze the data of
household spending on education and nutrition. The total spending on fruits, milk and dairy
products are used as a proxy for nutrition spending as an explanatory variable because
household spending on fruits, milk and dairy products can be a better approximation of
household nutrition spending’s circumstances.
Tables I and II show the descriptive statistics of spending behavior of male-headed and
female-headed households in the study area. Monthly nutrition spending of female-headed
households is less than male-headed households. Female-headed households are more likely
to spend on education of their children while less likely to spend on nutrition as compared to
male-headed households. Several studies also found that female-headed households more
likely to spend on education (Bussolo et al., 2009; Bobonis, 2009).

Variables Coefficients Standard errors Z-value

Income 1.518 0.33 4.6***

otherspend 1.051 0.35 3.02**
ernhand 1.655 1.30 1.27
cage1 1.954 1.57 1.24
cage1-9 1.383 1.43 0.96
cage10-17 1.175 0.42 2.78**
adults 1.903 3.45 0.33
chunumb 1.831 1.24 1.38
hhsize 2.638 1.41 1.87**
primry 0.176 1.77 0.09
midl 1.387 1.81 0.76
high 1.798 0.84 2.13**
hisecond 1.306 0.91 1.43
grdu 1.306 0.91 1.43
mastr 2.254 2.09 1.08*
hage<35 3.479 1.06 3.28**
hage36-45 1.924 0.46 4.18***
hage46-55 2.385 2.42 0.97
hage56-65 3.991 1.65 2.41**
p-job 0.569 8.44 0.81
ownbus 2.128 1.26 1.68**
lab 0.248 0.83 0.29 Table VIII.
loc1 0.006 0.47 0.02 Determinants of
loc2 0.465 0.10 4.45*** nutrition spending
loc3 1.368 1.23 1.12
by male-headed
loc4 1.702 1.02 1.65
household (second
Note: ***, ** and * indicate that the estimated parameters are significantly changed from zero at 1%, 5% hurdle: extent of
and 10% level of significance nutrition spending)
H 4.2 Determinants of household spending on education and nutrition by male- and female-
33,4 headed households
The estimates of the double hurdle model are reported in the third column of Tables III-X.
The results of the double hurdle model indicate that level of income has a positive and
significant effect on education and nutrition spending. The education level of the head
also has a significant effect on education and nutrition spending which confirms the
480 widely accepted role of human capital toward enhancing household welfare. Thus,
education improves an individual’s ability to allocate resources toward high valued
items. Household size also appears to influence the education and nutrition spending. The
results of household size are negative, indicating that an increase in family members
decreases the household welfare. Number of children has an adverse effect on education
and nutrition spending. The results expose that gender of the head also has a significant
impact on education and nutrition spending. Occupation also affects the spending
behavior like household heads engage in businesses; private and government institutes
are less likely to spend on education. In fact, labor is also less likely to spend on education
and nutrition, displaying the income inequality in the study area. Household heads with
business occupation are more likely to spend on nutrition and education as compared to
other occupation. Location dummies and age are also statistically significant.

Variables Coefficients Standard errors Z-value

Income 1.651 0.39 4.23***

otherspend 2.031 1.16 1.91*
ernhand 3.726 1.32 3.01***
cage1 0.962 1.15 0.83
cage1-9 0.4078 1.00 0.40
cage10-17 5.727 1.13 5.52***
adults 2.581 0.98 2.63***
chnumb 1.458 1.16  1.42
hhsize 2.319 1.23 1.88*
Hn0edu 5.499 1.28 4.29***
primry 0.276 2.06 0.10
midl 0.309 1.03 0.34
high 3.985 2.07 1.92**
hisecond 2.291 1.02 2.24*
grdu 2.121 2.01 1.04
hage<35 3.959 0.94 4.21***
hage36-45 1.262 1.02 1.23
hage46-55 2.094 1.20 1.74*
hage56-65 3.558 1.77 2.00**
p-job 1.592 1.68 0.94
ownbus 5.602 2.74 2.04**
lab 0.175 0.83 0.21
Table IX. loc1 0.633 2.48 0.25
Determinants of loc2  0.197 1.43 0.13
loc3 1.888 0.46 4.10***
nutrition’s spending
loc4 0.365 1.44 0.25
by female-headed
household (first Note: ***, ** and * indicate that the estimated parameters are significantly changed from zero at 1%, 5%
hurdle: spend or not) and 10% level of significance
Variables Coefficients Standard errors Z-value
Education and
nutrition
Income 1.458 0.03 4.70*** spending
otherspend 1.079 0.03 3.55***
ernhand 2.651 1.08 2.45**
cage1 2.642 1.19 2.22**
cage1-9 2.381 1.13 2.10**
cage10-17 1.125 0.28 4.01*** 481
adults 0.951 0.71 1.33
chnumb 1.313 0.46 2.85***
hhsize 2.638 2.47 1.23
primry 0.772 1.75 0.44
midl 0.311 1.89 1.64
high 1.052 0.84 1.25
hisecond 2.318 1.92 1.20
grdu 3.156 1.07 2.91**
mastr 4.204 1.09 3.85***
hage<35 0.492 2.56 0.19
hage36-45 1.454 2.06 0.70
hage46-55 0.358 0.42 0.85
hage56-65 1.940 1.29 1.50
p-job 0.673 1.33 0.50
ownbus 2.028 0.29 6.99***
lab 0.268 1.58 0.16 Table X.
loc1 0.485 0.98 0.49 Determinants of
loc2 0.464 1.12 0.41 nutrition spending
loc43 0.361 0.63 0.58
by female-headed
loc4 0.728 2.99 0.23
household (second
Notes: ***, ** and * indicate that the estimated parameters are significantly changed from zero at 1%, 5% hurdle: extent of
and 10% level of significance. nutrition spending)

5. Conclusion and policy recommendations

Household welfare is determined by the spending behavior of household members,
particularly on education and nutrition in developing countries. The present study
evaluated the spending behavior of households by utilizing cross-sectional data of almost
200 urban households of Faisalabad, Pakistan. The double hurdle model was used to
examine the decision of male and female to spend and how much to spend on education and
nutrition. The results of the double hurdle model reveal the differential expenditure pattern
of male-headed and female-headed household in the study area. Household income and level
of education positively determine the household spending. These results show that richer
and educated household heads are more likely to spend on education and nutrition. Large
household size is negatively associated with household spending on education and nutrition.
Similarly, high population growth is negatively associated with household welfare.
Occupation of the household head also determines the household spending on education and
nutrition. Government and private employees are likely to spend more on education, while
businessmen are likely to spend more on nutrition. Number of employed persons in a
household has a positive relationship with household education and nutrition spending. The
study in hand presents a number of policy implications. Pakistani Government is spending
only a meager proportion of the budget on health and education, which results in a worse
socio-economic condition of the society. There is a need to spend more on education and
health by the Government. There should be induction of new development programs to
H improve the education and nutrition level of the Pakistani households and ultimately
33,4 improve household welfare of Pakistan. Government interventions should be directed to
female-headed households for improving their purchasing power through enhanced earning
opportunities, which have a long-term effect on their spending pattern. Future research
studies should focus on the quality of education and health services, spending pattern of
single-parent community (either single male or single female parent) on education and
482 health. Owing to scarcity of resources and time, the study was limited to only one district of
Pakistan (Faisalabad). Scope of the study in hand might be enhanced by replicating it in
other areas of the country and other similar economies of the developing countries for the
purpose of generalization and depiction of true picture as well as to present a wider view to
theme of this research.

References
Barro, R.J. (1991), “Economic growth in cross-section of countries”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 407-443.
Becker, G.S. (1965), “A model of the allocation of time”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 75 No. 299, pp. 493-
517.
Beech, A., Dollman, R., Finlay, R. and La Cava, G. (2014), “The distribution of household spending in
Australia”, RBA Bulletin, pp. 13-22.
Behrman, J.B. and Deolalika, A.B. (1988), “Health and nutrition”, Handbook of Development Economics,
Chenery, H.B. and Srinivasan, T.N. (Eds), pp. 631-711.
Blackden, C.M. and Bhanu, C. (1999). “Gender, growth, and poverty reduction: special program of
assistance for Africa 1998 status report on poverty”, World Bank Technical Paper, 428.
Bobonis, G. (2009), “Is the allocation of resources within the household efficient? New evidence from a
randomized experiment”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 117 No. 3, pp. 453-503.
Bussolo, M.D., Hoyos, R.E. and Wodon, Q. (2009), “Could higher prices for export crops reduce women’s
bargaining power and household spending on human capital in Senegal?”, in Bussolo, M. and De
Hoyos, R.E. (Eds), Gender Aspects of the Trade and Poverty Nexus - a Macro-Micro Approach,
World Bank, Washington, DC.
Cisse, A. (2011), “Analysis of healthcare utilization in cote D’ivoire”, African Economic Research
Consortium (AERC), Nairobi, p. 201.
Connelly, R. and Zheng, Z. (2003), “Determinants of school enrollment and completion of 10 to 18 year
olds in china”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 379-388.
Cragg, J.G. (1971), “Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the
demand for durable goods”, Econometrica, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 829-844.
Da, B. and Su, I. (2014), “Analysis of the determinants of food expenditure patterns among urban
households in Nigeria”, Evidence from Lagos State, Vol. 5, pp. 71-75.
Donkoh, S.A. and Amikuzuno, J.A. (2011), “The determinants of household education expenditure in
Ghana”, Educational Research and Revie, Vol. 6 No. 8, pp. 570-579.
Food and Agriculture Organization (2015), Food and Agriculture Organization of the Untied Nation,
Food and Agriculture Organization.
Government of Pakistan (2015), Economic Survey 2014-15. Finance Division GOP Islamabad,
Government of Pakistan.
Government of Pakistan (2016), Economic Survey 2015-16. Finance Division GOP Islamabad,
Government of Pakistan.
Hanushek, E., A. and Wobmann, L. (2007), “The Role of Education Quality in Economic Growth”,
Research working paper 4122, World Bank Policy.
Ichoku, H.E. and Leibbrandt, M. (2003), “Demand for healthcare services in Nigeria: a multivariate Education and
nested logit model”, African Development Review, Vol. 15, pp. 396-424.
nutrition
Li, D. and Tsang, M.C. (2002), “Household education decisions and implications for gender inequality in
education in rural China” Annual National Conference of the Association for Asia Studies, spending
Washington, DC.
Linnemayr, S., Alderman, H. and Abdoulaye, K. (2008), “Determinants of malnutrition in Senegal:
household, community variables, and their interaction”, Economics and Human Biology, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 252-263. 483
McCracken, V. and Brandt, J. (1987), “Household consumption of food away from home: total
expenditure and by type of food facility”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 69
No. 2, pp. 274-284.
Maddala, G.S. (1983), Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Masterson, T. (2012), “An empirical analysis of gender bias in education spending in paraguay”, World
Development, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 583-593.
Mbanefoh, G.F., Soyibo, A. and Anyanwu, J.C. (1997), “Gender differences in HouseholdHealth
expenditure in Nigeria”, Nigeria Economic and Financial Review, Vol. 2, pp. 126-136.
Ogundari, K. and Abdulai, A. (2014), “Determinants of household’s education and healthcare spending
in Nigeria: evidence from survey data”, African Development Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Schultz, T.W. (1961), “Capital formation by education”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 68 No. 12,
pp. 571-583.
Sher, F., Ahmad, D.N. and Safdar, S. (2012), “Income and economics of scale effect onHousehold food
demand pattern in Pakistan using PSLM data”, Academic Research International, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 2223-9944.
Steward, H. Blisard, N. Byuyan, S. Nayga, R. (2004), The Demand for Food from Home: Full-Service or
Fast Food, available at: www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer-agricultural. . ./aer829.aspx
(accessed 10 June 2012).
Tilak, J.B. (2002), Determinants of Household Expenditure on Education in Rural India (No. 88),
National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi.
Wynand, C. and Grobler, J. (2013), Spending Patterns of Food Insecure Households in a Low Income
Neighborhood in South Africa, 24-25.

Further reading
Donkoh, S.A., Alhassan, H. and Nkegbi, P.K. (2014), “Food expenditure and HouseholdWelfare in
Ghana”, Africans Journals Food Science, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 164-175.
Wang, Y., Bentley, M.E., Zhai, F. and Popkin, B.A. (2002), “Tracking dietary intake patterns of Chinese
from childhood to adolescence over a six-year follow-up period”, The Journal of Nutrition,
Vol. 132, pp. 430-438.

Corresponding author
Tahira Sadaf can be contacted at: tahira_madi@yahoo.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com