RURAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ACCESS TO FOOD IN GOGONYO COUNTY,

PALISA DISTRICT

BY
OLING ISSAC
1163-061776-08568

A RESEARCH PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO THE COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND

SOCIAL SCIENCES/DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER DEGREES AND RESEARCH IN
PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF A
MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES OF
KAMPALA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

JUNE, 2023

i
DECLARATION
I, OLING ISSAC, hereby declare that this research proposal is as a result of my personal effort

and has never been presented to any Institution of Higher Education for any award.

Sign: …………………………. Date: …………………………

OLING ISSAC

1163-061776-08568
APPROVAL
This is to certify that this research proposal titled “Rural Household Income and Access to
Food in Pallisa District.” written by Oling Issac was carried out under my supervision and is
now ready for submission to the College of Humanities and Social Sciences (CHSS) of Kampala
International University.

DR. ROGERS BARIGAYOMWE

Sign:……………………………….. Date: ………………………………

ii
TABLE OF CONTENT
DECLARATION......................................................................................................................i
APPROVAL.............................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENT..........................................................................................................iii

CHAPTER ONE.....................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background to the study.....................................................................................................1
1.1.1 Historical Perspective......................................................................................................1
1.1.2 Theoretical Perspective.................................................................................................2
1.1.3 Conceptual Perspective...................................................................................................2
1.1.4 Contextual Perspective....................................................................................................3
1.2 Statement of the Problem...................................................................................................4
1.3 Objectives...........................................................................................................................4
1.3.1 Overall Objective............................................................................................................4
1.3.2 Specific Objectives..........................................................................................................4
1.4 Research Questions............................................................................................................5
1.5 Study Scope........................................................................................................................5
1.5.1 Geographical Scope.........................................................................................................5
1.5.2 Content scope..................................................................................................................5
1.5.3 Time scope......................................................................................................................5
1.6 Significance of the Study..............................................................................................5

CHAPTER TWO....................................................................................................................5
LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................................................5
2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................5
2.2The Ecological Systems Theory..........................................................................................6
2.3Conceptual Framework.......................................................................................................7
2.4 Related Literature...............................................................................................................7
2.4.1 Farm Income and Access to Food...................................................................................7

iii
2.4.2 Business income and access to food................................................................................9
2.4.2 International remittance and Access to Food...............................................................11
2.5 Review Gaps.....................................................................................................................13

CHAPTER THREE.............................................................................................................14
METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................14
3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................14
3.2 Research Design..........................................................................................................14
3.3Study Population...............................................................................................................15
3.4 Sample Selection..............................................................................................................15
3.5Sampling Procedures.........................................................................................................15
3.6Data Sources......................................................................................................................15
3.7Data Collection Methods and Tools..................................................................................16
3.7.1 Questionnaires...............................................................................................................16
3.7.2. Interview Guide............................................................................................................16
3.7.3 Documentary Review....................................................................................................17
3.8Validity and reliability of research instruments................................................................17
3.9Data Analysis....................................................................................................................17
3.10Ethical considerations......................................................................................................17
3.11Limitations and Delimitations.........................................................................................18

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................18
APPENDIX I: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE.............................................22
SECTION A: Household’s Demographic Characteristics.....................................................23
Section B: Farm Income and Access to Food........................................................................24
Business income and access to food.......................................................................................26
International remittance and access to food...........................................................................26
APPENDIX II: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR KEY INFORMANTS......................................27

iv
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the background to the study, the problem statement, purpose of the study,
objectives of the study, research questions, scope and significance of the study.
1.1 Background to the study
The background is presented in four sections: Historical, theoretical, conceptual and contextual
background as guided by Amin (2005).
1.1.1 Historical Perspective
The concept of food access was originally applied to dynamics within developing countries with
severely malnourished populations (Sonnino, Marsden & Moragues‐Faus, 2016).It was meant to
reorient anti-hunger efforts away from a simplistic focus on food availability the physical supply
of food toward one that also considered the ability of people to secure, or access, that food
(Pinstrup-Andersen, 2009). By the late 1970s, recognizing that the Green Revolution failed to
end famines and malnourishment despite increasing agricultural yields, food security scholars
and practitioners increasingly emphasized the need to match food availability with food access
(Westengen & Banik, 2016).Economist and philosopher Amartya Sen popularized the concept of
food access in the early 1980s, demonstrating that famines were not the result of insufficient
food availability, but rather of policies dictating how people acquired and controlled food, which
often deprived the poor of the means to access otherwise plentiful food supplies (Rosenberg &
Cohen, 2017). Conventional forms of food assistance, which focused on distributing surplus food
to impoverished countries, were challenged for perpetuating dependency on donor countries
(Belows and Hamm, 2003). By the early 1990s, policymakers and social movements in the
Global North began to focus on food access within their own countries (Wittman, 2011). Tony
Blair’s government in the United Kingdom played a critical role in shaping discourse on food
access in Europe and North America by emphasizing the availability of conventional food
retailers to the exclusion of other factors (Lockie, 2006). “Improved access” quickly became
defined as “improved access to food retail” despite the emergence of social movements that
sought to address food disparities in a more comprehensive way (Purifoy, 2014).
1.1.2 Theoretical Perspective
The study will be informed by the Ecological Systems Theory (EST) which was developed by
Urie Bronfenbrenner in 1977. The application of social ecological theories and models focus on
several goals: to explain the person-environment interaction, to improve people-environment
transactions, to nurture human growth and development in particular environments, and to
improve environments so they support expression of individual's system's dispositions.Although
generally well received, Urie Bronfenbrenner's models have encountered some criticism
throughout the years. Most criticism centerson the difficulties to empirically test the theory and
model and the broadness of the theory that makes it challenging to intervene at any given
level(Tudge, Karnik & Hatfield, 2011).Some examples of critiques of the theory are that it very
challenging to evaluate all components empirically. Also, it is difficult explanatory model to
apply because it requires extensive scope of ecological detail with which to build up meaning
that everything in someone's environment needs to be taken into account. It fails to see that the
variables of social life are in constant interplay and that small variables can change a system and
lastly, it does not address developmental stages that are the focus of theories like Piaget's and
Erikson's (Stokols, 1996). Regardless of the above challenges, this theory has been used by
various scholars and helped to analyze most of the elements used to describe food security.
1.1.3 Conceptual Perspective
Food security is defined by the World Food Programme (1989) asthe sustained ability of all
people to have physical and economic access to the basic food consumption needs at all times.
Food security also exists when all people at all times have physical, social and economic access
to sufficient food, safe and nutritious enough to meet the dietary needs and food preferences for
an active and healthy life (FAO, 1996). World Bank (1986) considered secured access at all
times to sufficient food for a healthy livelihood to characterize what food security meant.The
United Nations, technically, defines a household as food secure when it has access to the food
needed for a healthy life for all its members (adequate in terms of quality, quantity, safety, and
culturally acceptable), and when it is not at undue risk of losing such access (Von Braun et al.,
1996).
Household income refers to income received from all household’s members of 15 years and
above irrespective of the relationship to the family head (Amanda, 2014). It is also defined by the
international labor organization as the total sum of all monetary and in kind receipts received by

2
a household annually or frequently from sale of goods and services excluding irregular or wind
fall receipts (ILO, 2004). Food access is defined by Demetre et al., (2011) access as the
households’ ability to acquire enough food of sufficient quality that meets all its household
members’ nutritional requirements for an active and productive life. Access to food can be
physical, economic and social (Simon, 2012). The physical aspect is in fact almost a logistical
dimension whereas the economic aspect of the access to food can be defined as WFP does
(Simon, 2012).Off-farm (non-farm) income refers to the portion of farm household income
obtained off the farm, including nonfarm wages and salaries, pensions, and interest income
earned by farm families. On average for all farms in the United States, off-farm income accounts
for over 90% of farm operator household income (Womack, 2005).Off farm income is defined as
the sum of wages and salaries plus net unincorporated self-employment income from operating a
non-farm enterprise. It can also include investment income, pension income, and social transfers
(Poon &Weersink, 2011). Farm income refers to that income that is realized by the farmers as a
result of undertaking the various farm activities (Hill, 2018). These are activities that a farmer
undertakes through the rearing of animals like goats, cattle, pigs, rabbits, donkeys, dogs among
others. Farmers also may take to rearing of birds like turkeys, chicken as a form of employment.
1.1.4 Contextual Perspective
Pallisa district remains hunger prone (Egeru, 2012). The district is not so much endowed with a
lot of resource potentials but households rather depend on agriculture for livelihood though a
handful of residents practice cattle keeping and some business activities for a living (Ebanyat, et
al., 2010). The major challenge however has been the ever increasing population yet the
productive resources like land are constant. Most of the land has been partitioned into small plots
where farmers do mixed farming hence increasing the pressure on land coupled with the poor
farming methods. The other challenge facing households is the poor crop yields attributed to
changes in weather conditions and low quality breeds of animals and plants (Walaga & Hauser,
2005). The resultant effect has been reduction in the amount of harvests and death of animals and
birds yet these help to fetch some income for those that depend on them. The poor crop yields
has also been aggravated by the increasing demand for farm harvested for export to south Sudan
leaving households with little food stuff that cannot take them throughout the year yet most of
the farmers sell food to get money to meet their day today financial needs (Ssewanyana &
Kasirye, 2010). Such conditions described about have left most of the sub counties food prone in

3
the sense that most of them sell off the food to meet other needs with hopes of cultivating afresh
to be able to feed their families (Ververs, 2011). However, most of the households have found
themselves in a situation where they are unable to have adequate amounts of food in their stores
and hence resort to purchasing it from shops yet majority cannot afford due to lack of funds Most
of the sub counties that have been heavily hit are Agule and Butebo due to the lucrative cross
border transactions involving food export that is too pronounced (Bagoole, 2011).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Better household income is critical for improving community access to food and their livelihoods
in general (FAO, 1996). A lot of efforts have been made in Uganda to improve rural household
incomes. For instance, government-supported Savings and Credit Cooperative Organizations
(SACCOs), Operation Wealth Creation (OWC) and the youth livelihood projects among others
(Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development Report, 2014). Regardless of such
efforts, rural household income is still very low (Ellis & Bahiigwa, 2003). Most of the families in
Uganda live below the poverty line and cannot afford two meals a day (Lwanga-Ntale &
McClean, 2004). Changes in the weather conditions have drastically affected crop yields hence
depriving many of the sources of livelihood (Bohle, Downing & Watts, 1994). Post-harvest
losses have also greatly affected farm produce attributed to poor storage facilities where rats and
other rodents invade the harvests hence destroying them (Sudheer & Indira, 2007). The need for
money by parents to pay school fees and meet their medical expenses has forced them to sell off
their harvests remaining with little or insufficient food staff to take them up to next harvest
season (Kabunga, 2012). The effect that all the above circumstances have on access of rural
household to income is less understood, hence the need for this study using a case of Paliisa
District.

1.3 Objectives
1.3.1 Overall Objective
The main purpose of this study is to find out the effect of rural household income and access to
food in Gogonyo County Pallisa District.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
i. To establish how farm income affect access to food
ii. To examine how business income affect access to food
iii. To analyse how international remittances affect access to food

4
1.4 Research Questions
i) How does farm income affect access to food?
ii) How does business income affect access to food?
iii) How does international remittances affect access to food?

1.5 Study Scope

1.5.1 Geographical Scope
Geographically, the study will be carried out among rural households in Gogonyo county Pallisa
district.
1.5.2 Content scope
Conceptually, the study will try to establish the mechanisms through which household access
income, the various sources of income exploited and an effort will be made to establish the net
effect of household income on food access.

1.5.3 Time scope

The study will consider a period of 5 years (2014-2019) being the periods in which severe food
shortages have been experienced by households.
1.6 Significance of the Study
The study will generate information that will be used by policy makers, district planners and
food agencies in formulating appropriate food policies for the country, and the district data
profile on food security which is currently lacking. This will enable the government to show the
rate at which food shortages have to occur and to take corrective actions where necessary. The
study will further contribute to the body of knowledge and literature on the factors affecting
household food security, which will benefit the local people academicians, environmental
managers and other organizations, to know how the factors underlying famine affects
households general wellbeing.

5
 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a review of literature that relates to the subject under investigation. This
literature review involves opinions and views of other scholars and researchers that are related to
the topic. It is presented in accordance with the study objectives in chapter one and included the
theoretical review and related literature on the variables.
2.2The Ecological Systems Theory
The theory utilized to conduct this study is the Ecological Systems Theory (EST) developed by
Urie Bronfenbrenner in 1977, which suggests that an individual is constantly affected by various
systems of his or her life as these varying dimensions interact with each other. An example of
such includes an individual whose profession is influenced by their status as food insecure.
When the individual exhibit common symptoms of food insecurity (a micro-system issue), such
as stress and malnutrition, such factors can have a negative impact on the individual’s work
performance. Ultimately, food insecurity can weaken communities through the ways described
above, and a lack of resources in the area can exacerbate such effects (macro-system).
Consequently, the manner in which different systems interact and influence others is apparent.
This illustrates how his or her environment at different levels can impact an individual.

Regarding the research study in investigating the manifestations of food insecurity in terms of
income level, EST is critical to the effective implementation as well as interpretation of the
research. The theory is especially vital in understanding the microsystem, mesosystem, and
macrosystem in an individual’s life, and the role that income level may have in determining or
influencing the presence of food insecurity within a household. As the hypotheses for this
research study maintain that food insecurity is influenced by the variable of household income,
EST possesses a large role in illustrating the manner in which conclusions are plausible. EST
also assists in examining many factors occurring in an individual’s life and attempts to discover
how these variables influence one another. The research study intends to investigate this concept
through the dependent variable of food access contrasted with the independent variable of rural
household income level.

6
The systems within an individual’s life interact and influence one another. Having a lower
income level makes the individual more at risk for food insecurity, as the individual would lack
the necessary economic means to obtain nutritionally adequate food for the household. Utilizing
EST as the theoretical base of the research study appears to be the most appropriate of social
work theoretical frameworks available to base the nature of the investigation due to its
multifaceted design. With a multifaceted research design, social work practitioners are able to
examine a variety of variables influencing an individual’s life. The EST is also relevant not only
for the purposes of collecting data for evaluation, but also in interpreting the results as well.

2.3Conceptual Framework
Rural household income is the independent variable and it has operationalized into three namely:
income realized from the sale of harvests, sale of livestock and livestock products as well as
mixed farming. Food access is the dependent variable and it has been conceptualized into three
constructs including self-employment, salary/wages and money transfers as shown below.

Rural Household income (IV) Access to food (DV)

1. Purchase
2. Barter
 Farm income 3. Harvest

 Business income

 Remittance

Moderating Variable
 Government policy
 Seasonal changes

Source: Adopted from Schönfeldt (2003) with modifications.

7
2.4 Related Literature
2.4.1 Farm Income and Access to Food
Crops are the dominant (70 percent) of rural household incomes and livestock (5 percent)
(UBOS 2018).At the local level, there are more opportunities for diversification into livestock
farming, private wild life management as is already evident in parts of Karamoja further afield,
Opportunities for trade at the regional level still remain to be fully exploited especially in terms
of agriculture and mineral exploitation. Currently markets for food staples account for nearly
75percent of the value of all agricultural commodities produced in Africa (Haggbaldeet al. 2004
in IGAD 2007).

Livestock contributed 13 percent of the total agricultural GDP between 2001/ 2002-2004/2005
(UBOS 2005b). Although several studies suggest that livestock was increasingly becoming a
major asset and source of income for rural households, especially in central and south western
parts of the country (Sserunkuuma, 2001) civil disturbances combined with cattle rustling and
disease led to dramatic decrease of livestock in several parts of Uganda especially the eastern
and north eastern since the mid-1980s(Against Hunger, 2005).

Lack of appropriate agronomic patterns for intensified and diversified production such as
conservation tillage, crop rotations improved seeds, proper soil fertility methods.Low
productivity due to limited knowledge of agricultural practices that would avoid the current
situation of exhausted soils, low skilled labour, rudimentary hand tools, and unavailability of
appropriate fertilizers or improved seeds in some cases (FAO 2006). Diversification with short-
cycle livestock such as poultry and goats can also improve nutrition and livelihoods.

The major agricultural crops that rural households depend on for livelihood include maize,
millet, sorghum, beans, peas, groundnuts, simsim, soya beans, cassava, potatoes, banana, rice,
and varied vegetables (Okori, Obua and Baryamureeba, 2009) whose availability and
affordability determine a household’s levels of food access. Individuals facing food insecurity
also face reduced caloric intake that serves as a proxy for food insecurity. Caloric
intake/person/day helps determine individual health, and is calculated from a food balance sheet
developed from agricultural crop production and use. This food balance sheet illustrates food
availability by comparing an area’s food production and use. Food-insecure households are
prone to famine, requiring an effective, reliable predictive tool to facilitate early famine detection

8
if such disasters are to be avoided. The authors however made a generalization regarding the
crops produced in Uganda. This study is case specific and is set to establish whether the above
crops are produced in Gogonyo county.

In order to reduce risks, diversification of enterprises is important thus resulting in a variety of

income generating activities like provision of transport, bakeries, bee keeping restaurants and
grinding mills. (MAAIF 2009) Communities that cultivate a variety of crops and rise livestock
and engage in food and income generating activities can often adjust and survive when food
production and social institutions are disrupted. Drought prone west of Sudan for example,
communities traditionally devoted most of their land to crops and allocated only a small portion
for grazing livestock. Food and income from their herds helped them survive the increasing
frequent years when drought destroyed their crops. To enhance their capacity to cope with
recurring crisis, a project was designed to build on this diversity by encouraging a significant
shift of resources from cropping to grazing. At the conclusion of the project, the proportion of
land allocated for grazing had increased from less than 30 percent to more than 80 percent. The
shift in land use was accompanied by a wide range of other activities including for rehabilitation
of rangelands, improving access to credit and improved veterinary services all of which fostered
greater diversity increased resilience and improved food security.

2.4.2 Business income and access to food

Nearly one billion people suffer from limited access to food worldwide and the number of food
insecurity has been increasing recently majorly due to the limitations caused by business income
contraints (FAO, 2008). Limited access to food is prevalent in Africa and it jeopardizes
attainment of the 2015 Millennium Development Goal target for hunger reduction (FAO, 2008b;
NEPAD, 2008). Four broad concepts fit within the definition of food security: food availability,
food access, utilization and sustainability. “Food security exists when all people, at all times,
have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary
needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO, 1996; IFPRI, 2002). Food
security is not only concerned with ensuring adequate supply of dietary energy, but includes a
diet which is sufficient to meet all nutritional needs, thus incorporating sufficient intake of
vitamins and minerals.

9
Business incomes provide the cash that enables a farm household to purchase food during a
drought or after a harvest shortfall. Business income is also a source of farm household savings,
used for food purchase in difficult times. On the long-term effects on food security, however,
there is relatively little empirical evidence and what exists is inconclusive (Barrett and Reardon,
2001).

In the case of Burkina Faso, Reardon et al. (1992) business income diversification has a positive
impact on the income and food consumpti on expenditure of the households. Non-farm work is
associated with higher and stable incomes and food consumption over the years. They further showed
found that income diversification into the non-farm sector improves daily per adult equivalent calorie
consumption in the Sahelian and Guinean agro ecological zones of Burkina Faso. They urged that prior
wealth is vital in income diversification.

Ruben and Van den Berg (2001) obtained similar results for Honduras where they demonstrated
that calorie intake adequacy is strongly enhanced through engagement in non-farm activities
among rural households, and the study also showed that business income has a positive effect on
the use of external farm inputs in agricultural production, directly affecting household food
availability and consumption. Also in Zimbabwe, Ersado (2003) showed that business income
diversification is associated with a higher level of consumption expenditure in rural areas,
following the economic policy change and drought of the early 1990s.

Similarly, Tschirley and Weber (1994) showed that business income has a small but positive
effect on calorie availability among rural households in Angoche district of Northern Zimbabwe.
By using the 24-hour consumption recall data, the study found that a 1% increase in non-farm
income would increase calorie availability by 0.04%

In Nigeria, Babatunde and Qaim (2010) examine the mechanisms through which business
income affects household calorie and micronutrient supply, dietary quality, and child
anthropometry. They find that participation in non-farm activities is associated with better food
access and nutrition, and they challenged the skepticism sometimes expressed towards the
impact of the non-farm sector on food security. A

10
In many rural areas, agriculture alone cannot provide sufficient livelihood opportunities.
Migration is not an option for everyone and where possible, policy-makers may in any case
prefer to limit the worst excesses of urbanization with its associated social and environmental
problems. Rural business employment can play a potentially significant role in reducing rural
poverty and numerous studies indicate the importance of non-farm enterprise to rural incomes
and acquisition of the basic needs. Reardon (1997) documents small enterprise studies that show
that the typical rural household in Africa has more than one member employed in a business
enterprise. Islam (1997) reported that the share of the non-farm sector in rural employment in
developing countries varies from 20% to 50%. Reardon (1997) finds Rural business income
shares in Africa ranging from 22% to 93%, and Newman and Canagarajah (1999) point to a large
body of recent research that indicates that the Rural business income sector is now thought to be
more dynamic and important than previously believed.

Rural business opportunities can have an indirect effect on wages amongst the rural poor also
expansion of business employment opportunities is likely to tighten casual labour markets in
general and thus raise wages in the agricultural labour market’’ (Rossiter,2007).

Nonetheless, there are many ways in which Rural business income activities are important to the
poor in Africa. Cottage industry for example enables women to combine income generating
activities with other tasks, such as food preparation and childcare (Lanjouw and Lanjouw, 2007;
Gordon et al., 2006). Examples of non-farm activities in sub-Saharan Africa include beer
brewing, fish processing, edible oil processing, crochet, pottery, rice husking, groundnut
shelling, preparation and sale of prepared foods, and other small trading activities that can be
carried from the home or nearby. The above authors generalized their findings on examples of
non-farm sources of income on Africa, thus leaving a gap regarding the situation in Gogonyo
county in Pallisa District, hence the need for this study.

Participation in the Rural business income sector allows poor people to smooth out or offset
fluctuations in agricultural income that might occur on a seasonal basis or as a result of
unexpected events. This is especially the case where savings, credit and insurance mechanisms
are not available for this purpose, as is the case in many rural areas in Africa. Where the
agricultural sector is dominant, non-farm income opportunities are likely to echo trends and
shocks in agriculture, but may nonetheless be somewhat more stable. Reardon et al. (1992)

11
studied three regions in Burkina Faso and found that total income was considerably more stable
than cropping income alone. The contextual gaps left in the findings of Reardon et al (1996)
provided the need for this study.

2.4.2 International remittance and Access to Food

In fact, Babatunde and Martinetti (2010) in their study of Nigeria used an instrumental variables
(IV) approach to investigate the impact of remittances on food security. Their results show that
that remittance income has a positive and significant effect on calorie, but has no effect on
dietary quality, micro nutrient and child nutritional status. However, a major limitation of the IV
approach is the difficulty in defining instruments in the estimation. In addition the IV procedure
tend impose a linear functional form assumption, implying that the coefficients on the control
variables are similar for treated (remittance households) and control (non-remittance) groups.
However, this assumption may not hold, since the coefficients could differ (Jalan and Ravallion,
2003)

Thus by explicitly focusing on food security indicators , this study contributes to the existing
literature by empirically examining whether remittances are really contributing to different
measures of access to food such as (1) Coping Strategy Index (CSI); (2) Reduced Coping
Strategies index (rCSI); (3) Household Food insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS); and (4) Food
Consumption Score(FCS) in two livelihood zones of Tigray regional state of Ethiopia based on
household survey data collected by the authors as part of a SIDA funded project , livelihood
changes overtime during 2011-2013.

Brown and Jimenz (2008) for Tonga and Fiji argued that remittances had large impact in house
hold food consumption. However, the impact was smaller when they considered remittance as an
“exogenous transfer”. In the same way Zhu and Luo (2010) for Hubei province of China and
Barham and Boucher (1998) for Nicaragua use remittance as a potential substitute to assess the
impact of remittance on poverty and income distribution.

Brown and Jimenz (2008) for Tonga and Fiji argued that remittances had large impact in
reducing poverty. However, the impact was smaller when they considered remittance as an
“exogenous transfer”. In the same way Zhu and Luo (2010) for Hubei province of China and

12
Barham and Boucher (1998) for Nicaragua use remittance as a potential substitute to assess the
impact of remittance on poverty and income distribution.

INSTRAW (2008) , in a study on gender , remittances and development in the Philippines found
that remittances contribute to the improvement in the food security of receiving households in
addition to a significant change in food consumption patterns. Jimenez (2009) conducted a
comparative analysis between remittance-receiving households and non-receiving households in
Tlapanala village of Mexico. Results of his analysis show that the consumption patterns do not
differ significantly, but food consumption expenditures were higher in remittance –receiving
households. In the same way Quartey and Blankson (2004) in their study of Ghana found
evidence of increased food consumption among remittance – receiving households.

Quisumbing and McNiven (2010) in a study argue that remittances have a positive impact on
housing, consumer durables, non-land assets, and total expenditures. Notably, another study
shows that households with remittances have high food consumption compared to non-receivers
(Adams & Cuecuecha, 2010b). However, little is known about the remittances and food security
relationship. Hence, the main purpose of this study is to investigate the potential relationship
between receiving remittances and the food security status in Global South (GS) regions.
Although there are some studies on different countries that explore the association between
receiving remittances and household food quality and quantity consumption or food consumption
expenditures, this is the first study that examines the association between food security and
receiving remittances by using the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) for individuals in
the Global South (GS).

13
Remittances have increased at an impressive rate since the beginning of the 2000s and now
represent a major source of foreign inflows in developing countries (Yang & Choi, 2007). A
large body of the literature has already provided empirical evidence of the dampening effect of
remittances on consumption instability (Combes. & Ebeke, 2011), income inequalities (Chauvet
& Mesplé-Somps, 2007) (Koechlin, & Leon, 2007), and poverty (Adams & Page, 2005) (Acosta,
Calderon, Fajnzylber, & Lopez, 2008), (Gupta, Pattillo & Wagh,2009). Though SSA countries
do not rank among the top remittance-receiving countries, worker’s remittances more than
doubled between 2000 and 2006 (Mohapatra, Joseph, & Ratha, 2012). Personal remittances grew
at an impressive 20% per annum over the 2001 to 2010 period, which is the highest average
annual growth rate among developing regions (World Bank Indicators).

Remittances arguably play a key role in dampening the effects of a large variety of risks, both,
ex-ante or ex-post. For instance, the dampening effect of remittances on adverse shocks in SSA
has been documented in several studies (Combes, Ebeke, Ntsama Etoundi, & Yogo, 2014),
(Azam & Gubert, 2006). Remittances have also buttressed ex-ante household preparedness for
natural disasters and provided resources in their aftermath (Mohapatra, Joseph, & Ratha, 2012).
2.5 Review Gaps
Fundamentally, it should be noted from the literature review discussed above that, most of the
studies have assessed socio-economic and institutional factors generally and few have
specifically focused on the influence of household income levels on access to food hence
creating a gap. Furthermore, most of the available studies on food security are from other parts
(geographical context) of Africa and the world at large but not Pallisa district in Uganda, which
creates a geographical gap. The study seeks to bridge the geographical gap left hanging in
literature review by focusing on two Sub Counties in the district. The third contradiction or gap
arises out of the fact that, most of the studies cited in the literature review above are outdated.
Therefore, there is need to conduct a new study so as to generate new information to bridge the
knowledge gap.

14
15
 CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the methodology that will be used to carry out the study. It includes
research design, population of the study, sample size, sample selection strategies and data
collection methods and techniques. It also explains validity and reliability, procedure of data
collection, data analysis and measurement of variables.

3.2 Research Design

The study will employ across-sectional study design, in which both qualitative and quantitative
approaches will be used. The cross sectional research design is preferred because since data will
be collected at one point in time and from a sample and it allows timely completion of the study
(Creswell, 2014; Onen and Oso, 2009).Quantitative techniques will also be used to capture and
analyze those variables that could easily be expressed in numerical terms while qualitative
approach will be used to capture and analyze narrative statements explaining the effect that
household income has on access to food from the respondent’s perspective.

3.3Study Population
According to Trochim (2006), a study population is a group to which the results of the study are
generalized. According to the latest population census report for Uganda, Gogonyo Sub-County
has a total of 7,500 households (UBOS, 2022). Information on the study population of the
would-be qualitative participants such as the LC Chairmen and NGO officials could not be
obtained, but there is one District agricultural officer – production, one District Chief agricultural
officer, two CDOs (one in each Sub County), and two Sub County Agriculture Officers (one in
each Sub County).

3.4 Sample Selection

The quantitative sample will be determined using the sample size table by Krejcie & Morgan
(1970). If the closest figure of a population size is 7,500, then it gives a sample size of 365
households at a 5% margin of error. This means at least 365 households will be sampled and will
be distributed proportionately from each Sub County.

16
The qualitative sample will be composed of 1 District Agricultural Officer- Production, 2 LC
Chairmen, 1 Community Development Officer, 1 Chief Agricultural Officer and 2 NGO officials
operating from the two sub counties.
3.5Sampling Procedures
Both probability and non-probability sampling methods will be used in selecting the study
participants basing on their comparative advantages in respect to the category and characteristics
of the respondents. Two villages will be randomly selected from each parish using a
disproportional stratified random sampling (lottery method) techniques because of its ability to
ensure that various groups or strata are represented in the sample (Amin, 2005). For the case of
household heads, they will be stratified according to their villages and then a systematic
sampling technique will be applied because of its simplicity in drawing a sample from a bigger
population compared to other methods like lottery. The key informants (the District agricultural
officer - production, LC Chairmen, CDOs, chief agricultural officer and NGO officials) will be
purposively selected because they are assumed to be very knowledgeable on the subject matter.

3.6Data Sources
The sources of data will be both secondary data (data from research reports and journals) and
primary and will be obtained through the use of self-administered questionnaires following
systematic and established academic procedures as suggested by (Mark, 1995) and structured
interviews.

3.7Data Collection Methods and Tools

A combination of quantitative and quantitative data collection methods and tools will be applied.
The purpose for the combination is to improve on the accuracy of the information. The
quantitative techniques will be used to collect quantifiable data, while the qualitative methods
capture those bits of information that the quantitative methods are unable to quantify (individual
voices). Reinharz, 1992 cited in Kebirungi, 2005) notes that triangulation of methods of data
collection gives research a high degree of validity and reliability and to overcome defiances
provided by single method studies. The following methods and tools will be used.

3.7.1 Questionnaires
Saunders et al (1997) defines a questionnaire as a general term to include all techniques of data
collection in which each person is asked to respond to the same set of questions in a pre-

17
determined order. Questionnaires are convenient for collecting information from a large
population within a short spell of time. These will be used to obtain information from household
heads or adult members of the household. The researcher will administer the questionnaires to
individual household heads to ensure accuracy of information obtained and English, Ateso and
Lugwere will be the main languages used. All the respondents will be subject to the same
questionnaire which will support an easy analysis of data obtained during the study.

3.7.2. Interview Guide

Specifically semi-structured interviews will be applied to gather data during the interview
sessions with the key informants (District agricultural officer –production, LC Chairmen,
Community Development Officer, Chief Agricultural Officer and NGO officials). Questions will
be formulated in accordance with the objectives of the study. Robson (1993) describes the semi-
structured interviews as where the interviewer has worked out a set of questions in advance, but
is free to modify their order based on his/her perception of what seems most appropriate in the
context of the conversation, can change the way they are worded, give explanations and leave
out particular questions which seem inappropriate with a particular interviewee or include
additional ones. Mwanje (2001) contends that this method places a significant amount of
importance on the subject’s freedom of expression.

3.7.3 Documentary Review

This instrument is meant to analyze and collect data from the available documents, concerning
rural household incomes from Local Governments, Non-Governmental Organizations,
Community Based Organizations, research findings among others. These will be to supplement
the data gathered using other instruments.

3.8Validity and reliability of research instruments

All the instruments will be scrutinized and modified. The method of triangulation, involving the
use of different methods of data collection will be employed, where multiple sources of data will
be used. To enhance reliability, internal consistency of the questionnaire and the interview guide
will be cross-checked.

18
3.9Data Analysis
After the data had been collected each day, the information will be checked to ensure consistency and
accuracy. This will be useful in ensuring that the objectives of the study are being answered. The
qualitative and quantitative data will be analyzed according to the themes and objectives of the study.
Data collected by use of questionnaires will be cleaned, edited and coded before analysis is done. Then
the data will be analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) program. Raw
frequencies will be generated and used in establishing the socio-economic data required to show the
gender dynamics in access, control of household income sources and resources. The qualitative data
obtained from in-depth interviews will be recorded and analyzed according to themes and objectives of
the study. This will include the respondent’s own voices.

3.10Ethical considerations
The researcher will have to abide by the research ethical code of conduct, social responsibility,
proper collection of data and reporting correctly, as well as respect of the dignity of the
respondents. The respondents to the research will be required to participate basing on their
adequate knowledge about the study. They will be informed about the procedures of the study,
purpose, issue of privacy and confidentiality. All the participants in research will have the right
to remain anonymous. They will be told that their identities would not be revealed. Participants
will also have the right to keep from the public certain information about themselves.

3.11Limitations and Delimitations

Hostility, lack of co-operation from the respondents and local administrators is likely to be a very
big challenge. However permission will be sought from the local administration first to ensure
security and co-operation. Unpredictability of weather conditions is likely to interfere with the
time of data collection. However patience and good weather readings will be used.
Transportation as a problem will be solved by use of bodaboda cycles and walking in some
impassable areas. Language barrier as a problem but this will be solved by use of research
assistants and interpreters who are well conversant with the local language in the study area.

19
REFERENCES

Alem, Y., & Söderbom, M. (2012). Household-level consumption in urban Ethiopia: the effects
of a large food price shock. World Development, 40(1), 146-162.

Anderson, M. D., & Cook, J. T. (1999). Community food security: Practice in need of theory?.
Agriculture and human values, 16(2), 141-150.

Aromolaran, A. B. (2004). Household income, women’s income share and food calorie intake in
South Western Nigeria. Food Policy, 29(5), 507-530.

Babatunde, R. O., & Qaim, M. (2010). Impact of off-farm income on food security and nutrition
in Nigeria. Food policy, 35(4), 303-311.

Bahiigwa, G. (1999). Household food security in Uganda: An empirical analysis (No. 25).
Kampala: Economic Policy Research Center.

Bellows, A. C., & Hamm, M. W. (2003). International effects on and inspiration for community
food security policies and practices in the USA. Critical Public Health, 13(2), 107-123.

Bohle, H. G., Downing, T. E., & Watts, M. J. (1994). Climate change and social vulnerability:
toward a sociology and geography of food insecurity. Global environmental change, 4(1), 37-48.

Brinkman, H. J., & Hendrix, C. S. (2011). Food Insecurity and Violent Conflict: Causes.
Consequences, and Addressing the Challenges, World Food Prgramme.

Burchi, F., & De Muro, P. (2016). From food availability to nutritional capabilities: Advancing
food security analysis. Food Policy, 60, 10-19.

Cavanagh, C. J., & Himmelfarb, D. (2015). “Much in blood and money”: Necropolitical ecology
on the margins of the Uganda Protectorate. Antipode, 47(1), 55-73.

Dean, W., and J. Sharkey. 2011. “Food Insecurity, Social Capital and Perceived Personal
Disparity in a Predominantly Rural Region of Texas: An Individual Level Analysis.” Social
Science and Medicine 72 (9): 1454-1462.

Devereux, S. (2009). Why does famine persist in Africa?. Food security, 1(1), 25.

Ebanyat, P., de Ridder, N., De Jager, A., Delve, R. J., Bekunda, M. A., & Giller, K. E. (2010).
Drivers of land use change and household determinants of sustainability in smallholder farming
systems of Eastern Uganda. Population and Environment, 31(6), 474-506.

Egeru, A. (2012). Role of indigenous knowledge in climate change adaptation: A case study of
the Teso Sub-Region, Eastern Uganda.

20
Ellis, F. (2000). Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford university press.

Ellis, F., & Bahiigwa, G. (2003). Livelihoods and rural poverty reduction in Uganda. World
development, 31(6), 997-1013.

Ericksen, P. J. (2008). Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research.
Global environmental change, 18(1), 234-245.

Fan, S., & Zhang, X. (2008). Public expenditure, growth and poverty reduction in rural Uganda.
African Development Review, 20(3), 466-496.

FAO, (1996). Food and food assistance. World Food Summit Technical Background

Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., ... &
Toulmin, C. (2010). Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327(5967),
812-818.

Grewal, S. S., & Grewal, P. S. (2012). Can cities become self-reliant in food? Cities, 29(1), 1-11.

Harris, F. M., & Mohammed, S. (2003). Relying on nature: wild foods in northern Nigeria.
AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 32(1), 24-30.

Hill, B. (2018). Farm incomes, wealth and agricultural policy. Routledge.

Hill, C. M. (1997). Crop-raiding by wild vertebrates: the farmer's perspective in an agricultural

community in western Uganda. International Journal of Pest Management, 43(1), 77-84.

Irz, X., Lin, L., Thirtle, C., & Wiggins, S. (2001). Agricultural productivity growth and poverty
alleviation. Development policy review, 19(4), 449-466.

Jones, A. D., Ngure, F. M., Pelto, G., & Young, S. L. (2013). What are we assessing when we
measure food security? A compendium and review of current metrics. Advances in Nutrition,
4(5), 481-505.

Kinsey, B., Burger, K., & Gunning, J. W. (1998). Coping with drought in Zimbabwe: Survey
Evidence on Responses of Rural Households to Risk. World Development, 26(1), 89-110.

Krejcie, R. V& Morgan, G. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30 (1), 607-610.

Lockie, S. (2006). Going organic: mobilizing networks for environmentally responsible food
production. CABI.

López, R., & Valdés, A. (2000). Rural Poverty in Latin America. Springer.

21
Lwanga-Ntale, C., & McClean, K. (2004). The face of chronic poverty in Uganda from the
poor’s perspective: constraints and opportunities. Journal of Human Development, 5(2), 177-
194.

Moreki, J. C., Dikeme, R., & Poroga, B. (2010). The role of village poultry in food security and
HIV/AIDS mitigation in Chobe District of Botswana. Livestock Research for Rural
Development, 22(3), 1-7.

Nugent, R. (2000). The impact of urban agriculture on the household and local economies.
Bakker N., Dubbeling M., Gündel S., Sabel-Koshella U., de Zeeuw H. Growing cities, growing
food. Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Feldafing, Germany: Zentralstelle für Ernährung
und Landwirtschaft (ZEL), 67-95.

Pinstrup-Andersen, P. (2009). Food security: definition and measurement. Food security, 1(1), 5-
7.

Poon, K., & Weersink, A. (2011). Factors affecting variability in farm and off-farm income.
Agricultural Finance Review, 71(3), 379-397.

Purifoy, D. M. (2014). Food policy councils: integrating food justice and environmental justice.
Duke Envtl. L. & Pol'y F., 24, 375.

Reutlinger, S. (1984). Amartya Sen," Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and
Deprivation"(Book Review). Economic Development and Cultural Change, 32(4), 881.

Rosenberg, N. A., & Cohen, N. (2017). Let them eat kale: the misplaced narrative of food access.
Fordham Urb. LJ, 45, 1091.

Schmidhuber, J., & Tubiello, F. N. (2007). Global food security under climate change.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50), 19703-19708.

Schonfeldt, H. C. (2003). Fundamentals of Nutrition Security in Rural Development. Graduate

Sekhampu, T. J. (2013). Determination of the factors affecting the food security status of
households in Bophelong, South Africa.

Sen, A.K. (1981). Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford, UK,
Oxford University Press.

Simon, G. A. (2012). Food security: Definition, Four dimensions, History. Basic readings as an
introduction to Food Securityfor students from the IPAD Master, SupAgro, Montpellierattending
a joint training programmein Rome from 19thto 24thMarch 2012.

22
Smith, L. C., Alderman, H., & Aduayom, D. (2006). Food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa: new
estimates from household expenditure surveys (Vol. 146). Intl Food Policy Res Inst.

Sonnino, R., Marsden, T., & Moragues‐Faus, A. (2016). Relationalities and convergences in
food security narratives: towards a place‐based approach. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, 41(4), 477-489.

Ssewanyana, S. N., & Kasirye, I. (2010). Food security in Uganda: A dilemma to achieving the
Millennium Development Goal (No. 677-2016-46693).

Stokols, D (1996). "Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health
promotion". Am J Health Promot. 10: 282–98.

Strier, K. B. (1999). Faces in the forest: the endangered muriqui monkeys of Brazil. Harvard
University Press.

Sudheer, K. P., & Indira, V. (2007). Post-harvest technology of horticultural crops (Vol. 7). New
India Publishing.

Trochim, W. M. (2006). Nonprobability sampling. Research methods knowledge base, 1(1), 1-

10.

Tudge, J; Mokrova I, Karnik RB & Hatfield B. E (2011). "Uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner's
bioecological theory of human development". Journal of Family Theory & Review. 1 (4): 198–
210.

UBOS (2014). National Population and Housing Census: Final Report. Kampala, Uganda Bureau
of Statistics.

Ververs, M. T. (2011). The East African food crisis: did regional early warning systems
function?. The Journal of nutrition, 142(1), 131-133.

Vogel, S. and S.A. Low. (2015). “The Size and Scope of Locally Marketed Food
Production.”U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Amber Waves.

Walaga, C., & Hauser, M. (2005). Achieving household food security through organic
agriculture? Lessons from Uganda. Journal Fur Entwicklungspolitik, 21(3), 65.

Westengen, O. T., & Banik, D. (2016). The state of food security: From availability, access and
rights to food systems approaches. In Forum for Development Studies (Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 113-
134). Routledge.

Wittman, H. (2011). Food sovereignty: a new rights framework for food and nature?.
Environment and Society, 2(1), 87-105.

23
World Bank (1986). World Development Report. New York, Oxford University Press.

World Food Programme (1989). Food and Nutrition Bulletin, Volume 11, Number 4.

24
APPENDIX I: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

My name is Isaac Olinga. I am conducting a study on the effect of rural household income on
access to food. So I have decided to come to this sub county to conduct the study. The
information you provide me with will be used to understand the levels of access to food by
households within this community.

I request that you spend some time to provide answers to the questions in this tool. The other
request is that try to be as honest as possible while answering the questionnaire. You do not have
to answer any question that you do not understand or not comfortable with. Your participation in
this study is voluntary.

The information you will give will be confidential. No one will have access to that information. I
will compile a report that will not contain your name or identifying information and will be
submitted to Kampala international University for the award of a degree.

If you have any question regarding what I have just said, feel free to ask me and I shall respond
to you satisfactorily to be able to make an informed decision.

Do you have any question? Yes_____________ No ___________________

Can we now proceed with the discussion? Yes_____________ No ___________

Thank you very much.

SECTION A: Household’s Demographic Characteristics

1. Sex of household head:
Male
Female
2. Age
1. 18-29years
2. 30-39years
3. 40-49 years
4. 50 years above
25
3. Marital Status:
Single
Currently Married
Widowed
Divorced
Separated
4. Educational Level:
a). None
b). Primary
c). Secondary
d). Bachelor’s degree
e) Others (specify)…………..............................
5. Religion:
Muslim
Orthodox
Protestant
Catholic
Traditional belief
Pentecostal
Other (specify)......................................................

6. Size of the household

a) Less than 5
b) 5-9 members
c) 10-14 people
d) 15 and above

7. What is your occupation?

a) Crop farming
b) Salary earner
c) Livestock farming
d) Others(specify)…………………………………………………
8. What is your size of land?

26
1. Less than 1 acre 2. 1-4 acres 3. 5-9 acres 4. 10 acre plus

Section B: Farm Income and Access to Food

Direction: Please rate your ability, knowledge or skill on the following statement by ticking the
right number corresponding with each question. Key; 1=Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 =
Neutral/Not Sure; 4 = Agree and 5=Strongly Agree.
Statement 1 2 3 4 5

SD D N A SA

Farm Income and Access to Food

1 Crops are the dominant (70 percent) of rural household
incomes and livestock

2 Farm income has got a significant effect on access to food

for the local people

3 An increase in the farm income increases access to food by

the farmers

4 Small farm holders have a relatively low level of food

consumption by households

5 High agricultural yields directly result into high a food

consumption by household

27
Business income and access to food
Statement 1 2 3 4 5

SD D N A SA

Business income and access to food

1 Business incomes provide the cash that enables a farm

household to purchase food during a drought or after a
harvest shortfall

2 Business income is also a source of farm household savings,

used for food purchase in difficult times

3 Business income diversification has a positive impact on the

income and food consumption expenditure of the households

4 Business income has a small but positive effect on calorie

availability among rural households

5 Business work is associated with higher and stable incomes

and food consumption over the years.

International remittance and access to food

International remittance and access to food SD D N A SA

1 Households with remittances have high food

consumption compared to non-receivers

2 Increased food consumption among remittance –

receiving households

3 Food consumption expenditures were higher in

remittance –receiving households

4 Remittances contribute to the improvement in the

food security of receiving households in addition to a
significant change in food consumption patterns

5 Remittances are really contributing to different

measures of access to food

28
 ---------END-------
APPENDIX II: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR KEY INFORMANTS

(District Agricultural Officer, LC Chairpersons, Community Development Officer, Chief

Agricultural Officer and NGO Officials)

Introduction
My name is Isaac Olinga. I am conducting a study on the effect of rural household income on
access to food. So I have decided to come you as a valuable person in the district/community.
The information you provide me with will be used to understand the levels of access to food by
households within this community. I request that you spend some time to provide answers to my
open questions. The other request is that try to be as honest as possible while answering me. You
do not have to answer any question that you do not understand or not comfortable with. Your
participation in this study is voluntary.
Thank you.

1. How do households in your village/Sub County/District obtain income? What are their
major sources of income?
2. What are their on-farm and non-farm sources of income?
3. During time of food shortage, how do your people get food for home consumption?
4. What is the distance from people’s homes to the nearest market where they buy food? Is
the food affordable?
5. How is the road network in this area?
6. By the nature of the income of people in your village/sub county/district are they able to
access adequate food? How do men, women, men and boys access food? Are there
differences by gender group?
7. Do the people in your village/sub county/district have the money to use in buying food?In
case they don’t have money to buy food, what they do to survive?
8. What mechanisms do your people use to preserve food for future use?
9. How does the income earned people in your village/sub county/district affect their ability
to buy or obtain food? How do men, women, men and boys buy or obtain food? Are there
differences by gender group?
10. How do households use their resources such as livestock, land in relation to having or
buying food? Who makes the final decision on how household resources should be used?
men, women, men and boys?
11. What do you think can be done to improve household incomes in your community?
12. What do you think can be done to improve access to food in your community?

29