Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Study On Hunger in India
Uploaded by
rijuroy1812Original Title
Copyright
Available Formats
Share this document
Did you find this document useful?
Is this content inappropriate?
Report this DocumentCopyright:
Available Formats
A Study On Hunger in India
Uploaded by
rijuroy1812Copyright:
Available Formats
A STUDY ON HUNGER IN INDIA
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Science
in Applied Economics of Presidency University
Session: 2021-2023
By
DITYA ROY
A
Registration Number: 18201120030
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY
KOLKATA, INDIA
May, 2023
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We owe our profound gratitude to our project supervisor, Professor Supravat Bagli,
Department of Economics, Presidency University, Kolkata, who took akeeninterestinour
project work and guided us all along, till the completion of the project. We would like to
express our sincere and heartfelt gratitude to him for making this work possible. His
invaluableguidance,adviceandplentifulexperienceencouragedusthroughoutthecourseof
our work.
We would also like to thank Professor Gagari Chakrabarti, Head of the Department,
DepartmentofEconomics,PresidencyUniversity,Kolkata,forgivingusanopportunitytodo
the project and providing us with all the necessary assistance and cooperation.
We are thankful to and fortunate enough to get constant encouragement, support and
guidance from allthefacultymembersoftheDepartmentofEconomics,whichprovidedus
motivation and helped us in successfully completing the project work.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
ThisistocertifythatAdityaRoy(Regn.No.18201120030)hascompletedtheirprojectwork
for the M.Sc. degree in Applied Economics under my/our supervision for the session
2021-2023. The title of the work is A Study on Hunger in India. It is now ready for
submission towards the partial fulfillment of the M.Sc. degree in Applied Economics.
………………………………………………….……..
Name of Supervisor: Supravat Bagli
Dated:
A Study on Hunger in India
Abstract
In recent times, thenumberofpeoplesufferingfromhungerhasbeensteadilyincreasingin
the world (UN, 2023). India has notfaredverywellinthisrespect,havingranked107thin
the2022GHIrankingsoutof121countries-adownturnof6placesfromthepreviousyear.
This study has twin objectives. First,itexplorestheintertemporalchangesinthestate-wise
distributionofhungermeasuredbyacompositeindexinIndia.Second,weanalysethespatial
pattern and spatial impact onthestateofhungerinthedistrictsinIndia.TheHungerIndex
(HI)hasbeenreconstructedforthedistrictsusingtheGHIformulaaswellastheGeometric
Mean of the indicators. We have used LISA maps and Moran’s I for exploring the spatial
patternofhungeracrossthedistrictsinIndia.Spatialregressionmodel,laggedpluserror,has
beenfittedtoexaminetheimpactofhungerlevelofadistrictonitsneighbouringdistrict.Our
study has used data from National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4 and 5), Census India,
2011 and the International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT).
Kerneldensityestimationhasshownasignificantchangeinthedistributionofhungerforthe
states during 2015-16 to 2019-20. Spatial regression concludes that state of hunger of a
district is dependent on that of its neighbours. Moreover, per capita income reduces the
degree of hunger in the district. The districts withalargershareofurbanpopulationsuffer
fewerproblemsofhunger.Thereisalsoacleardividebetweenthemoreprosperousregions–
North and South, and the less prosperous regions surrounding the states of UP and Bihar.
SouthernIndiandistrictsseemtohaveahigherdensityofurbanareaswhichprovestobean
important factor that determines the value of hunger index.
eywords: Hunger Index, Spatial analysis, Malnutrition, Indian states, Sustainable
K
Development, Stunting, Wasting, Mortality.
JEL codes:I15, O15.
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vii
1.Introduction 1
2.Literature Review 3
3.Research Gap and Objectives 6
4.Data and Methodology 7
4.1.Variables and Data Used and Their Sources 7
4.2.Global Hunger Index (GHI) 8
4.3.Understanding the Spatial Autocorrelation in Districts and States 9
4.4.Spatial Regression Analysis of Hunger Index 10
4.5.Software Used 10
5. Results and Discussion 11
5.1.Observations About State Level Hunger Index Indicator Values 11
5.2.Observations About State-Level Hunger Index Scores 14
5.3.Spatial Patterns for State Hunger Index (SHI) Scores 16
5.4.Kernel Density Estimation for State-level Hunger Index Scores 16
5.5.Spatial Patterns for District-level Hunger Index Scores 18
5.6.Spatial Analysis of Factors Determining District Hunger Index Scores 19
5.6.1. Per Capita Income (PCI) 19
5.6.2. Urban Share of Population 21
5.6.3. Share of SCs and STs in Population 21
5.7.Regression Analysis of the District Hunger Index Scores 21
5.8.Clustering 23
5.9.Spatial Regression Analysis 25
6.Conclusion 25
REFERENCES 28
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: GHI Scores of India and its Neighbours ……………………………………… 1
able 2: Comparing Average and Maximum
T
Values for Hunger Index Indicator Values ……………………………………… 11
able 3: Comparing Average and Maximum State
T
Hunger Index Scores for the States in India ……………………………………… 14
able 4: Comparing Hunger Index Scores for 7
T
Large States ……………………………………… 14
able 5: Descriptive Statistics and Moran’s I
T
for Hunger Index Scores at District Level ……………………………………… 19
able 6: Moran’s I and Pseudo p-values for all the
T
variables at District Level ……………………………………… 21
able 7: Results of the Linear Regression Analysis
T
of Hunger Index on Independent Variables &
Results of the Diagnostics for Spatial Dependence ……………………………………… 22
able 8: Results of the Spatial Regression Analysis
T
of Hunger Index on Independent Variables ……………………………………… 25
LIST OF FIGURES
igure 1: Trends in GHI Scores for India
F
and its Neighbours ……………………………………… 2
igure 2: Comparing Average Indicator
F
Values for the states in India ……………………………………… 12
igure 3: Comparing Stunting Rate Values
F
for the states in India ……………………………………… 12
igure 4: Comparing Wasting Rate Values for
F
the states in India ……………………………………… 13
igure 5: Comparing Mortality Rate Values for
F
the states in India ……………………………………… 13
igure 6: Comparing State HI Scores for Seven
F
Large States ……………………………………… 15
Figure 7: States with Falling Hunger Index Scores ……………………………………… 15
igure 8: Box Map for (a) State-Level HI Scores
F
(2015-16), (b) State-Level HI Scores (2019-21) ……………………………………… 16
igure 9: Kernel density of HI-GM for 2016 vs
F ……………………………………… 17
2021
Figure 10: Kernel density of HI for 2016 vs 2021 ……………………………………… 17
igure 11: Box Map for District-Level Hunger
F
Index Variable ……………………………………… 18
igure 12: Box Map for (a) District-Level Per
F
Capita Income (PCI), (b) District-Level SC & ST
Share of the Population, (c) District-Level Urban
Share of the Population ……………………………………… 20
igure 13: LISA Significance Maps for
F
(a) Hunger Index, (b) Share of SC and ST Share
of the Population, (c) Per Capita Income and
(d) Urban Share of the Population 23
igure 14: LISA Cluster Maps for (a) Hunger
F
Index, (b) Share of SC and ST Share of the
Population, (c) Per Capita Income and
(d) Urban Share of the Population 24
1. Introduction
Hunger as an issue plaguing the world has been getting more and more attention in
contemporary times. The United Nations also pays special attention to the eradication of
hungerasisseeninitsSustainableDevelopmentGoal2–aimingtoendhungerby2030and
achieve food security. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) usually measures
hungerwiththehelpofthePrevalenceofUndernourishmentfigures.However,hungerisnot
just an issue pertaining to health but also one that impacts the economic conditions of a
populace and is impacted by the same as well.
Alliance (2015) has been publishing Global Hunger Index (GHI) reports that take into
accountotherindicatorstoconstructamoreall-encompassingindex.Itsobjectiveistofurther
knowledge regarding Hunger and provide toolsforemergingcountriestocombatthesame.
United Nations (2023) reports that the number of people suffering from hunger has been
steadily increasing in the world. These rising rates have also made the indicators of
malnutritionworseforall,especiallyforthechildreninthecountries.Indiahasnotfaredvery
well in this respect, havingranked107thinthe2022GHIrankingsoutof121countries-a
downturn of 6 places from the previous year. Among her neighbours in the subcontinent,
India lags behind most, with the exception of Afghanistan as is seen in table-1 as follows.
Table 1:GHI Scores of India and its Neighbours
Country 2022 GHI SCORE 2022 GHI Rank
Sri Lanka 13.6 64
Myanmar 15.6 71
Nepal 19.1 81
Bangladesh 19.6 84
Pakistan 26.1 99
India 29.1 107
Afghanistan 29.9 109
Source:Official Global Hunger Index Report, 2022
InspiteofthecriticismsoftheGHImeasurement,thecountrylevelreportpresentsaglimpse
oftheproblem.Appropriatewaystomeasuretheprevalenceofhungeratlocallevelswould
enable us to frame policies in an improved fashion and with better outcomes. The hunger
indexprovidesameasuretoexaminetheprogressofanationanditssmallerunitslikestates
and districts towards achieving the SDG2targets.Whenacountrydoesnotimproveonits
hungerindex,itwillbejudgedasnotmakingprogresstowardsthesetargets.Asisseenfrom
the trends in the figure, India is the only country inthesubcontinentwhichdeterioratesits
hunger index value from the previous publication – a rise from 28.2 to 29.1. This
deterioration may be attributed to the brutal and unforeseen circumstances created by
COVID-19 in India, other countries seem to have improved on the metric even if it is by
small margins.
Figure 1:Trends in GHI Scores for India and its Neighbours
lobal Hunger Index Trends for
G
India and Its Neighbours
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Afghanistan angladesh
B I ndia yanmar
M
Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka
2 014 2022
'12-'16 '17-'21
Source:Global Hunger Index Report, 2022
The International Food Policy Research Institute furthered such analysis by constructing a
StateLevelHungerIndexforIndiain2010.Themainpurposeofthisstudyistoextendthis
analysis by considering district-level datasets and forming a more local Hunger Index for
India.
2. Literature Review
During the period from 1990 to 2014, GHI scores decreased significantly in a number of
nations,includingBenin,Cambodia,China,Colombia,DominicanRepublic,Ghana,Guyana,
Honduras, Indonesia, Mauritania, Mongolia, Rwanda, and Vietnam, while GHI scores
marginally decreased in Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Republic ofCongo,India,Madagascar,
and Namibia. Brazil, China, and South Africa have made notable progress in this regard
among the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) group, whereasIndiais
moving slowly or reversely (Jha and Acharya; 2016). Therefore, the case of India is an
exception. In order to gauge the reasons behindthispeculiarityweneedtoexplorethereal
situation in a disaggregated way. JhaandAcharya(2016)havearguedthatprovidingsocial
protectionandstabilityaswellasimprovingassistanceforsmallholderagricultureappearto
beeffectivewaystoreducehungerandmalnutrition.SundaramandRawal(2014)havestated
that one out of nine people on the planet, still experience chronic hunger. In low-income
nations, more than 50% of the population experiences some kind of food insecurity, and
one-thirdfaceseverefoodinsecurity.Some800millionpeopleworldwidesufferfromalack
ofaccesstosufficientfood,andifweconsidermicronutrientdeficiencies,thatnumberjumps
totwobillion(Hindwan;2018).NowifweconsiderIndiainthisscenario,itperformspoorly
in terms of food security. Mothers with anaemia and children with undernourishment are
found in India, on a large scale. The majority of the world's underweight children exist in
there as well (Reddy; 2016). Basu and Das; 2014 have explained the calorie consumption
puzzle in India which shows poverty- hunger divergence over time in India. They have
argued thatduringtheglobalisedera,thepoorhavebeenforcedtospendmoreonnon-food
essentialitemslikeeducation,healthfueletc.Calorieintakehasdecreasedasaresultofthe
financialstrainonfoodbudgets,evenwhilepercapitaconsumerspendinghasincreased.Asa
result, in spite of earning above the poverty line income, the low-income group fails to
maintainnutritiousmealswhichkeepsthehungerproblempersistentordeterioratinginIndia.
Aguayo et al. (2014) stated that lower levels of undernourishment in Indiaarefoundtobe
closelyconnectedwithessentialnutritiontreatments.UsingNFHS-3data,theyhavereported
highorextremelyhighlevelsofchildundernutritionin16ofthe28statesinIndia.Further,
CNS(ChildNutritionScore)showsthat24states’scoresarepoororextremelypoorwhenit
comestoprovidingcrucialnutritiontreatmentsforkids.Explainingthepoliticaleconomyof
hunger Ghosh(2010)arguedthattheIndiangovernmentisstillnottakingtheresponsibility
ofensuringuniversalfoodsecurityseriouslyenough,despitethefactthatthemajorityofthe
population continues to experience food
insecurityandthatthereisanear-emergencywithregardtothenutritionofchildren,women,
and other vulnerable groups.
Reddy(2016)studiestheprogressofIndia'sfoodsecurityincontrasttoeightsimilar-income
countries during 1990-2016. He has reported that India has well done in respect of food
availability(dietaryenergysupplyandvalueoffoodproduction)andstability(domesticfood
price indices) indicators. However, the progress is quite depressing in respect of protein
availabilityandtheprevalenceofundernourishment.Moreover,theprogressinaccesstoand
utilizationoffoodbythepeopleismiserable.Withthissituation,accordingtoReddy(2016),
India should emphasis on production of protein-rich foods. India can accelerate access to
nutritiousfoodforitsvulnerablepopulationthroughemploymentguaranteeprogrammesand
midday meal programme.
Jha,andAcharya(2016),reportedthathigherpercapitaincomelevelscontributetoreduced
levels of hunger when it comes to the association between per capita income and the
prevalence of food inadequacy (POFI). Nonetheless, there are also nations withhighPOFI
scores and relatively high per capita income levels (for example, Mongolia and Congo).
Urbanisation has its effects on the food security of a country as well. Parra et al; 2015
examined the issue based on case studies for four countries – Mexico, China, Kenya and
India. Mexico faces a problem related to obesity and health thatnegativelyaffectsitsfood
security.China’sinformalmarket,ontheotherhand,ismorepopularandwell-developedin
the form of wet markets in the cities
–stemmingmostlyfromthedemandforfreshproduceinthecitiesandfavourablepoliciesin
place.InKenya,thepresenceofsupermarketshashelpedonlythemiddleclassandtherich.
A case study in Chennai shows that how the government intervention through PDS is
importantforcombatinghunger.Thesocioeconomicdividepreventsthepoorfromaccessing
supermarkets and havingtodependonPDSinIndia.Thisalsohelpsalleviatetheveryhigh
prevalence of undernourishment in the area of about 25%. The positive role played bythe
PDStohelpurbanslumdwellersachievetheircaloricrequirementswillgoalongwaywhen
it comes to SDG 2. Careful tracking of food consumption patterns will help improve food
security and be instrumental in achieving the SDG 2 targets.
In order to assess theimpactofgeopoliticsinaccomplishingUNSDG2,Zhouetal(2020)
havecategorisedgeopoliticalissuesintofourareas–violentconflict,trade,naturalresources
and climate change. For instance, European countries and India are deficient in phosphate
rocks
andthus,havetodependonimports.Financialcompaniesareacquiringagriculturalresources
in order to engage in speculative activities that ledtofoodcrisisin2007-08.Productionof
biofuels to accomplish targets related to the environment hasalsoledtoland-grabbing.An
obvious solution to resource deficiency is imports and trade. Trade helps smoothen
productionshocksalso.Butcountriesfaceproblemsrelatedtothisaswell.Manydeveloped
countries with free trade systems do not liberalize the agriculture sectorenough.However,
the WTO has failed to address the 2007-08 crisis wherein rice prices experienced sharp
increasesduetowhencountriestriedtoprotectdomesticpricesfrominternationalvolatility.
Protectionistpoliciesalsoplayaroleinputtingconstraintsontrade.Three-fourthsofchildren
whosufferedfromstuntingresidedinconflict-riddennations.Theseresultinspillovereffects
oneconomicdevelopmentinthelongerterm.Conflictsnotonlycausedisruptionsinsupply
chains but also negativelyaffectagriculturalproduction.Theseeffectsarewelldocumented
in some of the most hunger-ridden countries like South Sudan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.
Climate change has a noticeable medium-term impact as seen by sudden shocks in
agriculturaloutput.However,itslonger-runimpactdeservesmoreattentionasitmightshape
availabilityandproductionoffooddowntheline.Geopoliticaltensionscanalsoarise.Russia
has increasingly strengthened its position as one of the largest grain exporters by taking
advantageofthedisadvantagesfacedbylow-latitudecountriesduetoclimatechange.Thus,
it is imperative that the countries come together to solve problems related to hunger.
CooperationshouldalsobefacilitatedbytransnationalorganizationsliketheFAO,WTOand
bodies like G7 and OECD. Competing to rule over resources or taking advantage of these
problems will only deteriorate the situation of hunger faced by the world.
GHI report 2022 listed India below some of its neighbouring countries and some of the
countries that are evenatabelowpositionintermsoffoodsecurityanddifferenteconomic
indicators.However,ourgovernmentsandsomescholarsdon’twanttoacceptthisreport.A
brief discussion by the National AcademyofAgriculturalSciences(NAAS),mentionedthe
lacunaeinthemeasureofGHI.Someofthemare:i)outofthefourindicatorsofGHI,only
“Proportion of Undernourished Population” represents the scenario of hunger, ii) hungeris
nottheonlyreasonofunder-fivechildmortality,iii)threeofthefourindicatorsonlyreferto
the children below the age of five iv) GHI follows Arithmetic Mean (AM) method,which
apparentlygivesextremevalues,v)Indianchildrenandadultshavedifferentbodystructure,
and hence the definition of underweight and overweight or obesity is different from other
countries, vi) For Indians, the value of Minimum Dietary Energy Requirement (MDER)
should
notbe1800Kcals,but1505KcalsasIndianshavealowerBMRandPhysicalActivityLevel
(PAL).vii)ThedatasourceusedtocalculateGHIisoutdated.Thisstudywilltrytoaddress
the fourth criticism. In2022,NAASquestionedthevalidityofchildstuntingasanaccurate
indicator. An ICMR white paper from 2021hassaidthatstuntingrateisnotanappropriate
reflection of hunger as it is impacted greatlybysanitationandlackofaccesstohealthcare.
This is inappropriate as it mightaidinmanipulationofstandardsordiscontinuationofdata
collectioninthefuture.Panagariya(2013)publiclyclaimedthatstuntingwasnotapplicable
to calculation of GHI for India citing genetic factors. This was met with severe criticisms
fromnotedscientistsandnutritionists.Lodhaetal(2013)arguedthatrevisedstandardswould
leadtoseriouschildissuesbeingignored.However,MukhopadhyayandChakraborty(2023)
highlighted most of these limitations for thiscompositeindexanddiscusshowtheseissues
get politicised. Theybringtoattentionhowthereissubstanceinthefactthatundernutrition
among children in India is a real problem.
Stunted growth isoneofthewidelyacceptedindicatorsofhunger.Nodoubttheprevalence
of stunting has decreased from an estimated 40% in 1990 to roughly 25% in 2012, an
estimated 162 million children under the age of five continue to be at risk for impaired
cognitive and physical development brought on by such chronic undernutrition. The
percentage of persons worldwide who areunabletoconsumetherecommendedamountsof
dietary energy decreased from 18.7% in 1990–92 to 11.3% in2012–14.Thispercentagein
developing countries decreased from 23.4% to 13.5% during the same time frame (Rao;
2014).
3. Research Gap and Objectives
ThestudyaimstotakeadeepdiveintothedynamicsofhungerinIndiaseenthroughthelens
ofHungerIndex.Thishasbeenpopularisedasamethodtoquantifytheprevalenceofhunger
in various countries. In 2010, IFPRI conducted a study constructing a state-level Hunger
Index based on the Global Hunger Index formula. However, norecentorpaststudieshave
delved deep into this problem at the district level. India’sdeterioratingpositionintheGHI
measurementsisalreadynoted.ItistheonlynationintheIndiansubcontinenttohaverising
GHIscoresfor2022.OurstudyrecognizesthatinordertoanalyseIndia’sunderperformance,
it is importanttotakealookathowthestatesanddistrictsperformintermsofGHIscores.
This will also help us examine how states and districts are contributingtoIndia’sprogress
towards reaching the UN SDG 2 goal. Districts are often delegated responsibilities to tackle
problemssuchaspovertybyallocatingfunds.Andhungerhastobesolvedinasimilarway.
Aguyao et al. (2014) constructed an index on child undernutrition using variables such as
prevalence of anaemia, stunting and wasting rates. Further, some studies show that
geopoliticsaffectsthestateofhungerintheworld.So,hungerofastatemaybeaffectedby
the hunger of the neighbouring states. But there is a literature gap to understand how the
hungerofaregionisaffectedbyitsneighbourregion.Ourstudytakesinspirationfromthese
publications but also recognizes a gap with respect to how deep these studies go
geographically. We try to focus on hunger in India and conduct a comprehensive analysis
based on how the problem exhibits spatial patterns in India’s districts. On the basis ofour
spatialregressionanalysis,ourfocusistodeterminehowneighbouringdistrictsimpacttheHI
values in aparticulardistrictalongwithsocioeconomicfactorslikeincome,shareofSC/ST
population,andurbanisation.Theideaistoconsiderfactorssuchassupplyandproductionof
food and poverty and these might spill over from district to district.
The main objectives of our study are:
i. To find out thehunger index scorefor India’s neighbouringcountries, states, and
districts of India, using the formula for Global Hunger Index (GHI).
ii. Is there any change in the Hunger Index Scores, if we use Geometric Mean (GM) to
calculate it, instead of the formula for GHI?
iii. To find out if there is any improvement in thehungerindex score, from the year 2015-
16 to 2019-21, for all the states in India.
iv. Is there any spatial pattern across states and districts for hunger?
v. To find outifhungerofadistrictisaffectedbyitsneighbouringdistrictsandcanbe
affectedbyPerCapitaIncome(PCI),urbanshareofthepopulation,andSC-STshare
of the population in the district-level data.
4. Data and Methodology
4.1.Variables and Data Used and Their Sources
The study aims to throw light on Hunger Index Scores. The indicators that are used to
construct this Index are Stunting Rate, Wasting Rate, Prevalence ofUndernourishmentand
Under-five Mortality Rates at the State and District Levels. The data for Stunting and
Wasting Rates have been obtained fromtheNFHS-4andNFHS-5ReportsandFactSheets.
The data for Undernourishment and Mortality Rates havebeentakenfromtheNITIAayog
Publication of
Multidimensional Poverty, 2019. The independent variables that are suspected to impact
DistrictLevelHungerIndexScores(dependentvariable)arePerCapitaIncome(PCI),Urban
SharesofthePopulationandShareofSCsandSTsinthePopulation.Thedataforthesame
are considered for the period 2010-11. The figures for PCI are taken from the State
Development Reports and ICRISAT whereasthedataforUrbanShareandBackwardCaste
Shares are available from the 2011 Census Report.
4.2.Global Hunger Index (GHI)
Using this data, the study starts with finding out thehunger index scoreusing the formula for
Global Hunger Index (GHI). For calculating GHI we have used the following indicators
i. Underweight: Prevalence of Underweight in Children under 5 (in %). This combines
StuntingandWasting.
ii. Undernourishment: Proportion of Undernourished Population (in %).
iii. Child Mortality: Proportion of children dying before the age of 5 (in %).
At first, the standardized forms of Stunting, Wasting, Undernourishment, and Child Mortality
have been calculated using the formulas:
𝑆𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔
a) Standardized Stunting =( )×100
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑆𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔
b) Standardized Wasting =( )× 100
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑈𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
c) Standardized Undernourishment =( )× 100
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑈𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝐶ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 )× 100
d) Standardized Child Mortality =(
𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚
𝑀
𝐶ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦
e) These four indicators are those which are used to measuretheprogresstowardsUnited
Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The above-mentioned indicators are
used to calculate calorie deficiencies as well as undernourishment, and malnutrition
among a certain group of the population. Here, the childpopulationhasbeengiventhe
highest priorityasbeingavulnerablesubsetofthewholepopulation,anysortoflackin
calorie intake can affect their growth and can make a significant risk of sickness,
inadequate physical and mental growth, and in the worst scenario, death.
f) By combining all four of these indicators, GHI minimizes the effects of measurement
error. So, combining these indicators, GHI is given by:
𝐺𝐻𝐼 =𝑃𝑁𝑈+ 𝐶𝑈𝑊+𝐶𝑀
3
Where PNU implies Proportion of Undernourished Population, CUW is Children
Underweight, and CM is Child Mortality.
Then GHI implies, 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛
𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑁𝑈 ) + ( 𝑎𝑟𝑑
𝑑
𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑
𝐺𝐻𝐼 = ( 6 𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡
𝑖𝑛𝑔
3
) + ( )
6
) (1)
+ (
where, stunting = height for age < -2SDoftheWHOChildGrowthStandardsMedian(for
moderateandseverestunting)and<-3SDoftheWHOChildGrowthStandardsMedian(for
severe stunting), wasting = weight for height <-2SDoftheWHOChildGrowthStandards
Median.
Butthisindexuses,aswecansee,anArithmeticMean(AM)method.TheAMcanbehighly
affected by extreme values. On the otherhand,theAMofanysetofdataisalwaysgreater
thanorequaltotheGeometricMean(GM)ofthatsamesetofdata.TheGMmethodisused
toprioritizethepropertysothatitreducesthelevelofsubstitutabilitybetweentheindicators
more than the AM method does.
We have seen a set of studies criticise the AM of the indicators for calculating the HI. In
ordertoaddressthecriticism,wehavecalculatedthescoresusinggeometricmean(GM).In
our study, Hunger Index using Geometric Mean (HIGM) has been calculated as:
1
𝐻𝐼𝐺𝑀 = (𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 × 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔)6×
1
(𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑁𝑈 × 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑀)3 (2)
In order to explorethechangeofdistributionofhungeramongthestatesovertimewetake
theKerneldensityestimationofthevalueofHIofthestatesintwotimepoints2015-16and
2020- 21.
4.3.Understanding the Spatial Autocorrelation in Districts and States
Now to analyse the geographical variation of Hunger Index (HI) across the states and the
districtsofIndia,wetakethetoolofSpatialAutocorrelationAnalysis.Theboxmaphasbeen
plotted based on thestate-levelhungerindexvaluesofIndiaanddistrictlevelhungerindex
values in order to show thespatialdistributionoftheHungerIndexfortheIndianstates.A
box
map is a variation on a quartile map in which the first and fourth quartile outliers are separately
indicated. Figure 4 is the box map of HI for the year 2015-16 and figure 5 is the same for 2019-
21. The Global Moran’s I is calculated for overall clustering of spatial data. Moran’s I is
given as:
𝑁 𝑁
𝑁 ∑ ∑ 𝑊𝑖 𝑗(𝑥𝑖−
𝑥̅)(𝑥𝑗−
𝑥̅)
𝐼 = 𝑖=1 𝑗=1
(3)
2
(𝑥𝑖−
𝑥̅)
WhereNisthenumberofspatialunitsindexedbyiandj,xisthevariableofinterest,𝑖𝑗 isa
matrix of spatial weights with zeroes on the diagonal, and W is the sum of all𝑖𝑗.
4.4.Spatial Regression Analysis of Hunger Index
We estimateaLinearRegressionModelbyregressingdistrict-levelHungerIndexvalueson
Log of Per Capita Income, UrbanShareofPopulation,ShareofSCsandSTsinPopulation
and dummy variables indicating the regions where the districts are located–North,South,
East and West. The coefficients are observed and the spatial dependence diagnostics are
interpreted to determine whether the data is fit for Spatial Regression Analysis. Then the
study continues with the Spatial Regression Analysis using (4). After the spatial
autocorrelation analysis identifies the pattern and finds the presence of autocorrelation,
spatial regression is estimated. The general form of this model is:
𝑌 = 𝜌𝑊𝑌 + 𝑋𝛽 + 𝜆𝑊𝜂 + 𝜀 (4)
Where, Y is the (n×1)vector of the district-wiseHI, W is the spatial weight matrix, ρ is the
vector of spatial lag coefficients,Xis the matrixof explanatory variables: that are PCI, Urban
Share of population, SC-ST share of the population, β is the vector of regression coefficients,
η is the spatial error term, λ is the vector of spatial error coefficients, and ε is the (n×1)
disturbance term. The interesting fact about equation (4) is, ifρ =0andλ=0, we will get,
𝑌 = 𝑋𝛽 + 𝜀 (5)
whichistheclassicalmultivariateregressionmodel.So,ifthereisnospatialautocorrelation
(that is, ρ = 0 and λ = 0), we will get a classical multivariate regression model.
4.5.Software Used
All the calculations related to descriptive statistics were done using Microsoft Excel. The
Spatial Analysis was done with the help of GeoDa, version 1.20.0.10 and GeoDa Space,
version 1.2.0
5. Results and Discussion
5.1.Observations About State Level Hunger Index Indicator Values
The average and maximum values of the indicators – stunting, wasting, undernourishment
andunder-fivemortalityratesfortwoperiods2015-16and2019-21areillustratedintable2.
The values are compared. We observe that the maximum values for stunting, wasting and
mortality rates fall from 48.3% to 46.5%, 29% to 25.6% and 7.81% to 5.98% respectively.
Table 2:Comparing Average and Maximum Values forHunger Index Indicator Values
State Level Statistics
Mean Value Maximum Values
INDICATORS
2015-16 2019-20 2015-16 2019-20
Stunting Rate (in %) 32.20 31.22 48.3 46.5
Wasting Rate (in %) 18.25 16.86 29 25.6
Prevalence of Undernourishment (in %) 30.48 30.48 51.88 51.88
Under-Five Mortality Rate (in %) 3.83 3.09 7.81 5.98
District Level Statistics
2015-16 2015-16
Stunting Rate (in %) 29.75 65.1
Wasting Rate (in %) 20.06 46.9
Prevalence of Undernourishment (in %) 23.96 65.29
Under-Five Mortality Rate (in %) 1.59 9.37
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Source
The mean indicator values also fall from 2015-16 to 2019-21 with the exception of
PrevalenceofUndernourishment(samedataisconsideredforthetwoperiods).Thebarplots
for the same are illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2:Comparing Average Indicator Values for theStates in India
COMPARING AVERAGES FOR INDICATOR VALUES
5.00
4
40.00
38.26
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
STUNTING ASTING
W
MORTALITY
2015-16 2019-20
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Source
Figure 3 illustrates the trend in standardized stunting rates for seven major states – Bihar,
Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.
Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh experience significantly large decline whereas
Karnataka and West Bengal see an increase from 2015-16 to 2019-21.
Figure 3:Comparing Stunting Rate Values for the Statesin India
STANDARDIZED STUNTING RATES
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
Bihar Karnataka adhya
M aharashtra Tamil
M
0.00
Pradesh Nadu Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
STUNTING (2015-16) STUNTING (2019-21)
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Source
From figure 4, trends in wasting rates are observedforthesevenmajorstates.Considering
standardized wasting rates, we see that there are substantial increases for same in case of
Bihar,Maharashtra(whichhasthemaximumvalueforthe2019-21period),andWestBengal.
This
will lead to increase in HI values. However, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu see
declines i.e., improvements in wasting.
Figure 4:Comparing Wasting Rate Values for the statesin India
STANDARDIZED WASTING RATES
100.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00 Bihar Karnataka Maharashtra Tamil Nadu West Bengal
Madhya
Pradesh Uttar
WASTING (2015-16) WASTING (2019-21)
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Sources
EverystateexceptMadhyaPradeshseesariseinstandardizedmortalityrate.BiharandUttar
Pradesh experience significant increase in the mortality rate. Karnataka, Maharashtra and
West Bengal also experience increases but the rise is lesser than Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.
Figure 5:Comparing Mortality Rate Values for thestates in India
STANDARDIZED MORTALITY RATES
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00 Bihar Karnataka adhya
M aharashtra Tamil Nadu Uttar
M
Pradesh Pradesh West Bengal
MORTALITY (2015-16) MORTALITY (2019-21)
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Sources
5.2.Observations About State-Level Hunger Index Scores
ThemeanandmaximumvaluesoftheStateHungerIndexscoresaretabulatedinTable3.It
is observed that both values increase significantly, despite the fall in values of rates of
Stunting,Wasting,PrevalenceofUndernourishmentandUnder-FiveMortalityfrom2015-16
to 2019- 21.
Table 3:Comparing Average and Maximum State HungerIndex Scores for the states in India
YEAR Minimum Q1 MEDIAN MEAN Q3 MAXIMUM
2019-21 31.40 46.60 58.99 58.96 70.63 95.06
2015-16 23.95 40.26 44.96 48.09 57.25 72.06
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Source
Tofurtherillustratethisobservation,wecomparetheStateHungerIndexScoresfor7Large
States – Bihar, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and
West Bengal. Every state with the exception of West Bengal experiences a large rise in
Hunger Index Scores between 2015-16 to and 2019-21.
Table 4:Comparing Hunger Index Scores for 7 LargeStates
STATE State HI (15-16) State HI (19-21)
Bihar 70.71 95.06
Karnataka 52.12 63.39
Madhya Pradesh 72.06 81.82
Maharashtra 50.86 68.08
Tamil Nadu 40.37 46.80
Uttar Pradesh 60.93 79.43
West Bengal 47.66 46.93
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Source
Ofthesevenaforementionedstates,thelargestriseisexhibitedbythestateofBihar–arise
of almost25from2015-16to2019-21.MadhyaPradeshisreplacedbyBiharin2019-21as
thestatewiththehighestHungerIndexScore.TamilNaduhasremainedthebest-performing
statefromthepointofviewofHunger.WestBengalistheonlystatethatexperiencesafallin
SHI Score.
Figure 6:Comparing State HI Scores for Seven LargeStates
Comparing HI Scores for 7 Large States
100.000
90.000
80.000
70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0.000 Bihar Karnataka adhya
M aharashtra Tamil Nadu Uttar
M
Pradesh Pradesh West Bengal
GHI 15-16 GHI 19-21
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Source
Only three states exhibit a fall in Hunger Index Scores – Sikkim, the Union Territory of
PuducherryandWestBengal.ThechangesinStateHungerIndexscoresareillustratedinthe
two graphs below.
Figure 7:States with Falling Hunger Index Scores
STATES WITH FALLING HI SCORES
60.00
50.00 47.66
40.00
46.93
30.00
20.00
10.00
Puducherry Sikkim West Bengal
0.00
GHI (15-16) GHI (19-20)
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Source
5.3.Spatial Patterns for State Hunger Index (SHI) Scores
89.45 90.00 88.97 88 28
76.17 79.30
71.72
74.22
67.93 67.58 70.00
57.03 61.72
Figure8:BoxMapfor(a)State-LevelHIScores(2015-16),(b)State-LevelHIScores(2019-
2 1)
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Source
TheboxmapforSHIscoresfortheperiod2015-16tellsusthattherearespatialclusterswith
inequalities between the Central and Eastern states when compared to the Northern and
Southernstates.ThestatesofUP,MP,Bihar,GujaratandRajasthanseemtoformclustersof
high HI scores indicating prevalence of Hunger.
For the period 2019-21, we observe that clusters similar to 2015-16arepresent.Thereisa
clear difference between the Central and Southern regions of the country. The more
prosperousNorthernIndianstateslikeHaryanaandPunjabalsoseemtohaveHIscoresinthe
lower quartiles.
5.4.Kernel Density Estimation for State-level Hunger Index Scores
The Kernel density graphs for HI-GM for 2016 vs 2021 (Figure 9) tell us that at thestate
level the probability of having an HI-GM value between 20% and 40% was more during
2016 than 2021 and that between 60% and 80% was more during 2021.
The Kernel densitygraphsforHIfor2016vs2021(Figure10)tellusthatatthestatelevel
the probability of having an HI-GM value between 20% and 40% was much more during
2016 than 2021 and that between 60% and 80% was more during 2021.
Figure 9:Kernel density of HI-GM for 2016 vs 2021
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Source
Figure 10:Kernel density of HI for 2016 vs 2021
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Source
5.5.Spatial Patterns for District-level Hunger Index Scores
The box map (district-level) for the Hunger Index Score variable for 2015-16 is given in figure
11. The different quartiles for Hunger Index scores are indicated according to the legend
present in the figure. High values of Hunger Index Score are an indicationofincidenceof
Hunger. In most districts in the states of Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh,
Uttar Pradesh and in southernRajasthan,itisindicatedthatHungerIndexScoresareinthe
third andfourthquartiles.Therearenovaluesinthelowerandhigheroutlierrangesbutwe
do see prominent clusters in theNorth-centralpartofthecountrywithconsistentlyhighHI
values and clusters of lower values in the southern part of the country.
Figure 11:Box Map for District-Level Hunger IndexVariable
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Source
Furthermore, we analyse the Hunger Index Score at District Level by computing the
descriptive statistics. The mean comes out to be 40 and standard deviation (SD) 18.87.
Table 5:Descriptive Statistics and Moran’s I forHunger Index Scores at District Level
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF HUNGER INDEX
Mean 40.04
Standard Error 0.71
Median 41.05
Standard Deviation 18.87
Kurtosis -0.17
Range 83.41
Maximum 83.41
Moran’s I 0.71
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Source
InordertocheckthespatialautocorrelationbetweenneighbouringdistrictsforDistrictLevel
HIvalues,wecomputetheGlobalMoran’sIstatisticforthesame.Thevaluecomesouttobe
0.709 with a pseudo p-value of 0.01. This indicates spatial clustering at district level.
HI is statistically significant and the positive value indicates that the level of Hunger of a
district in India is significantly andpositivelycorrelatedwiththatofneighbouringdistricts.
ThehighMoran’sIvalueillustratesthepositivespatialautocorrelationbetweendistrictsand
their neighbours.
5.6.Spatial Analysis of Factors Determining District Hunger Index Scores
Our study focuses on analysing not just the spatial distribution and clustering of Hunger
Index Scores but also the factors that determine the same. We can do this by considering
variablessuchasPerCapitaIncome(PCI),UrbanShareofPopulation,andShareofSCsand
STs in the Population. Further, we analyse the spatial autocorrelation for each variable by
generating box maps (figure 12) and computing the Moran’s I values for the same (Table 6).
5.6.1.Per Capita Income (PCI)
TheboxmapforspatialdistributionofPCIisgiveninFigure12(a).Thereareabout18upper
outlier values which indicate the 18 highest district level PCI values coloured dark red.
SpatialclustersareevidentwithdistrictsinstateslikeHaryana,PunjabandKeraladisplaying
high levels of PCI.
The Moran’s I for the PCI variable is computed and found out to be 0.41 with a pseudo
p-value of 0.01 (Table 6) indicating that there is significant and positive spatial
autocorrelationforthePCIvariablebetweenneighbouringdistricts.However,thelowervalue
indicates that the spatial autocorrelation is not as high as that of the Hunger Index.
Figure12:BoxMapfor(a)District-LevelPerCapitaIncome(PCI),(b)District-LevelSC&
S T Share of the Population, (c) District-Level Urban Share of the Population
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Source
Table 6:Moran’s I and Pseudo p-values for all thevariables at District Level
Variable Moran’s I Pseudo p-value
Hunger Index 0.709 0.01
Hunger Index Geometric Mean 0.665 0.01
Per Capita Income 0.410 0.01
Urban Share 0.392 0.01
SC & ST Share 0.618 0.01
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Source
5.6.2.Urban Share of Population
SpatialclustersforurbanshareofpopulationarenotascommonlyseenasthoseforHunger
IndexandPCI.TheboxmapforUrbanSharetellsusthatthereareveryfewclustersforthis
variable. The upper outlier values indicate the urban shares for districts bordering and
encompassingcities.AprevalenceoflowvaluesofUrbanSharescanbeseeninthedistrict-
level box maps for districtsacrossIndia,butdistrictsintheEasternregionareseentohave
predominantly low urbanisation with most districts lying in the lowest quartile.
TheMoran’sIforUrbanSharevariableis0.392andisstatisticallysignificantwithapseudo
p-valueof0.01(Table6).Clearly,thisisquitesimilartothePCIvariableasthereisapositive
and significant spatial autocorrelation between the Urban Shares of districts and their
neighbours.
5.6.3.Share of SCs and STs in Population
There are evident spatial clusters in SC-ST Shares of Population ascanbeseeninthebox
mapforthesame.ConsistentlyhighersharesofSTsinNortheastIndiandistrictsandcertain
districtsinJharkhandandChhattisgarhareresultinginhighvaluesinalotofdistrictsinthese
regions. Similarly, higher values of SC shares in the Gujarat-Rajasthan region are also
observed.
The variable exhibits a considerably high and positive Moran’s I value of 0.618 which is
statistically significant as well (Table 6). The presence of spatial autocorrelation isevident
from both the box map as well as Moran’s I value.
5.7.Regression Analysis of the District Hunger Index Scores
A Linear Regression Analysis (Table 7) is carried out by considering HungerIndexasour
dependent variable and Urban Share, Log of Per Capita Income (lpci), Share of SCs and STs
inPopulation(SC+ST)asIndependentVariables,anddummyvariablesfortheregionswhere
a district lies - North, South, East and West.
Table7:ResultsoftheLinearRegressionAnalysisofHungerIndexonIndependentVariables
Results of the Diagnostics for Spatial Dependence
&
RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Probability
Constant 206.76 8.30 24.92 0.00
Urban Share of Population -0.03 0.02 -1.18 0.24
Log of Per Capita Income -14.66 0.82 -17.90 0.00
hare of SCs and STs
S
0.05 0.03 1.99 0.05
in Population
North -2.95 1.08 -2.73 0.01
South -10.55 1.32 -8.01 0.00
East -8.99 1.21 -7.41 0.00
DIAGNOSTICS FOR SPATIAL DEPENDENCE
Test MI/DF Value Probability
Moran’s I (error) 0.39 13.37 0.00
Lagrange Multiplier (lag) 1.00 156.32 0.00
Robust LM (lag) 1.00 22.71 0.00
Lagrange Multiplier (error) 1.00 163.38 0.00
Robust LM (error) 1.00 29.77 0.00
Lagrange Multiplier (SARMA) 2.00 186.09 0.00
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Source
We observe that, Hunger Index has a statisticallysignificantnegativerelationshipwithlpci
such that a 1-unit change in Per Capita Income brings about afalloftheHungerIndexby
14.7 percentage points. The independent variable for Urban Share is not statistically
significantandthustheimpactcanbeignored.TheSC+STvariablecoefficientis0.05andis
statistically significant at the 5% level ofsignificance.Clearly,foreveryunitchangeinSC
and ST share, HI rises by 0.05 points. The dummy variable for the South region has a
corresponding coefficient of -10.55. We can say that, for a district in theSouthregion,the
intercepttermfallsby10points.Thisfallrepresentsthedifferencebetweentheinterceptterm
for West region and Southregion.IncaseofNorthandEastregions,thefallfromintercept
term is lower than that
for South, at 2.95 points and 5.99 points respectively. The diagnostics for Spatial Dependence
section tells us whether the model is fit for spatial regression analysis. It is observed that
Moran's I, LM and Robust LM for lag and LM and Robust LM for error are all statistically
significant. This indicates that the model is fit for spatial regression analysis.
5.8.Clustering
igure 13:LISA Significance Maps for (a) Hunger Index,(b) Share of SC and ST Share of
F
the Population, (c) Per Capita Income and (d) Urban Share of the Population
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Source
The LISA Significance Maps for Hunger Index, Share of SCs and STs,PerCapitaIncome
and Urban Share are illustrated above. It is observed that, there is significant spatial
dependence in the states ofUP,Rajasthan,JammuandKashmirandBihar.Similarly,Tamil
Nadu and Kerala exhibit a high level of spatial dependence whenconsideringthesouthern
part of the country.
igure 14: LISA Cluster Maps for (a) Hunger Index, (b) Share of SC andSTShareofthe
F
Population, (c) Per Capita Income and (d) Urban Share of the Population
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Source
TheLISASignificanceMapsarefollowedbytheClusterMaps.SpatialClustersareseenfor
High-High, High-Low, Low-High and Low-Low levels when considering the different
variables. In the Hunger Index variable, evident High-High clusters are seen in regions
marked red encompassing most of UP, Bihar,Jharkhand,southernChhattisgarhandeastern
Rajasthan. Similarly, Low-Low clusters are seen in the northernmost parts ofthecountry-
J&K, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh as well as the southern
Indian states - Tamil Nadu, Kerala and parts of Karnataka.
In case of the explanatory variables, SC+ST Share exhibits High-High clusters in J&K,
North- Eastern India, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and southern Rajasthan. PCI exhibits
High-High clusters in parts of Maharashtra, Kerala and states of Haryana and Punjab.
5.9.Spatial Regression Analysis
Table 8:Results of the Spatial Regression Analysisof Hunger Index on Independent Variables
Std.
Variable Coefficient z-Statistic Probability
Error
Constant 85.871 9.402 9.133 0.000
Urban Share of Population -0.167 0.019 -8.759 0.000
Log of Per Capita Income -9.833 1.440 -6.825 0.000
hare of SCs and STs
S
-0.019 0.023 -0.846 0.397
in Population
North -2.225 1.607 -1.383 0.166
South -8.759 2.179 -4.019 0.000
East -4.641 1.819 -2.551 0.010
Spatial Lag of Hunger Index 0.293 0.083 3.516 0.000
Spatial Error 0.543 0.074 7.338 0.000
Source:Authors’ Own Calculation from Secondary Source
The Spatial RegressionAnalysisresultsforLagandErrorillustratethatthereisstatistically
significant spatial dependence in the HI variable. The coefficient for W_HI gives us the
spatial autoregressive (lag) coefficient. It presents a value of 0.29withap-valueof0.0004
i.e.,statisticallysignificantat1%level.Thisimpliesthat,iftheHIinaneighbouringdistrict
risesby1percentagepoint,theHIinthedistrictathandalsorisesby0.29percentagepoints.
Here we also get a finitely positive and statisticallysignificantvalueof0.54forthespatial
error coefficient, lambda.
6. Conclusion
ThisstudyonHungerIndexisanattempttofindinsightsintothesituationofprevalenceof
hungerinIndiaatthestateanddistrictlevel.ThisisdonebyconstructingtheHungerIndexat
thestateanddistrictlevelsusingtheformulaeforGlobalHungerIndexandoneconsidering
the weighted Geometric Mean of the indicators.
We observe that, on average, the values of indicators at the state level fall from 2015-16 to
2019-21 periods for Stunting Rate, Wasting Rate and Mortality Rate. However, the average
state-level Hunger Index score rises. The Hunger Index scores observed in the densely
populous states of Bihar, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Uttar
Pradesh and West Bengal all experience increases except that for West Bengal. Madhya
Pradesh is replaced by Bihar as the state with the highest prevalence of Hunger from 2015-16
to 2019-21. Pondicherry and Sikkim also witnessed falls in the score.
The aforementioned observations indicate a spatial pattern in distribution of Hunger Index
scores which we investigate whenweconsiderdistrict-leveldataandcontinueouranalysis.
This variable is found to be highly spatially autocorrelated based on the Moran’s I value.
The Hunger Index variable is also regressed on independent variables such as Per Capita
Income, Urban Share of PopulationandtheSC-STShareofPopulationatthedistrictlevel.
TheLinearRegressionAnalysistellsusthatHungerIndexissignificantlyaffectedbyLogof
PerCapitaIncomeandShareofSCsandSTsinPopulationaswellastheregionaldummies
forNorth,EastandSouthregions.However,thestatisticalinsignificanceoftheUrbanShare
variable raises questions. Itprobablypointstothefactthatirrespectiveofadistrictlyingin
an Urban or Rural area, factors like Income and Region affect Hunger Index more. For
example, the coefficient for Log of Per Capita Income clearly indicates a significantly
negative impact on Hunger Index at the district level.
This clear impact of where a district is located (region) - East, West, North or South on
HungerIndexalsoinspiresustofurtherouranalysisandfitthemodeltoaSpatialregression
model.Theresultstellusthatinthismodel,theonlyvariablethatisinsignificantistheShare
of SCs and STs in Population.
Moreimportantly,weseefromthespatiallagcoefficient,thattheHungerIndexofadistrict
is considerably affected by that of a neighbouring district in a positive way - there is
significant spatial relationship among districts in terms of HungerIndex.Togetherwiththe
LISASignificanceandLISAClusterMaps,theSpatialRegressionAnalysisresultsshowthat
districts with higher hunger levels are geographically clustered together, mostly being
concentrated in and around the states of UP, MP, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and
Rajasthan. Districts with lower hunger levels comprise the Southern states and the rich
Northern Indian states of
Haryana, Delhi,Punjab,HPandUttarakhand.Whilenotasstrongeconomically,J&Kanda
few districts in North Eastern India also fall in this category. Coincidentally, this is quite
similartothemapsforPerCapitaIncomereiteratingthestrongnegativerelationshipbetween
PCI and HI.
ExternalshockstoHungerIndexvalues,depictedbythecoefficient‘lambda’,affecttheHIof
the district considered to a higher level than spatial lag. This implies that a positive or
negativeshocktoHIvaluesaffectsneighbouringdistrictsandcausesaspillovereffect.This
might lead us to more questions based on policy about the dynamicsbetweendistrictsand
their neighbours when it comes to hunger.
ThestatisticallysignificantandnegativecoefficientvalueforUrbanSharethrowslightupon
how Urban areas like cities and larger towns have a better experience as far as hunger is
concerned. This can be attributed to a range of factors like better infrastructure,
supply-demand systems, higherstabilityinemploymentandhigherincomesascomparedto
rural areas.
Additionally, there exists a clear divide between the districts that lie in the North-central
stateslikeUPandBiharandthoselyinginSouthIndiaandtheHimalayas.Afewstatesalso
exhibitdisparitieswithinthemselves.WestBengalhasclustersoflowhungerintheSouthern
partsurroundingtheKolkataarea.Maharashtraalsohasasimilarpattern.North-easternstates
haveaconsiderablenumberofdistrictsthathavelow-incomelevels,highpercentagesofSCs
and STs in their populations but have low HI values. This can be attributed tofactorslike
high literacy and a stronger influence of mothers in the families which hasledtonutrition
being a priority.
The government has to keep in mind that while there are limitations regarding the
measurement of GHI, ignoring andrevisingthesehighlystudiedindicatorssuchasstunting
rate would affect child health and nutritionresearchaswell.Thespatialanalysishighlights
the hotspots and cold spots for Hunger Index values. When framing policies regarding
hunger,suchareasofhighincidencehavetobepaidmoreattention.Forexample,according
totheLISAClusterMaps,theregionsaroundUP,Bihar,RajasthanandMadhyaPradeshare
hotspots.Policiesframedfortheseregionsshouldbecentredaroundimprovingincomesand
urbanisation as these are variables that show similar clusters.
References
Aguayo, V., Singe, G. and Badgaiyan, N. (2014) ‘Scoring child nutrition in India – measuring
the performance of states’,Economic and PoliticalWeekly,49(14), pp. 97-103.
Anselin, L. (2004-05)Exploring Spatial Data withGeoDaTM: A Workbook. Revised Version.
California: Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science.
Basu, D. and Das, D. (2014) ‘Poverty-hunger divergence in India’,Economic and Political
Weekly,49(2), pp. 22-24.
Chakraborty, A. and Mukhopadhyay, S. (2022) ‘Global Hunger Index: Misplaced Debate and
Ignoring Priorities,’ The India Forum, 9 November. Available at:
https://www.theindiaforum.in/economy/global-hunger-index-misplaced-debate-and-
ignoring-priorities/.
Desai, S. (2022) ‘Global Hunger Index: A Lesson in How Not to Measure Hunger’,Indian
Express, 21 October. Available at:
https://indianexpress.com/article/
opinion/columns/global-hunger-index-a-lessonin-how-not-to-measure-hunger-
8221721/.
Ghosh, J. (2010) ‘The Political Economy of Hunger in 21st Century India’,Economic and
Political Weekly,45(44/45), pp. 33-38.
Hindwan, M. (2018) ‘Food security – a drive towards sustainability and zero hunger’,World
Affairs: The Journal of International Issues,22(4),pp. 122-135.
Jha, P. and Acharya, N. (2016) ‘Public provisioning for social protection and its implications
for food security - an analysis’,Economic and PoliticalWeekly,51(18), pp. 98-106.
Mukhopadhyay, S. and Chakraborty, A. (2023) ‘The Politics of Child Undernutrition Data in
India’,Economic and Political Weekly,58(17), pp.33-36.
NAAS (2022) ‘Limitations of Global Hunger Index and Way Forward’, Policy Brief No 12,
National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi.
Panagariya, A. (2013) ‘Does India Really Suffer from Worse Child Malnutrition than Sub
Saharan Africa?’Economic & Political Weekly,Vol48, No 18, pp 98–111.
Parra, D.C., Dinsmore K., Fassina, N. and Keizer, C. (2015) ‘Toward SDG 2: Food Security
and Urbanization in the Global South’,Center forInternational Governance
Innovation.
Reddy, A. (2016) ‘Food security indicators in India compared to similar countries’,Current
Science, 111(4), pp. 632-640.
Sundaram, J.K. and Rawal, V. (2014) ‘Nutrition: what needs to be done?’,Economic and
Political Weekly,49(42), pp. 46-53.
Zhou, J. et al. (2020) ‘The Geopolitics of Food Security: Barriers to the Sustainable
Development Goal of Zero Hunger’,Stockholm InternationalPeace Research
Institute.
Government of India (2011)Census India.Availableat:
https://censusindia.gov.in/census.website
Government of India (2019-21)National Family HealthSurvey. Available at:
http://rchiips.org/nfhs
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (2023). Available at:
https://www.icrisat.org
UNICEF (2023). Available at:https://www.unicef.org
United Nations (2023):https://www.un.org/en
World Health Organisation (2023):https://www.who.int
You might also like
- Rural Poverty Analysis: From Measuring Poverty to Profiling and Targeting the Poor in Rural AreasFrom EverandRural Poverty Analysis: From Measuring Poverty to Profiling and Targeting the Poor in Rural AreasNo ratings yet
- An Indirect Estimation Approach for Disaggregating SDG Indicators Using Survey Data: Case Study Based on SDG Indicator 2.1.2From EverandAn Indirect Estimation Approach for Disaggregating SDG Indicators Using Survey Data: Case Study Based on SDG Indicator 2.1.2No ratings yet
- Poverty in India and Indian StatesDocument35 pagesPoverty in India and Indian StatesJustly WishNo ratings yet
- Mya Yi Mon Thwin MBFDocument57 pagesMya Yi Mon Thwin MBFhtethtethlaingNo ratings yet
- Mapping the Spatial Distribution of Poverty Using Satellite Imagery in the PhilippinesFrom EverandMapping the Spatial Distribution of Poverty Using Satellite Imagery in the PhilippinesNo ratings yet
- Modernizing Products and Services of Industrial Statistics in Context of SDG - Ebook PDFDocument144 pagesModernizing Products and Services of Industrial Statistics in Context of SDG - Ebook PDFmudjionoNo ratings yet
- Introduction to Small Area Estimation Techniques: A Practical Guide for National Statistics OfficesFrom EverandIntroduction to Small Area Estimation Techniques: A Practical Guide for National Statistics OfficesNo ratings yet
- Maharashtra Economic Survey 2014-15 OverviewDocument234 pagesMaharashtra Economic Survey 2014-15 OverviewvijaysinhjagtapNo ratings yet
- 2013ec - Land Utilization 2021 PDFDocument99 pages2013ec - Land Utilization 2021 PDFMezmure KebedeNo ratings yet
- RAWEDocument102 pagesRAWEdenishokram3No ratings yet
- AC 2203 Complete Sample ProjectDocument67 pagesAC 2203 Complete Sample ProjectMary Anne JamisolaNo ratings yet
- Social Protection Program Spending and Household Welfare in GhanaFrom EverandSocial Protection Program Spending and Household Welfare in GhanaNo ratings yet
- CLRDP 2017-2022 Midterm Update - FInalDraftDocument328 pagesCLRDP 2017-2022 Midterm Update - FInalDraftemeyarayieNo ratings yet
- Financial Performance of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai: Reg. No. 190031000663Document87 pagesFinancial Performance of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai: Reg. No. 190031000663Ahmed JunaidNo ratings yet
- Mahindra and Mahindra ProjectDocument30 pagesMahindra and Mahindra ProjectShehzin SharafNo ratings yet
- Industrial Site Selection in Province 1 Using GIS-Based AHP AnalysisDocument28 pagesIndustrial Site Selection in Province 1 Using GIS-Based AHP AnalysisSijan Bhandari100% (1)
- NFHS-5 Report - Volume-II Sampling Error 6dec 2022 Final LKDDocument53 pagesNFHS-5 Report - Volume-II Sampling Error 6dec 2022 Final LKDAnanya SenNo ratings yet
- Sample Dissertation 1Document92 pagesSample Dissertation 1Tutors SectionNo ratings yet
- Team Outliers' Multidimensional Poverty Analysis of NarailDocument32 pagesTeam Outliers' Multidimensional Poverty Analysis of NarailMohammad ObaidullahNo ratings yet
- Indias Spatial Inequality PaperDocument11 pagesIndias Spatial Inequality PaperVirendra PratapNo ratings yet
- Ca 3128 enDocument80 pagesCa 3128 enMan LamaNo ratings yet
- FAO (Reasons Why It's Hard To Define Rural)Document75 pagesFAO (Reasons Why It's Hard To Define Rural)Cherie YuNo ratings yet
- Exploring Regional Poverty in Decentralized IndonesiaDocument33 pagesExploring Regional Poverty in Decentralized IndonesiaRahmat PasaribuNo ratings yet
- Ultimate ProjectDocument65 pagesUltimate ProjectMohar ChaudhuriNo ratings yet
- Kudumbashree of Kerala: An AppraisalDocument130 pagesKudumbashree of Kerala: An AppraisalK Rajasekharan67% (3)
- SAARC Development Goals India Country Report 20013Document98 pagesSAARC Development Goals India Country Report 20013vivek kumar singhNo ratings yet
- 19577368Document94 pages19577368Iftikhar AhmedNo ratings yet
- Salt Study Visit Ppt Final.pptDocument51 pagesSalt Study Visit Ppt Final.pptFTQCDO DamauliNo ratings yet
- Appraisal Document 3189085a PDFDocument296 pagesAppraisal Document 3189085a PDFISHIKA SAHANo ratings yet
- Country Partnership Strategy for India for the Period 2013-2017From EverandCountry Partnership Strategy for India for the Period 2013-2017No ratings yet
- One Year of Living with COVID-19: An Assessment of How ADB Members Fought the Pandemic in 2020From EverandOne Year of Living with COVID-19: An Assessment of How ADB Members Fought the Pandemic in 2020No ratings yet
- Feysal MohammedDocument35 pagesFeysal MohammedFeysal MohammedNo ratings yet
- Developing and Testing Alternative Poverty MetricsDocument27 pagesDeveloping and Testing Alternative Poverty Metricsye yintNo ratings yet
- 3 Draft Press Note AR PLFS 2020 211655188812140Document6 pages3 Draft Press Note AR PLFS 2020 211655188812140sakshiNo ratings yet
- BNAP-2020-2022 - (3YEAR PLAN) DraftDocument63 pagesBNAP-2020-2022 - (3YEAR PLAN) DraftCHRISTPHER LOURENCE C. MEMES91% (32)
- Technological Innovation for Agricultural Statistics: Special Supplement to Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2018From EverandTechnological Innovation for Agricultural Statistics: Special Supplement to Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2018No ratings yet
- Oumer Ahmed Research Proposal Revised by JemaDocument47 pagesOumer Ahmed Research Proposal Revised by JemamengstagegnewNo ratings yet
- Economic Dimensions of Covid-19 in Indonesia: Responding to the CrisisFrom EverandEconomic Dimensions of Covid-19 in Indonesia: Responding to the CrisisNo ratings yet
- FarabiDocument9 pagesFarabitisakia1226No ratings yet
- Anas's ProjectDocument81 pagesAnas's ProjectMuskanNo ratings yet
- Trends in India's Gross Domestic and Household Savings 2001-2015Document13 pagesTrends in India's Gross Domestic and Household Savings 2001-2015Dhwani BarchhaNo ratings yet
- An Overview of The Sample Registration System in India.: January 2010Document14 pagesAn Overview of The Sample Registration System in India.: January 2010amanNo ratings yet
- Middle East and North Africa Data Book, September 2014From EverandMiddle East and North Africa Data Book, September 2014No ratings yet
- P15738coll2 131009Document84 pagesP15738coll2 131009Rahul ChhetriNo ratings yet
- Maharashtra Economic Survey 2011-12Document258 pagesMaharashtra Economic Survey 2011-12Amey MaliNo ratings yet
- Macroeconomics of Poverty Reduction: India Case StudyDocument203 pagesMacroeconomics of Poverty Reduction: India Case StudyHumayon NajafizadaNo ratings yet
- TP MM.001 2020Document88 pagesTP MM.001 2020karan.agrawal021No ratings yet
- LKP ProjectDocument63 pagesLKP ProjectbabuluckyNo ratings yet
- Boosting Shared Prosperity in Chad: Pathways Forward in a Landlocked Country Beset by Fragility and ConflictFrom EverandBoosting Shared Prosperity in Chad: Pathways Forward in a Landlocked Country Beset by Fragility and ConflictNo ratings yet
- Skills Gaps in Two Manufacturing Subsectors in Sri Lanka: Food and Beverages, and Electronics and ElectricalsFrom EverandSkills Gaps in Two Manufacturing Subsectors in Sri Lanka: Food and Beverages, and Electronics and ElectricalsNo ratings yet
- Constructing Purchasing Power Parities Using a Reduced Information Approach: A Research StudyFrom EverandConstructing Purchasing Power Parities Using a Reduced Information Approach: A Research StudyNo ratings yet
- WFP 0000136366Document118 pagesWFP 0000136366Arry AbdulrachmanNo ratings yet
- Mapping the Spatial Distribution of Poverty Using Satellite Imagery in ThailandFrom EverandMapping the Spatial Distribution of Poverty Using Satellite Imagery in ThailandNo ratings yet
- A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Public Health Expenditure in India: 2005-06 To 2014-15Document70 pagesA Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Public Health Expenditure in India: 2005-06 To 2014-15sonali mishraNo ratings yet
- State Survey of School Meal Programs in India Report With AnnexesDocument117 pagesState Survey of School Meal Programs in India Report With AnnexesAlfatehan SeptiantaNo ratings yet
- MPR, Anubhav, 00814988820Document67 pagesMPR, Anubhav, 00814988820Harshit JhaNo ratings yet
- 2012 CAF Barangay CharacteristicsDocument188 pages2012 CAF Barangay Characteristicsjoylenmalunes484No ratings yet
- Urban Growth Analysis and PredictionDocument27 pagesUrban Growth Analysis and PredictionGowtham SenthilNo ratings yet
- Multidimensional Poverty AssessmentDocument102 pagesMultidimensional Poverty AssessmentUNU MERITNo ratings yet
- Teaching Behavioral Ethics by Robert A. PrenticeDocument41 pagesTeaching Behavioral Ethics by Robert A. PrenticeCici Nurul HidayantiNo ratings yet
- The Business Model Canvas "Camelina Omega 3 Plus": Make Your Publications VisibleDocument8 pagesThe Business Model Canvas "Camelina Omega 3 Plus": Make Your Publications VisiblePirvuNo ratings yet
- PrayerDocument35 pagesPrayerKassandra GranadaNo ratings yet
- Research-Proposal Sample 2Document6 pagesResearch-Proposal Sample 2Cyril ArguillaNo ratings yet
- Employee Recognition Program HandbookDocument28 pagesEmployee Recognition Program Handbookshkadry100% (3)
- Review of Related Literature and Research MethodologyDocument32 pagesReview of Related Literature and Research MethodologyAaminah Beath100% (1)
- Lean Six Sigma DMAIC ApproachDocument8 pagesLean Six Sigma DMAIC ApproachSteven Bonacorsi100% (6)
- Sorger - Competitive Dynamic Advertising - A Modification of The Case GameDocument26 pagesSorger - Competitive Dynamic Advertising - A Modification of The Case GameMario García MezaNo ratings yet
- Teaching Science in SingaporeDocument20 pagesTeaching Science in SingaporeMinh NguyetNo ratings yet
- E Brochure MSEMDocument2 pagesE Brochure MSEMPalash SiddamsettiwarNo ratings yet
- A Study of Simulation Methodology in Construction IndustryDocument4 pagesA Study of Simulation Methodology in Construction IndustryOscar llacchas floresNo ratings yet
- Examen - (ACDB1-20%) (SUP1) Supplementary Activity 1 - Participate in A Multiple-Choice Quiz To Obtain The Grade For The Missed Video CollaborationDocument4 pagesExamen - (ACDB1-20%) (SUP1) Supplementary Activity 1 - Participate in A Multiple-Choice Quiz To Obtain The Grade For The Missed Video Collaborationbrayan pachecoNo ratings yet
- Measuring Advertisement Effectiveness Seminar PaperDocument26 pagesMeasuring Advertisement Effectiveness Seminar PaperBhavesh JoliyaNo ratings yet
- Student Misbehavior, Meta Analysis, Classroom Management: January 2014Document17 pagesStudent Misbehavior, Meta Analysis, Classroom Management: January 2014Stena NadishaniNo ratings yet
- M.Tech Thesis of Subhamoy Ghosh (NIT Rourkela)Document18 pagesM.Tech Thesis of Subhamoy Ghosh (NIT Rourkela)Subhamoy GhoshNo ratings yet
- Alicia Barber, PHD - CVDocument8 pagesAlicia Barber, PHD - CValiciambarberNo ratings yet
- 2020 Participant ListDocument235 pages2020 Participant ListRugwed JadhavNo ratings yet
- Advanced GIS Exercise: Estimating Beach and Dune Erosion in Coastal South CarolinaDocument4 pagesAdvanced GIS Exercise: Estimating Beach and Dune Erosion in Coastal South Carolinageoagr2003100% (1)
- What Is Consumer BehaviorDocument27 pagesWhat Is Consumer BehaviorDilini IndeewariNo ratings yet
- Idiocy Privacy PDFDocument11 pagesIdiocy Privacy PDFCharlotte MackieNo ratings yet
- Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46 (2010)Document7 pagesJournal of Experimental Social Psychology 46 (2010)api-21179097No ratings yet
- PGMDPDocument11 pagesPGMDPsnehilNo ratings yet
- Competence NoDocument5 pagesCompetence NoAjay SinghNo ratings yet
- Family Planning Programs: Monitoring and EvaluationDocument55 pagesFamily Planning Programs: Monitoring and EvaluationRegina HershaaNo ratings yet
- CHAPTER 1-3 WITH QuestionnaireDocument24 pagesCHAPTER 1-3 WITH QuestionnairePrincess BubblegumNo ratings yet
- Relationships and Well-Being - Instructor ManualDocument18 pagesRelationships and Well-Being - Instructor ManualtechNo ratings yet
- Lesson 1: Definition of Quantitative ResearchDocument43 pagesLesson 1: Definition of Quantitative ResearchKarylle MorlaNo ratings yet
- Guide Case-Interviews PDFDocument2 pagesGuide Case-Interviews PDFfrancescoabcNo ratings yet
- EAPPDocument4 pagesEAPPD Jay Aquitania BautistaNo ratings yet
- The Current Status of EMDR Therapy, Specific Target Areas, and Goals For The FutureDocument45 pagesThe Current Status of EMDR Therapy, Specific Target Areas, and Goals For The FutureElisa ValdésNo ratings yet
