You are on page 1of 10

Gizi dan Krisis

• Summary
• When international food prices were soaring in early
2008, there was a rush of publications predicting the
impact of such price hikes on poor people and
suggesting policy solutions. What hard evidence has
been collected about the impact on poor and
vulnerable people in developing countries? Does this
support or change previous policy recommendations?
This review draws together evidence from studies on
the effects of the 2007–08 price spike, as well as from
some other economic crises that resulted in high food
• As predicted, high food prices increased
malnutrition (especially in young children) and
• Some findings were less obvious. These included:
the depth of the impact in rural areas, the
increase in inequality; the widespread use of
credit to buy food, and the fact that most poverty
impact came from increasing depth of poverty in
the already‐poor, rather than increased ‘poverty
Who was worst‐affected?
• As widely expected, poor net food importing countries (e.g.
island nations such as Haiti, riceimporting areas of West
Africa, and countries in conflict) were among the first to feel
the effects of rising world food prices, and international
assistance focused initially on these. However, high food
prices were also recorded as having a serious impact on poor
consumers in net food exporting areas such as Thailand,
Uganda and northern Mozambique. The highest price rises
were recorded from countries where there were exacerbating
local or regional supply and demand pressures; these included
conflict, drought or in a few cases, for example Benin, rapid
regional economic growth leading to rising consumer
• The poorest households — including many female‐headed
households and those with a large proportion of dependents
— were worst hit everywhere. These households spend a
higher proportion of their income on food and have less
access to credit and savings. The main impact of rising food
prices was therefore from increasing depth of poverty in
those already poor (the socalled poverty gap) rather than the
numbers of people newly pushed over the poverty line (the
poverty headcount).
• The worst‐affected groups were casual wage labourers (both
rural and urban), land‐poor farmers, petty traders, and
producers of commodities whose terms of trade declined
against food grains: for example pastoralists in Kenya, cotton
farmers in Benin and tea workers in Bangladesh. Salaried
workers in the formal sector generally fared better than
• While most of the high‐profile protests about
food prices came from urban areas, many of
the poorest and worst‐affected people live in
rural areas. Existing social protection and
financial systems often do not reach this
group. The structure of land ownership and
production patterns in most poor countries
meant that only a minority of farmers and
agribusinesses were able to benefit from
rapidly‐rising prices.
• Inequality is likely to have increased, although
quantitative data is thin. One model estimated an
• increase in a country’s Gini (inequality) index of
1% for a 20% nominal food price rise, while actual
• price rises were often four times this level. Within
countries, regional inequality is also likely to have
• increased, with marginal and dry agricultural
areas coming off worst. The regressive effect of
Krisis Kemiskinan Gizi &
ekonomi • Daya beli • Asupan zat gizi
• Nilai mata • Ketersediaan makro dan
uang pangan mikro
• Peningkatan • Fekwensi &
harga jenis makanan
• Kelangkaan • Food copying
bahan pangan
Kelompok • Ibu RT  ibu hamil & menyusui
• Bayi & balita

• KEK,
Ibu hamil & • Anemi gizi besi
menyusui • Pola asuh keluarga

Bayi & • Gizi kurang & buruk  morbiditas & mortalitas
• Stunting  kualitas SDM, Penyakit degeneratif
Balita • Hambatan kognitif  kualitas SDM, Pembangunan
• Diversifikasi pangan