Table A7:
Impact of regional food price increase on food insecurity with different sample sizes
|
|
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
|
|
||||||||
| HHs that remain in sample until last round | Sample with HHs in all four rounds | |||||||
|
|
||||||||
| Short run | Medium run | Short run | Medium run | |||||
|
|
||||||||
| Outcome variables: | Moderate-or-severe | Severe | Moderate-or-severe | Severe | Moderate-or-severe | Severe | Moderate-or-severe | Severe |
|
|
||||||||
| Food price increase | 1.008* (0.005) |
1.006 (0.008) |
1.014*** (0.005) |
1.025*** (0.010) |
1.007 (0.005) |
1.006 (0.008) |
1.014*** (0.005) |
1.027*** (0.010) |
| Health shock | 0.934 (0.127) |
0.840 (0.195) |
0.711** (0.102) |
0.388*** (0.119) |
0.959 (0.132) |
0.808 (0.191) |
0.743** (0.110) |
0.376*** (0.119) |
| Non-agri. income loss | 2.872*** (0.595) |
1.725* (0.507) |
1.033 (0.220) |
0.585 (0.215) |
2.970*** (0.621) |
1.817** (0.543) |
1.021 (0.225) |
0.491* (0.187) |
| Loss of crop | 1.540* (0.350) |
1.795* (0.539) |
1.083 (0.256) |
0.811 (0.278) |
1.507* (0.344) |
1.774* (0.535) |
1.115 (0.267) |
0.980 (0.342) |
| Theft of property | 1.201 (0.238) |
0.854 (0.268) |
1.091 (0.234) |
1.021 (0.364) |
1.169 (0.234) |
0.859 (0.270) |
1.108 (0.246) |
1.062 (0.388) |
| Negative ag. Price shock | 0.948 (0.189) |
1.276 (0.438) |
1.331 (0.279) |
0.892 (0.313) |
0.933 (0.187) |
1.271 (0.437) |
1.400 (0.306) |
0.894 (0.315) |
| No of observations | 3,023 | 1,214 | 2,574 | 973 | 2,976 | 1,192 | 2,444 | 936 |
| Number of households | 761 | 306 | 657 | 247 | 744 | 298 | 611 | 234 |
Note: Conditional logit model. Odds ratio presented and standard errors are in parentheses.
indicates significance at 1% level
at 5%
at 10%. All dependent variables are dummy variables. “HH” represents households