Table 6.

Deficit associated with stunting, poverty (first vs third quintile of wealth), and both, in schooling and percentage loss in yearly income in developing countries

	Deficit in school grades attained	Deficit in learning ability per grade in grade equivalents	Total deficit in grade equivalents	Percentage loss of adult yearly income per grade*	Total percentage loss†of adult yearly income (compounded)	Number (%) of children younger than 5 years in developing countries	Average percentage loss of adult yearly income per disadvantaged child
Stunted only	0·91‡	2·0	2·91	8·3%	22·2%	92·9 (16·6%)	19·8%
Poor only	0·71§	≥0¶	0·71¶	8·3%	5·9%	62·8 (11·2%)
Stunted and poor	2·15‖	≥2·0¶	4·15¶	8·3%	30·1%	62·8 (11·2%)
Evidence	Brazil38	Philippines86 and Jamaica37	Sum of columns 1 and 2	51 countries137 plus Indonesian study138	Combining columns 3 and 4	See table 4	Weighted average from columns 5 and 6

^*An increase of one grade of schooling is assumed to increase income by 9%.^137,138 Implies that a reduction of 1 year of schooling will reduce income by 8·3% (1/1·09−1 = 0·083); that is, a person with an income of 91·7 due to a loss of 1 year of schooling would have had an income of 100 (91·7×1·09) had that person not lost that year of schooling.

^†(1/1·09^2.91)−1=−0·222; (1/1·09^0·71)−1=−0·059; (1/1·09^4·15)−1=−0·301.

^‡Deficit associated with stunting, controlling for wealth quintiles. (The estimate is a weighted average of the differences between stunted [<−2 z]vs non-stunted [>−1 z] children in the five wealth quintiles, with the weights inversely proportional to the square of the SE of the quintile-specific difference).

^§Deficit associated with poverty, controlling for stunting (similar method to [^‡]).

^¶Indicates that the figure is lower bound and under-estimates true figure because the effect of poverty on learning per year of schooling is unknown.

^‖Difference between non-stunted and third quintile vs stunted and first quintile in Brazil (table 5).