Table 4.
Basic Results
| Dependent variables | Number, Non-Staple Food Groups Consumed | Any Non-Staple Food Group Consumed | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimator | OLS (1) | Poisson (2) | OLS (3) | Poisson (4) | LPM (5) | Probit (6) |
| Number, non-staple | 0.076*** | 0.089*** | 0.097*** | 0.109*** | 0.035*** | 0.035** |
| food groups sold in | (0.019) | (0.029) | (0.023) | (0.036) | (0.011) | (0.014) |
| market | ||||||
| Number, non-staple | 0.088*** | 0.103*** | 0.059*** | 0.050 | 0.046*** | 0.046*** |
| food groups produced | (0.015) | (0.019) | (0.022) | (0.031) | (0.008) | (0.009) |
| by household | ||||||
| Market has more than | 0.138 | 0.215 | 0.118** | 0.120** | ||
| 20 traders | (0.094) | (0.136) | (0.052) | (0.050) | ||
| Maternal knowledge of | 0.057* | 0.077* | 0.030* | 0.029 | ||
| complementary | (0.032) | (0.043) | (0.017) | (0.019) | ||
| feeding (kebele | ||||||
| mean) | ||||||
| Child level controls? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Household level | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| controls? | ||||||
| Kebele and market level | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| controls? | ||||||
| Woreda fixed effects? | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Child fixed effects? | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No |
Note: Sample consists of 4,395 child observations living in 2,467 households and 88 woredas. Estimates control for child (age, sex, relationship to head), ma-ternal (education, age and score on test of CF knowledge), household head (education, age, sex and religion (Muslim, Protestant), household (size, food gap, livestock, land operated, assets, (log) travel time to market), kebele (mean food gap, mean asset index) and market (number of food traders, number of days per week market operates; bus service, cost of purchasing cheapest cereal, (log) distance to the nearest town of at least 20, people). The reported estimates for poisson and probit are marginal effects. Standard errors in parentheses and clustered at the woreda level in columns (1), (2), (5) and (6) and at the house-hold level in columns (3) and (4). Statistical significance denoted as: *significant at the 10% level; **significant at the 5% level; ***significant at the 1% level.