Professional Documents
Culture Documents
interventions in reducing the prevalence of underweight and wasting compared to stunting can be explained at least in two ways. The interventions considered may be better suited to addressing short-term undernutrition rather than chronic undernutrition. An alternative explanation is that the studies assessed impact shortly after the interventions had taken place and could therefore not capture long-term impact such as chronic undernutrition.
Table 3.5 Impact of interventions on nutritional status of children Study Stunting (height-forUnderweight age) (weight-for-age) Aiga et al. (2002) n.s ** Faber et al. (2002) n.s n.s Hoorweg et al. (2000) ** ** Makhotla and Hendriks (2004) n.s. n.s. Low et al. (2007) n.s. ** Olney et al. (2009) n.s. n.s. Schipani et al. (2002) n.s. n.s. Shmidt and Vorster (1995) n.s. n.s.
Note: in the second column, n.s. is not statistically significant, * is statistically significant at the 10% level, ** is significant at the 5% level, *** is significant at the 1% level
Overall these results provide little support to the hypothesis that agricultural interventions help reduce undernutrition. However, they should not be interpreted as Source: Masset, Haddad et. of impact. Lack of significance can be the result of absence evidence of the absenceal. 2011 of impact as well of absence of statistical power (Borenstein et al. 2009), and many of the studies reviewed were conducted over small samples of children. In empirical research it is standard practice to set a null hypothesis stating, for example, the equality of the means of two populations. If a difference between the
Figure 1. Difference in school enrollment between those who received the E1 form to enforce conditionality and those who did not, among PROGRESA transfer recipients
.05
-.15
Figure 2. Difference in school enrollment between those who received the E1 form and could
Cost per child death averted was $300, well below the average of $887 for 23 other interventions.
Bjrkman, M and Svensson, J. (2009) 'Power to the People: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment on Community Based Monitoring in Uganda, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol 124: 2, pp 73569
Denmark
Finland Belgium Ireland Norway France United Kingdom Australia Netherlands Spain Germany South Korea Japan Canada Greece Sweden Italy USA Austria Switzerland New Zealand Portugal
3
6 9 5 2 11 14 16 10 4 12 23 8 13 21 7 22 18 20 15 17 19
4
9 7 11 15 6 3 2 8 14 10 1 17 13 5 19 12 18 16 22 20 21
1
2 3 3 5 5 5 8 8 8 11 12 13 14 14 14 17 18 18 20 20 22
The Access to Nutrition Index is currently being developed. Sign up to stay informed or Discover more about the Index.
Supported by:
Figure 3: Potential land availability vs. potential for increasing yields, developing countries
Type 4
Yield Gap
.8
.6
HUN SVN
.4
Type 1
Type 2
Larger farms exist, stronger property rights, minimise externalities
5
.2
EGY JOR
-10
-5 0 Suitable relative to cultivated area (in logarithms) Suitable relative to cultivated area
Note: Dashed lines indicate average yield gap and 50th percentile for relative suitability. Source: Deininger et al. 2011
33
0
describe how should do a M&E findings will household be used survey but are not do not outline impact evaluation plan explicitly target women in outcomes
describe how a mention control group selection bias in would be understanding established impact
Conclusions
The answers to these questions are vital for policy They are profound questions They are researchable, but require a bit of imagination They could unlock action to rapidly accelerate progress on MDG 1
Arigatou gozaimasu!