4.2 Article

Subsidising rice and sugar? The Public Distribution System and Nutritional Outcomes in Andhra Pradesh, India

期刊

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL POLICY
卷 50, 期 4, 页码 681-705

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0047279420000380

关键词

Public distribution system; nutrition; food aid; India; child health; rice; sugar; stunting; height-for-age

资金

  1. Economic and Social Research Council
  2. NWO-WOTRO
  3. Population Reference Bureau
  4. Population, Reproductive Health, and Economic Development
  5. RCN foundation joint research scheme
  6. Evangelisches Studienwerk e.V. Villigst
  7. Wellcome Trust Investigator Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Public Distribution System (PDS) in India provides subsidized rice and sugar to deprived households, but this does not lead to nutritional improvements. Increased rice consumption through PDS is associated with stunting, indicating a potential negative impact on child nutrition.
India's main food and nutrition security programme, the Public Distribution System (PDS), provides subsidised rice and sugar to deprived households. Using longitudinal data from Young Lives for Indian children (n = 2,944) aged 5 to 16 years, we assessed whether PDS subsidies skewed diets towards sugar and rice consumption, increasing risk of stunting (low height-for-age). Linear regression models were used to quantify additional rice and sugar consumption associated with accessing the PDS, and the association with stunting linked to consumption. Controlling for sociodemographics, accessing the PDS was positively, significantly associated with consumption of rice (30g/day) and sugar (7.05g/day). There was no evidence that this increase corresponded to nutritional improvements. Each 100g increase in daily rice intake was associated with a lower height-for-age z-score (HAZ) and no decline in stunting. Results were robust to alternative model specifications. There was no evidence that receipt of PDS rice and sugar was associated with improvements in child nutrition.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据