SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez nos Conditions d’utilisation et notre Politique de confidentialité.
SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez notre Politique de confidentialité et nos Conditions d’utilisation pour en savoir plus.
Influence of agricultural trade and food policies on diets
Influence of agricultural, trade and food
policies on diets
• Overview of dietary implications of agri-food policies not explicitly
targeted at nutrition.
• Agricultural policy, trade policy and consumer policy.
• Focus mostly on LMICs.
• Particularly important or interesting aspects – not comprehensive.
Agri-food policy and diets: Nature of
• Preponderance of analysis of trends, anecdotal evidence.
• Surprising relative lack of research involving economists.
• Some conventional wisdom does not stand up to closer scrutiny.
Ag. Policy: Producer support and diets
• Public health narrative: Producer support in high income countries
led to worsening diets and health outcomes.
• Closer examination by economists finds little support for this:
oSupport usually acted as a tax on consumers.
oIn any case, price transmission and impact on final consumers low.
oThus policy reform may have actually worsened diets slightly.
• Support levels in LMICs have historically been much lower and
there is little evidence on dietary impacts.
Ag. Policy: Ag. investments & diets
Do green revolution investments and other rural public expenditures
• Headey and Hoddinott (2016):
o Rice yield growth in Bangladesh associated with earlier introduction of
complementary child feeding and child weight gain.
o But rice yield growth has done little for dietary diversity.
• Tak and Shankar (ongoing):
oMarket infrastructure and production diversity (but not road
infrastructure) improve dietary diversity in India.
o Work ongoing on associations between rural public expenditures (agri.
R&D, infrastructure expenditures, irrigation expenditures, etc. and dietary
Trade Policy: Trade liberalization & diets
What has been the impact of GATT/WTO/RTAs induced liberalization
• Modelling efforts have seldom focused explicitly on consumption
• Apart from raising incomes, liberalization tends to raise commodity
• Modest commodity price increases + low price elasticities + low
transmission suggest minor effects on diets.
Trade policy: Food availability and multinationals
Thesis: liberalization has facilitated FDI particularly in ultra-processed food (UPF)
UPF and multinationals:
• Economies of scale
• Branding and marketing
• High margins
Baker et al (2015): Apart from lowering tariff and non-tariff barriers, trade
agreements reduce the “policy space” – freedom, scope and instruments to
introduce health-oriented domestic food policy.
Trade policy: Food availability and
• Stuckler et al. (2012):
oMain determinants of UPF sales, such as income and urbanisation, are less
important in countries with high penetration of multinationals.
oHaving a trade agreement with the US is associated with a 63% higher soft
drink consumption per capita.
• Observations on literature:
oIndividual commodity rather than whole diet perspective, mostly.
oMuch less attention to trade and healthy food intake, eg. fruit and veg.
oInvolvement of economists still low!
Trade liberalization & habit formation: Let
them not eat cake?!
• Too often trade theory assumes identical preferences.
• But tastes in autarky correlated to local endowments.
• Habit formation: tastes change slowly.
Trade liberalization & habit formation: Let
them not eat cake?! (contd.)
• Liberalization raises relative prices of these preferred local foods.
• Since preferences sticky, preferred food more expensive and
consumption gains from trade reduced in short run.
• Long run: food tastes adapt and consumption gains from
liberalization finally achieved.
• Food price crisis:
oStandard model: Transfer income from exporters, allow consumers to
substitute into relatively cheap foods.
oHabit formation: A bit more sympathy for export bans as a way of reducing
hunger among the poor!
Consumer policy: food subsidies
Jensen and Miller:
• Do staple subsidies necessarily improve nutrition?
• Wealth and substitution effects of subsidies.
• Where wealth effect is large and ‘non-nutritional attributes’ are
preferred, subsidies need not improve nutrition.
• RCT with food vouchers for staples (rice and wheat flour) in two
provinces of China
• Results: no evidence of improved nutrition as a result of subsidy.
• In one province, households reduced all items in main meal (rice,
tofu, spinach, oil) to increase fish consumption.
Consumer policy: India’s Public Distribution
• India’s PDS is world’s largest food policy – subsidised rice and wheat to
0.5 billion people per year.
• Massive inefficiencies increased targeting from 1997, but targeting
poor in practice.
• 2000s - some states have embarked on a ‘new PDS’ – more inclusive and
more generous subsidies.
• Kishore & Chakrabarti (2015): rice price subsidy increased rice
consumption, but also pulses, vegetables, oil (but not meat/eggs/dairy).
• Rahman (2015): Comparing targeted versus new universal programme,
universal PDS improves nutrient intakes across the board compared to
• Positive implications for quasi-universal PDS plans under India’s new
National Food Security act.