No abstract

This study considers the two most pronounced shocks Senegalese subsistence farmers struggle with, namely increasing purchase prices and droughts. We assess the relationship of these self-reported shocks with child health in a multi-shock approach to account for concomitance of adverse events from the natural, biological, economic and health sphere. We employ a unique farming household panel dataset containing information on children living in poor, rural households in eight regions of Senegal in 2009 and 2011 and account for structural changes occurring between survey periods due to the large scale, national Nutrition Enhancement Program. By zooming in to the micro level we demonstrate that Senegal as a Sahelian country, mainly reliant on subsistence agriculture, is very vulnerable to climate variability and international price developments: According to our conservative estimates, the occurrence of a drought explains 25% of the pooled weight-for-age standard deviation, income losses 31%. Our multi-shock analysis reveals that the shocks are perceived as more severe in 2011 with droughts explaining up to 44% of the standard deviation of child health, increased prices up to 21%. Yet, the concomitance of droughts and increased prices after the structural change, i.e. the Nutrition Enhancement Program, indicates that the health of children experiencing both shocks in 2011 has improved. We argue that these results are driven by the increase in rural household income as theoretically outlined in the agricultural household model. Thus, adequate policy responses to shocks do not only depend on the nature but also on the concomitance of hazardous events.

We use the case of the macroeconomic impact of natural disasters to analyze strengths and weaknesses of meta-analysis in an emerging research field. Macroeconomists have published on this issue since 2002 (we identified 60 studies to date). The results of the studies are contradictory and therefore the need to synthesize the available research is evident. Meta-analysis is a useful method in this field. An important aim of our article is to show how one can use the identified methodological characteristics to better understand the robustness and importance of new findings. To provide a comparative perspective, we contrast our meta-analysis and its findings with the major influential research synthesis in the field: the IPCC's 2012 special report Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. We show that the IPCC could have been more confident about the negative economic impact of disasters and more transparent on inclusion and qualification of studies, if it had been complemented by a meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis shows that, controlling for modeling strategies and data set, the impact of disasters is significantly negative. The evidence is strongest for direct costs studies where we see no difference between our larger sample and the studies included in the IPCC report. Direct cost studies and indirect cost studies differ significantly, both in terms of the confidence that can be attached to a negative impact of natural disasters and in terms of the sources of heterogeneity of the findings reported in the primary studies.

No abstract

No abstract