2013
DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2011.639744
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Demand for nutrients in India: 1993 to 2004

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
28
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
3
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In most other cases, price elasticities are negative. Similar results were found by Gaiha et al (2013) for India, using data from 1993 to 2004.…”
supporting
confidence: 74%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In most other cases, price elasticities are negative. Similar results were found by Gaiha et al (2013) for India, using data from 1993 to 2004.…”
supporting
confidence: 74%
“…This specification was capable to take into account own and crossprice effects. In addition, it implicitly revealed the demand for nutrients through food demands (Gaiha et al, 2013). Food choices depend on their nutritional contents, therefore the demand for calories and other nutrients derives from the choice of the food items consumed (Deaton and Dreze, 2009).…”
Section: Empirical Specification: Modeling the Demand For Nutrientsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In India, relatively few studies rigorously inform this question. The analysis by Gaiha et al . is one exception since the study analyzes the demand for different nutrients in a dynamic context over the period 1993–2004.…”
Section: Pathway 3: Agricultural Policy and Food Prices Affecting Foomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dietary diversity has improved in India, with the average number of food groups consumed per HH increasing from 8.8 (out of 12 food groups) to 9.7 over 1990–2012 in rural areas and from 9.3 to 9.5 in urban areas . However, caloric and protein intakes have declined over the last four decades . HH per capita calorie intake in rural areas declined by about 8.6% between 1983 and 2005, whereas rural intake decreased by 2.4%.…”
Section: Nutritional Status Socioeconomic Status and Economic Growthmentioning
confidence: 99%