Household economic strategies and food expenditure patterns in rural Mexico: Impact on nutritional status of preschool children

Abstract

This paper examines the nutritional impact of 1) household economic strategies (source of income, women's contribution to income, and subsistence production) and 2) resource allocation patterns. In a survey of 178 rural Mexican households, the following were recorded during winter and summer: 1) income by source and earner; 2) gifts and loans; 3) agricultural production and expenses; 4) household food use; 5) non-food purchases; 6) household composition; and 7) anthropometric indices and morbidity of preschoolers. The proportion of income from migrant remittances was negatively related to wtfor-age. Subsistence production was positively associated with arm circumference. The proportion of the food budget allocated to milk was positively related to wt-for-age and ht-for-age, while the proportion for traditional foods was negatively related to triceps skinfold and arm circumference. Neither cash cropping nor women's income was related to nutritional status of preschoolers. These results indicate that household economic strategies, independently of income, influence nutritional status.

Who's hungry? And how do we know?: food shortage, poverty, and deprivation

“…Few studies have distinguished source of income from type of income, but Kaiser and Dewey (1991) found that sporadic remittances were associated with decreased food quality and with retarded growth of preschool children in rural Mexico. Lump sums tend to be spent on consumer durables, such as roofing sheets or bicycles, which require significant savings to buy and may be the ''target'' for which migration was undertaken.…”

“…10. They lead to irregular intakes because of irregular income (Fleuret and Fleuret 1980;Kaiser and Dewey 1991;Trenchard 1987;von Braun et al 1994). 11.…”

Gender, Marital Status, Farm Size and Other Factors Influencing the Extent of Cash Cropping in Kenya: A Case Study

“…This includes control of cash income, which as Kaiser and Dewey (1991) contend, husbands are less likely to use for the welfare of wives and children due to their different expenditure patterns. Our results in this respect also accord with those of Fortmann (1982) for Tanzania.…”

“…Commercialisation may affect differently the welfare of various members, depending on how work and responsibilities and control over income within a household change (von Braun, de Haen and Blanken, 1991;Kaiser and Dewey, 1991;Julin, 1993;Angelique, 1995).…”

“…It is generally contended that non-cash food production is under the control of the wife and directly used for family nutrition. However, cash income is not, and it is considered that husbands are less likely to use cash for the welfare of wives and children (Kaiser and Dewey, 1991 Haen and Blanken (1991); Kaiser and Dewey (1991).…”