The Superior Role of Agricultural Growth in Reducing Child Stunting: An Instrumental Variables Approach

Abstract

This chapter examines the impacts of agricultural growth and non-agricultural growth on the prevalence of child stunting in developing countries between 1984 and 2014. We find that a 10% increase in agricultural gross domestic product (GDP) per capita would reduce stunting by 2.9%, whereas a similar relative increase in non-agricultural GDP per capita would reduce stunting by only 2.2%. We confirm that agricultural growth is superior to non-agricultural growth in reducing child stunting. However, given the moderate amplitude of the estimated effects, it is unlikely that a pro-poor growth strategy, even one focussed on agriculture, would generate sufficient stunting reductions in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Policymakers may consider prioritising their efforts towards complementary direct nutritional investments. We also estimate the reverse causal impacts of stunting on sectoral growth. Stunting costs on average approximately 13.6% of potential non-agricultural GDP per capita and 3.4% of potential agricultural GDP per capita.

Monitoring commercial and smallholder production inequalities during South Africa's lockdown using remotely sensed data

“…The smallholder sector is larger in less developed countries, and smallholder farmers are among the poorest in society (Gindling & Newhouse, 2014). Despite these dynamics, alleviating poverty and malnutrition in the developing world continues to be more responsive to agricultural growth than economic growth in other sectors, and the effect is pronounced for the poorest households (Christiaensen & Martin, 2018; Mary & Shaw, 2020). The majority of food producers internationally are smallholders farming on only a small share of arable land (Fan & Rue, 2020); more than half of African households focus mainly on their own production (Davis et al., 2017).…”