Total trade, cereals trade and undernourishment: new empirical evidence for developing countries

Abstract

While trade policies are considered strategic to shape national food systems and promote food security, the ultimate impact of trade openness on hunger is still highly debated. Using a sample of 81 developing over the period 2001–2016 and principally focusing on the prevalence of undernourishment, this study provides new empirical evidence. Firstly, it estimates the impact of total trade differentiating the effects that pass through changes in real per capita income—i.e. on the economic access to food—from the residual effects that it directly has on the other dimensions of food security. Subsequently, it concentrates on cereals trade, that usually is the most affected by trade restrictions and the most correlated to undernourishment. Finally, it explores the different effects of cereals trade in terms of imports and exports. Three main conclusions emerge: (a) trade openness contributes to lower the prevalence of undernourishment in developing countries and most of this effect is not income-mediated but, rather, passes through the impacts that it directly has on the other dimensions of food security; (b) such impacts are mostly driven by the trade openness of the cereals sector where (c) its import component turns out to play the main role.

Does food import contribute to rising obesity in low‐ and middle‐income countries?

“…Our sample includes all the observations corresponding to countries classified as low-income economies or middle-income economies 8 by the World Bank in the year of observation. Small countries presenting a population below half a million have been excluded from the sample, following Marson et al (2023) and based on the consideration that their small production base makes them highly reliant on import, so that different dynamics might be at play. As a robustness test, main models are also tested by including these countries in the sample; results are reported in Tables B3 and B4, columns b 00 , d 00 , and f 00 .…”

“…On the one hand, trade restrictions on non‐processed food, which are common in developing countries and often higher than those on processed food, should be relaxed when the aim is the promotion of integral food security, that is, the contemporaneous reduction of under‐ and over‐nutrition. Indeed, limited openness to the import of staples not only has been proven by previous literature to generally reduce the domestic availability of food and to be associated with higher undernutrition (Marson et al, 2023), but also obstacles the access to healthy sources of calories, whose import could contribute to reduce obesity. On the other hand, the import of processed and sugar‐rich food should be more subject to restrictions as, in a globalized world, it seems to be the main responsible for the increase in the obesity rates in LMICs.…”

“…Although in low‐income countries undernutrition is still the dominant issue, their populations are increasingly targeted by multinational food companies in search of emerging and non‐saturated markets where selling processed food and exploiting the higher attractiveness that cheap sources of calories exert on the poor, as it is happening in Sub‐Saharan Africa (Boysen et al, 2019) and elsewhere (Popkin, 1999, 2001; Popkin & Reardon, 2018). In these countries, however, restrictions on processed food have received less attention than those on agricultural trade (Marson et al, 2023; Thow et al, 2010; Thow & Hawkes, 2009). This is because their food trade policies are mainly designed with the aim of promoting food availability and protecting agricultural income, which still represents an important source of subsistence for the poor.…”

“…calories exert on the poor, as it is happening in Sub-Saharan Africa (Boysen et al, 2019) and elsewhere (Popkin, 1999(Popkin, , 2001Popkin & Reardon, 2018). In these countries, however, restrictions on processed food have received less attention than those on agricultural trade (Marson et al, 2023;Thow et al, 2010;Thow & Hawkes, 2009). This is because their food trade policies are mainly designed with the aim of promoting food availability and protecting agricultural income, which still represents an important source of subsistence for the poor.…”

The effects of trade liberalization on inequality in nutrition intake: empirical evidence from Indian districts

“…Besides the influence of socio-economic factors, food production, availability and accessibility are also key factors impacting the relationship between trade liberalization and nutritional consumption, with opposite results obtained, and thus has been the focus of scholarly debate, as evidenced by various studies. On the one hand, food trade openness not only directly increases food availability and diversity, but also indirectly affects people’s purchasing power, which reduces inequality in nutritional consumption [ 9 , 17 , 18 ]. Traverso and Schiavo [ 19 ] analyzed the evolution of trade in macronutrients (carbohydrates, fats, and proteins) in 71 low-income countries over the period 1996–2014.…”