Untangling gender differentiated food security gaps in Bhutan: An application of exogenous switching treatment regression

Abstract

Using nationally representative data from Bhutan, and applying an exogenous switching treatment regression model, this study assessed the food security status between male‐headed households (MHHs) and female‐headed households (FHHs). The study demonstrates that there is no significant difference between MHHs and FHHs in terms of food security, but when MHHs are compared with de jure FHHs, the food security is significantly lower among the de jure FHHs. The food security gap between MHHs and de jure FHHs is due to the differences in both observable and unobservable characteristics of the households. The food security gap between de facto and de jure FHHs can be explained by the influence of connections and wider access to off‐farm income. Most of the previous studies consider all FHHs as a homogenous entity and ignore the concept of de jure FHHs (i.e., a household run by single, widowed, or divorced woman) and de facto FHHs (i.e., a household where there is a husband, but he is not physically present because of his work off‐farm). As the present research takes this into account, the econometric findings from our study, thus have important implications in formulating special food security policies targeting the most vulnerable FHHs.

What Explains Gender Gaps in Household Food Security? Evidence from Maize Farm Households in Southern Ethiopia

“…As an alternative set of measures, economists in recent years have made use of subjective assessments to estimate the state of food security (e.g., Mallick and Rafi 2010;Shiferaw et al 2014;Kassie et al 2014Kassie et al , 2015Aryal et al 2018;Jaleta et al 2018;Broussard 2019;Lutomia et al 2019). The use of the self-reported measurement is considered a better option because it provides a more inclusive and holistic picture of welfare than traditional objective measures such as consumption or income (e.g., Angner 2010; Frey and Stutzer 2002;Kahneman and Krueger 2006;Stutzer and Frey 2010;Van Hoorn et al 2010).…”

Gender equity considerations in food environments of low and middle income countries: A scoping review

“…Neogy (2011) noted that restrictions in women's mobility hindered their participation in a nutrition program and limited their ability to collect take-home rations in India. Aryal et al (2018) find that, in Bhutan, physical distance to markets impacts household food security of female-headed households more than male-headed households. Overall, more research is needed around gender and the aspects of accessibility in the personal food environment.…”

“…Some women had to ask their husband's permission to go to the market; and while some women indicate that this does not prohibit them from going to the market and others suggest that this practice is changing (Kjeldsberg et al, 2018) some studies, such as Sethuraman et al (2006) find that women's mobility (ability to move about freely), especially to the market, was statistically significantly correlated to better child nutrition outcomes. Aryal et al (2018) found that in Karnataka, India, when women did not face mobility constraints, there were no differences between maleand female-headed households' food security; however, in places where women could not move about freely, there were differences.…”

Do market shocks generate gender-differentiated impacts? Policy implications from a quasi-natural experiment in Bangladesh

“…To examine the issue further, future research should use a nationally representative longitudinal dataset in which it is possible to control for the household level fixed effect. Furthermore, to fully comprehend the gender-differentiated impacts of price shocks, future research should apply the Exogenous Switching Treatment Regression estimation procedure following Aryal, Mottaleb, and Rahut (2018).…”