Dangerous hunger or statistical artifact?

this year Global Hunger Index (GHI) The government did not go well. In view of this it was expected that India ranks 101st out of 116 countries for which reliable and comparable data exists. To add insult to injury, the GHI ranks India well below some of its neighbors. except Ranked 94 out of 107 countries last yearIndia’s rank has been between 100 and 103 since 2017. This year’s slide in ranks is particularly significant in the context of COVID-19.

Is India’s performance on hunger as dismal as the index shows or is it partly a statistical artifact? The question takes on urgency, especially since the government has questioned the methodology and claimed that the rankings do not represent the ground reality. This requires careful examination of the methodology, especially the components of GHI.

The GHI has four components. The first – inadequate caloric intake – applies to all age groups, while the remaining three – wasting (low weight for height), stunting (low height for age) and mortality – are limited to children under five years of age. . Data on a 33% reduction in caloric intake by weight are taken from the Food and Agriculture Organization’s suite of food safety indicators (2021). If GHI is estimated using the latest data on caloric intake, usually provided by the National Sample Survey Office, things could look worse, as a leaked 2019 report indicated that in India Consumption expenditure has declined between 2011-12 and 2017-18. from 4%. In rural India, it was worse at a rate of about 10% per annum.

Data on child wasting and stunting (2016–2020), each weighing 16.6%, are from the World Health Organization, UNICEF and the World Bank, supplemented by the latest data from the Demographic and Health Survey. There are under-five mortality data for 2019 from the United Nations Inter-Agency Group for Child Mortality Estimates. Contrary to what is being claimed by the government, the assessment of hunger is not based on the results of a ‘four question’ opinion poll conducted by Gallup over the telephone. However, this does not mean that GHI is free from insufficiency.

a problematic component

Conceptually, the GHI focuses largely on children, with a greater emphasis on malnutrition than on hunger and its hidden forms, including micronutrient deficiencies. The first ingredient — the calorie deficit — is problematic for a number of reasons. Lower caloric intake, which does not necessarily mean deficiency, can also result from less physical activity, better social infrastructure (roads, transport and health care) and access to energy-saving devices at home. Recent analysis suggests that the ‘physiological environment’ at the state level also significantly affects caloric intake. For a country as large and diverse as India, using a uniform caloric criterion to arrive at the prevalence of deficiency means failing to recognize large regional imbalances in factors that can lead to differentiated caloric requirements at the state level. From this vantage point, a large proportion of the population in Kerala and Tamil Nadu can be counted as calorie deficient, even if they are superior in nutritional outcome indicators. Therefore, the prevalence of caloric deficits in these states may be underestimated.

Read also | The Global Hunger Index is not based on an opinion poll, says German non-profit Welthungerhilfe

Conversely, there are states that have higher average levels of calorie consumption, such as Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, but their needs may exceed the prescribed levels of calories required for India as a whole because of the prevalence of communicable diseases in these states. high prevalence. and low level of mechanization in the economy. Thus, it is likely that existing methodology may underestimate the prevalence of caloric deficits in these states. All this raises questions about the appropriateness of the caloric component of the index. India’s own official estimates of the prevalence of calorie deficit are not free from this discrepancy.

Dealing with Wasting and Stunting

The GHI highlights India’s dismal record in an area it can hardly defend, which is child malnutrition. India’s prevalence of wastage (17.3%) is the highest in the world. Its performance in stunting is not as disappointing, however, compared to wasting. Child stunting in India declined from 54.2% in 1998–2002 to 34.7% in 2016–2020, while child predation remained around 17% in the two decades of the 21st century.

Dwarfism is a long-term, long-term measure of undernutrition, while wastage is an acute, short-term remedy. Child wasting may appear as a result of an immediate lack of nutrient intake and sudden exposure to an infectious environment. Quite possibly, without much time wasted several episodes can turn into stunting. However, for the right reasons, both in research and in policy, stunting was given a higher order of priority because it is a stable indicator and does not oscillate with the slightest change in conditions, whereas wasting does. Sporadic contingencies in different areas can increase the extent of wastage. Effectively combating episodes of wasting resulting from such minor adversities is the key to making sustained and rapid progress in child nutrition. Thus, variation in the prevalence of wastage across regions should guide the relative emphasis of policy focus.

If India can tackle wastage by effectively monitoring areas more vulnerable to socio-economic and environmental crises, it could potentially improve wastage and stunting simultaneously. There seems to be no short-cut way to improve stunting without eliminating the waste. Additionally, studies state that COVID-19 can increase child malnutrition in general and child wasting in particular. Such insights must drive social policy to counter the adverse effects of COVID-19 on food and nutrition insecurity. Unfortunately, India lost this opportunity because Integrated Child Development Scheme services were either non-functional or severely disrupted – partly because staff and services were used to attend to the COVID-19 emergency .

An exception

India’s relatively better performance in the other component of the GHI – child mortality – deserves a mention. Studies suggest that child undernourishment and mortality are generally closely related, as child undernourishment plays an important role in child mortality. However, India appears to be an exception in this regard. Child mortality in India is lower than in sub-Saharan African countries, despite high levels of stunting. This implies that although India was not able to ensure better nutritional security for all children below the age of five, it was able to save many lives due to the availability and access to better health facilities.

A low ranking does not mean that India is equally bad in every aspect. Should we dismiss GHI because it shows India in a bad light and put it in political white noise because it doesn’t suit us? Or should we gracefully accept its insights informing us that our performance in some aspects may be really disappointing and needs immediate attention and course correction? This ranking should prompt us to look at our policy focus and interventions and ensure that they can effectively address the concerns raised by the GHI, particularly against pandemic-induced nutritional insecurity.

Sunny Jose is the Chairman Professor at Social Development Council, Hyderabad, RBI and Mohd Zakaria Siddiqui is Associate Professor at the Gulati Institute of Finance and Taxation, Thiruvananthapuram. thoughts are personal