No abstract

Lack of access to credit prevents poor households in developing countries from diversifying into income‐generating activities that could safeguard them against unforeseen shocks and seasonality, leaving them susceptible to food deprivation, even when aggregate food supplies are adequate. Microcredit programmes help these households to access financial capital that could help improve their food security situation. We examine how microcredit affects different measures of food security; namely, household calorie availability, dietary diversity indicators and anthropometric status of women of reproductive age (15–49 years) and children under the age of 5 years. We find that microcredit programme participation increases calorie availability both at the intensive and extensive margins, but does not improve dietary diversity and only has mixed effects on the anthropometric measures. We also find that the effect of microcredit participation on food security may be non‐linear in which participation initially has either no effect on food security or may actually worsen it, before improving it in the longer run. Our results help to explain why existing short‐term evaluations of microcredit sometimes do not show any positive effects.

Background: Experience-based household food insecurity (HFI) scales are not included in large-scale Indian surveys. There is limited evidence on which experience-based HFI scale or questions within a scale are most relevant for India. Between 01 June and 31 August 2015, we reviewed 19 published and unpublished studies, conducted in India between January 2000 and June 2015, which used experience-based HFI scales. As part of this exercise, internal validity and reliability of the scale used in these studies was examined, field experiences of 31 researchers who used experience-based HFI scales in India were gathered and psychometric tests were conducted where raw data were available.Results: Out of the 19 studies reviewed, HFI prevalence varied depending on the type of experience-based HFI scale used. Internal reliability across scales ranged between 0.75 and 0.94; however certain items ('balanced meal' , 'preferred food' , 'worried food would run out') had poor in-fit and out-fit statistics. To improve this, the following is suggested, based on review and experience of researchers: (1) cognitive testing of quality of diet items; (2) avoiding child-referenced items; (3) rigorous training of enumerators; (4) addition of 'how often' to avoid overestimation of food-insecure conditions; (5) splitting the cut and skip meal item and (6) using a standardized set of questions for aiding comparison of construct validity across scales. Conclusions:An evidence-based policy dialogue is needed in India for contextualizing and harmonizing the experience-based HFI scales across multiple surveys to aid comparability over time, and support policy decision making.

No abstract

Growing evidence suggests that early life investments in health are associated with improved human capital and economic outcomes. Various recent global studies have simulated the expected economic returns from alternative packages of interventions in reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health (RMNCH). However, very little is known about the comparability of estimates of the economic returns of RMNCH interventions across studies in low and middle income countries. Our study aims to fill this gap. We performed a comprehensive scoping review of the recent literature (2000-2013) on the economic returns (i.e. benefit-cost ratios) of RMNCH-related interventions, conducted in low and middle income countries. A total of 36 studies were identified. They were read in full and information was abstracted on both the estimates of benefit-cost ratios, the methodological approach and assumptions used. The estimated economic returns fluctuated considerably across settings as the associated costs of disease patterns, social behaviours and health systems varied. Yet, greater sources of variation stemmed from differences in methodology. The observed methodological inconsistencies limit the accuracy and comparability of the estimated returns across various contexts. The reviewed studies suggest that the benefit-cost ratios are favourable in the majority of cases, providing further support to a growing body of economic literature that suggests investments early in life, such as those interventions related to RMNCH, are good investments. Beyond advocacy purposes, for the reviewed literature to be used by policymakers to inform their decisions on investments, a consistent methodological approach should be adopted.