Role of cash transfers in mitigating food insecurity in India during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal study in the Bihar state

Abstract

ObjectiveThere are scant empirical data on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on food security across the globe. India is no exception, with insights into the impacts of lockdown on food insecurity now emerging. We contribute to the empirical evidence on the prevalence of food insecurity in Bihar state before and after lockdown, and whether the government’s policy of cash transfer moderated negative effects of food insecurity or not.DesignThis was a longitudinal study.SettingsThe study was conducted in Gaya and Nalanda district of Bihar state in India from December 2019 to September 2020.ParticipantsA total of 1797 households were surveyed in survey 1, and about 52% (n=939) were followed up in survey 2. Valid data for 859 households were considered for the analysis.Main outcome measuresUsing the Food Insecurity Experience Scale, we found that household conditions were compared before and after lockdown. The effect of cash transfers was examined in a quasi-experimental method using a longitudinal study design. Logistic regression and propensity score adjusted analyses were used to identify factors associated with food insecurity.ResultsHousehold food insecurity worsened considerably during lockdown, rising from 20% (95% CI 17.4 to 22.8) to 47% (95% CI 43.8 to 50.4) at the sample mean. Households experiencing negative income shocks were more likely to have been food insecure before the lockdown (adjusted OR 6.4, 95% CI 4.9 to 8.3). However, households that received cash transfers had lower odds of being food insecure once the lockdown was lifted (adjusted OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99).ConclusionThese findings provide evidence on how the swift economic response to the pandemic crises using targeted income transfers was relatively successful in mitigating potentially deep impacts of food insecurity.

Household living conditions and food insecurity in Nigeria: a longitudinal study during COVID-19 pandemic

“…In India, for instance, it was observed that social safety programmes in the form of cash transfers helped protect households from food insecurity during the COVID-19 crisis. 37 A similar study for 11 different countries during the pandemic argued that cash safety nets were more effective in addressing food insecurity than food assistance 38 ; while in Malawi it was observed that assistance-recipient households have a lower probability of engaging in coping strategies during the pandemic, particularly, reducing food consumption or depending on savings. 39 However, an issue of concern that calls for urgent attention is the low coverage of social protection programmes in Nigeria.…”

“… 35 36 Empirical findings support the premise that household food insecurity or poverty increases with large households 14 and those living in rural or remote areas. 16 It is also empirically recognised that socioeconomic factors such as the receipt of remittances, 37 assistance, 38–40 access to finances, 19 21 41–43 income 14 16 and consumption level 23 play a significant role in explaining household food insecurity. Additional evidence in the literature suggests that demographic information about the family head, such as age, gender, marital status, employment and health status, are important elements that explain household food security.…”

Impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on household diet diversity in rural Bihar, India: a longitudinal survey

“…The household having ‘taken loan’ could be considered as an indication of a household financial crisis, and such households were likely to have reduced diet diversity. Another analysis on this data [ 19 ] has shown that households which received small cash transfers (~ 6.67 USD per month) by the government during the lockdown [ 18 ] had lower odds of being food insecure which was assessed using the food insecurity experience scale [ 37 ]. However, the findings from this study show that such small cash transfers were insufficient to provide adequate diet diversity.…”

“…To offset the effects of the pandemic, the central government rapidly introduced relief measures in terms of distribution of additional free foodgrains along with other routinely provided food items at subsidized rates through the Public Distribution System [ 17 ] and cash transfers [ 18 ]. Through our study in Bihar, we observed that households receiving cash transfers were less likely to be food insecure during the pandemic [ 19 ]. However, the cash transfers were small [ 19 ] while the PDS supplied cereal foodgrains mainly aimed at tackling hunger by meeting energy requirements [ 20 ].…”

“…Through our study in Bihar, we observed that households receiving cash transfers were less likely to be food insecure during the pandemic [ 19 ]. However, the cash transfers were small [ 19 ] while the PDS supplied cereal foodgrains mainly aimed at tackling hunger by meeting energy requirements [ 20 ]. Whether these were sufficient measures to ensure diverse diets is not known.…”