Three essays on the economics of nutrition-sensitive programs

Collishaw, Anissa

Permalink

https://hdl.handle.net/2142/129602 Copy

Description

Title

Three essays on the economics of nutrition-sensitive programs

Author(s)

Collishaw, Anissa

Issue Date

2025-04-29

Director of Research (if dissertation) or Advisor (if thesis)

McNamara, Paul

Doctoral Committee Chair(s)

McNamara, Paul

Committee Member(s)

• Janzen, Sarah
• Michelson, Hope
• Gelli, Aulo

Department of Study

Agr & Consumer Economics

Discipline

Agricultural & Applied Econ

Degree Granting Institution

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Degree Name

Ph.D.

Degree Level

Dissertation

Keyword(s)

• agricultural economics
• development economics
• nutrition
• LMIC

Abstract

This dissertation consists of three chapters that explore the economics of nutrition-sensitive interventions in low-income countries. Chapter 1 reviews the existing evidence regarding the impact of livestock interventions, drawing primarily from the literature on livestock transfer programs, graduation programs, and livestock insurance. Livestock contribute to the welfare of rural poor households in many ways. Livestock products can be consumed, utilized, or sold for income. If consumed, livestock facilitate improved food security and nutrition. Income from livestock sales can be used for consumption – indirectly contributing to food security and nutrition – or invested. In the absence of developed financial markets, livestock also provide a savings mechanism, potentially enhancing resilience. Livestock ownership can be particularly important for rural women. Although livestock interventions have the potential to improve child nutrition outcomes, livestock intensification may pose risks related to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) conditions. Chapter 2 assesses the impact of SELEVER, a nutrition- and gender-sensitive poultry intervention, with and without added WASH focus, on hygiene practices, morbidity and anthropometric indices of nutrition in children aged 2-4y in Burkina Faso. We implement a 3-year cluster randomized controlled trial in 120 villages in 60 communes (districts) supported by the SELEVER project. Communes were randomly assigned using restricted randomisation to one of three groups: (1) SELEVER intervention (n=446 households); (2) SELEVER plus WASH intervention (n=432 households); and (3) control without intervention (n=899 households). Our study population included women aged 15-49y with an index child aged 2-4y. We assess effects 1.5y (WASH sub-study) and 3y (endline) post-intervention on child morbidity and child anthropometry outcomes. Participation in intervention activities was low in the SELEVER groups, ranging from 25% at 1.5y and 10% at endline. At endline, households in the SELEVER groups had higher caregivers knowledge on WASH-livestock risks and were more likely to keep children separated from poultry than in the control group. No differences were found for other hygiene practices, child morbidity symptoms or anthropometry indicators. Integrating livestock WASH interventions alongside poultry and nutrition interventions can increase knowledge of livestock-related risks and improve livestock-hygiene related practices, yet may not be sufficient to improve morbidity and nutritional status of young children. Chapter 3 explores the impact of a cash+ program in Malawi on lean season food security. Rural households in sub-Saharan Africa face high levels of poverty and annually recurring periods of lean season food insecurity. We conduct a randomized controlled trial in rural Malawi to assess the impact of coupling unconditional cash transfers of either $17/month or $43/month with a nutrition behavior change intervention on the diets and food security of households during the lean season. We find evidence of protective effects, but only when the intensity of treatment is high. When combined with the behavior change intervention, the large monthly cash transfer of $43/month improved food security by 15%, increased food consumption by 16%, and largely enabled households to smooth energy consumption between seasons. These effects are driven by a relative increase in consumption from own production. Households receiving the large cash transfer of $43/month invested in agricultural inputs and assets, allowing them to produce and store more maize in the preceding harvest and partially insulating them against negative food price shocks. We do not find evidence of similar effects of the nutrition behavior change intervention alone or in conjunction with a smaller transfer of $17/month.

Graduation Semester

2025-05

Type of Resource

Thesis

Handle URL

https://hdl.handle.net/2142/129602

Copyright and License Information

Copyright 2025 Anissa Collishaw

Owning Collections