This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Economic growth does not guarantee improved child nutrition
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Economic growth has little to no effect on the nutritional health of children in middle- and low-income countries, according to a study in The Lancet Global Health.
Sebastian Vollmer, PhD, of the University of Göttingen, and colleagues analyzed data from 121 Demographic and Health Surveys from 36 middle- and low-income countries. The surveys were completed between 1990 and 2011. Researchers assessed whether children, aged 0 to 35 months, were underweight, malnourished or had stunted growth and how that correlated to changes in countries’ per-head gross domestic product (GDP).
Overall, 35.6% of young children had stunted growth (n=462,854); 22.7% were underweight (n=485,152); and 12.8% were malnourished (n=459,538). Jordan had the lowest prevalence of stunted growth and underweight children and Peru had the lowest prevalence of underfed children. Niger had the highest prevalence of stunted growth, India had the most underweight children, and Burkina Faso had the most underfed, according to findings from the study.
Regarding GDP, Niger had the highest average growth rate of per-head GDP at 18.7% per year between the two most recent surveys in 2003 and 2008. Seven countries experienced negative growth between survey years, while 16 countries had growth rates between 1% and 5%.
Researchers found that across countries and time, if a child had stunted growth, he or she lived in an area with an average per-head GDP of $2,055, compared with $2,896 for a child who was not stunted. Data showed no association between average changes in the prevalence of child malnutrition and the average growth of per-head GDP. However, adjusting for country and survey years showed that a 5% increase in per-head GDP correlated with a 0.7% decrease in a child’s odds of being stunted, a 1.4% decrease in odds of being underweight, and a 1.6% decrease in odds of being malnourished.
“Our study does not imply that economic development is not important in a general sense, but cautions policymakers about relying solely on the trickle-down effects of economic growth on child nutrition,” Vollmer said in a press release.
In an accompanying editorial, Abhijeet Singh, PhD, of the University of Oxford, discussed reasons why economic growth and reductions in child malnutrition are so weakly associated. “Vollmer and colleagues posit three possible channels: 1) perhaps households do not spend incomes in a way that is effectively targeted at improving nutrition; 2) perhaps unequal distribution of growth within countries leaves poorer households; in which children are most at risk of undernutrition, unaffected; and 3) rising national incomes might be poorly correlated with public investments that are necessary to reduce child undernutrition. Each of these channels seems entirely plausible. From a policy perspective, however, distinguishing between them is essential for the design of effective interventions.”
Disclosure: The researchers report no relevant financial disclosures.
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts