| Literature DB >> 25775467 |
Shinsuke Tomita1, Daniel M Parker2, Julia A Jennings3, James Wood2.
Abstract
This paper extends Alexandr Chayanov's model of changing household demography (specifically the ratio of food consumers to food producers) and its influence on agricultural behavior so that it includes possible adverse effects of a rising ratio on nutritional status and early childhood mortality within the household. We apply the model to 35 years' worth of longitudinal demographic and economic data collected in the irrigated-Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25775467 PMCID: PMC4361632 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119191
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Conceptual and statistical problems affecting most earlier tests of Chayanov’s model of C/P ratios, including Chayanov’s own.
| Small samples (generally < 50 households, often approx. 10–15) |
| Simple bivariate analyses—thus, no statistical control of confounding influences |
| Almost purely cross-sectional data (although the model is about prospective changes in household composition and subsistence behavior)—thus, no allowance for time-varying effects |
| Poor measures of productive intensity (P) |
| • Mostly focused on a single staple crop |
| • Measured as hours of work as opposed to energy expended |
| • Too restrictive a definition of work—esp., no allowance for domestic work |
| Poor measures of consumption (C) |
| • Also tend to be measured on one or a very few staple crops |
| • Usually measured from total household yield on the assumption (almost certainly wrong) that each member is allocated food proportional to his/her nutritional needs as read from a published table of international dietary standard |
| • Do not include breastfeeding, either as a food source for the child or as a metabolic burden for the mother |
| No attention to C/P effects on the |
aExcept in [11], which justly criticizes other studies for this shortcoming.
Fig 1The conventional model that has C/P ratio acting purely on the supply side of the household economy (top) and an extended model that allows for possible effects on the demand side when supply-side responses are blocked or impeded (bottom).
Pluses and minuses indicate the direction of the bivariate relationship between boxes.
Fig 2Location of the study site, Na Savang village, Oudomxay Province, northern Lao PDR.
Fig 3Seasonal patterns of rainfall (top) and major farming tasks (bottom), Na Savang village, northern Lao PDR.
Fig 4Growth in the total area of irrigated rice fields (top) and in village population (bottom) in Na Savang 1955–2006.
Fig 5Kaplan-Meier (product-limit) estimates of the probability of surviving from birth to each subsequent age, Na Savang village (1971–2006), broken down by period (top left), whether collective farming was in force or not (top right), whether a disaster (flood or drought) occurred in a given year (bottom left), and the sex of the individual at risk (bottom right).
Note that survival by sex is shown only for the first four years of life.
Notional (baseline) age- and sex-specific weights used to compute C and P for Na Savang households.
| Age (years) | Production | Consumption | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Male | Female | |
| 0–4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 5–9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 10–14 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| 15–19 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| 20–24 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| 25–29 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| 30–34 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 |
| 35–39 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 |
| 40–44 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 |
| 45–49 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 |
| 50–54 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 |
| 55–59 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 |
| 60–64 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 |
| 65–69 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| 70–74 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| 75–79 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| 80–84 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| 85+ | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
All values are scaled to those of males ages 35–64 years and thus are unit-free.
Mixed-effect logit hazard model with random household-level intercept, early childhood mortality (ages < 5 years), Na Savang Village, northern Laos 1971–2006.
| Predictor variable | Estimated | Standard error | Effect size |
| Corrected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Child’s age | -1.182 | 0.222 | 0.307 | -5.335 | 0.001 |
| Child’s age2 | 0.172 | 0.062 | 1.187 | 2.766 | 0.018 |
| Child’s sex (f = 1) | 0.116 | 0.179 | 1.123 | 0.645 | 0.999 |
| Mother’s age | -0.027 | 0.012 | 0.973 | -2.206 | 0.081 |
| HH landholding (ha) | 0.000 | < 0.001 | 1.000 | -2.125 | 0.102 |
| HH size | 0.047 | 0.024 | 1.048 | 1.945 | 0.156 |
| C/P ratio | 2.199 | 0.865 | 9.020 | 2.541 | 0.032 |
| Child’s age | -1.182 | 0.222 | 0.307 | -5.335 | 0.001 |
| Child’s age2 | 0.172 | 0.062 | 1.187 | 2.766 | 0.018 |
|
| |||||
| Collectivization? (y = 1) | 0.059 | 0.252 | 1.060 | 0.233 | 0.999 |
| Disaster? (y = 1) | 0.050 | 0.256 | 1.051 | 0.194 | 0.999 |
| Period 1 (1971–1980) | 1.244 | 0.507 | 3.470 | 2.455 | 0.126 |
| Period 2 (1981–1990) | 1.048 | 0.520 | 2.851 | 2.014 | 0.132 |
| Period 3 (1991–2000) | 0.594 | 0.515 | 1.812 | 1.154 | 0.747 |
| Period 4 (2001–2006) | reference category | ||||
|
| |||||
| Estimated mean = -5.317 ± 1.274 | |||||
| Estimated variance = 0.107 ± 0.029 | |||||
aEffect size = exp(estimated β coefficient). No effect = 1.0.
bBonferroni correction for multiple tests against alternative models discussed in text (results available on request).
N = 148 early childhood deaths among 3075 children at risk. Parameters of the random household intercept are presented as estimate ± one standard error.
Fig 6Distributions of simulated regression coefficients (top) and effect sizes (bottom) from the regression of early childhood mortality on C/P resulting from 1000 random perturbations to the age- and sex-specific weights used to compute C and P.