IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jda/journl/vol.52year2018issue1pp85-98.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Food Security Of Rice-Farming Households In Thailand: A Logit Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Pattanapong Tiwasing
  • Philip Dawson
  • Guy Garrod

    (Newcastle University, UK)

Abstract

Many households in underdeveloped and developing countries still suffer from food insecurity, which is unreliable access to a sufficient quantity of nutritious food. It is a major cause of malnutrition and undernourishment. Thailand is a food surplus country but food accessibility, particularly among rice-farming households, is often problematical. Consequently, their energy consumption is often lower than national minimum dietary energy requirements and they suffer from undernourishment. To provide policy recommendations to support rice-farming households, this study identifies the determinants of their food security using a logit model. Household food security is a binary variable: it is classified as food-secure or food-insecure using a minimum dietary energy requirement threshold of 2,100 kcal/adult equivalent/day. The analysis draws on 2,871 households from Thailand’s Socio-Economic Survey (SES) data in 2011. It finds that 57% of total households are food-secure, while 43% are food-insecure. Key findings are as follows. First, those households with relatively better educated heads are more likely to be food-secure than those with lower educational levels. Second, increases in household income or food expenditure lead to higher probabilities of food security. Third, households that produce more food for own consumption are more likely to be food-secure than those which sell a higher proportion of what they produce. Fourth, livestock ownership or increases in farm inputs, such as family labor, farm size and fertilizer, improve the probability of food security. However, increases in household size, the dependency ratio, and total household expenditure result in a lower probability of households being food security. The findings therefore suggest that food insecurity can be alleviated by the extension of provisions towards integrated farming and self-sufficiency, better family planning programs and child care, better education, and managing household income and expenditure for food consumption. In addition, increases in farm size, use of family labor and use of fertilizer can further enhance food security.

Suggested Citation

  • Pattanapong Tiwasing & Philip Dawson & Guy Garrod, 2018. "Food Security Of Rice-Farming Households In Thailand: A Logit Analysis," Journal of Developing Areas, Tennessee State University, College of Business, vol. 52(1), pages 85-98, January-M.
  • Handle: RePEc:jda:journl:vol.52:year:2018:issue1:pp:85-98
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/676867
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hoang, Hoa T.K. & Thompson, Wyatt & Kwon, Sanguk, 2021. "Low-Income Household Food Consumption Consequences of Rice Policy and Pandemic Impacts on Income and Price in Thailand," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 52(2), July.
    2. Leidy Johanna Hurtado-Bermúdez & Irene Vélez-Torres & Fabián Méndez, 2020. "No land for food: prevalence of food insecurity in ethnic communities enclosed by sugarcane monocrop in Colombia," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 65(7), pages 1087-1096, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    food security; rice-farming households; Thailand; logit model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • O12 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jda:journl:vol.52:year:2018:issue1:pp:85-98. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Abu N.M. Wahid (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cbtnsus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.