IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Explaining Success in Reducing Under-Nourishment Numbers in Ghana


  • Emmanuel Aggrey-Fynn
  • Godsway Banini
  • Andre Croppenstedt

    (Agricultural and Development Economics Division, Food and Agriculture Organization)

  • Yvonne Owusu-Agyapong
  • George Oduru


The FAO Food Security measure shows that the number of under-nourished Ghanaians has fallen from 64 to 12 percent between 1979-1981 and 1998-2000. Since income distribution is assumed to have remained constant the change is due entirely to increased food availability. The paper shows that most of the increase in the DES was explained by an expansion in maize, cassava, yam and plantain production. The production increase is mostly due to acreage expansion which in turn can be attributed to the improved economic environment and market access for farmers. Improved varieties did help raise yields for maize and cassava quite substantially and helped raise output, particularly in the 1990s. Much of the reduction in under-nourishment was driven by increased cassava production and we note that a break in the series in 1991 throws some doubt on the usefulness of using the data to draw comparison between 1979-1981 and 1998-2000. The reduction in hunger was driven by economic growth which raised the incomes of many Ghanaians. In particular public sector and private formal sector employees and export farmers benefited from the complete turnaround in the macroeconomic environment and performance. Fundamentally this turnaround could not have happened without the political will to implement policies that were economically painful for many Ghanaians and which met with significant political opposition. While food supply kept up with increased demand, the incidence of poverty remains particularly high for food farmers who, as a group, saw only a marginal improvement in welfare in the 1990s. For the same time period poverty also stagnated or increased in the Northern and Upper regions were most farmers produce food crops. The available data shows that the food-poor are increasingly concentrated in distinct groups and regions which did not benefit from economic growth. This polarization of inequality and poverty makes targeted policies and projects to raise nutritional levels and promote pro-poor growth desirable. Other indicators of food-poverty and under-nutrition suggest that while Ghana made progress in reducing hunger the achievements have not been as spectacular as suggested by FAO’s measure of under-nourishment. Or, to turn this around, the evidence would suggest that nationally food availability is no longer the key constraint, rather economic access is.

Suggested Citation

  • Emmanuel Aggrey-Fynn & Godsway Banini & Andre Croppenstedt & Yvonne Owusu-Agyapong & George Oduru, 2003. "Explaining Success in Reducing Under-Nourishment Numbers in Ghana," Working Papers 03-10, Agricultural and Development Economics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO - ESA).
  • Handle: RePEc:fao:wpaper:0310

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Demery, Lionel & Squire, Lyn, 1996. "Macroeconomic Adjustment and Poverty in Africa: An Emerging Picture," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 11(1), pages 39-59, February.
    2. Badiane, Ousmane & Shively, Gerald E., 1998. "Spatial integration, transport costs, and the response of local prices to policy changes in Ghana," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 411-431, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Cassava; Cereal crops; Economic growth; Food security; Food supply; Ghana; Household food security; Human nutrition; Maize; Malnutrition; Nutritional status; Plantains; Poverty; Yams;

    JEL classification:

    • O5 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies
    • I3 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty
    • Q1 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture


    Access and download statistics


    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:fao:wpaper:0310. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Gustavo Anríquez). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.