Policy Options on Technology: Statistical t-test
description
Transcript of Policy Options on Technology: Statistical t-test
Policy Options on Technology: Statistical t-test
Source: Babu and Sanyal (2009)
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
2
Technological Progress & Implications for FNS
• Policy options for agricultural Growth: Technological progress.
• Example: High yielding varieties of crops/ technology for post harvest operations.
• Beneficial outcomes: Increase in household food consumption and nutritional adequacy.
• Process: Direct impact on food & nutrition security due to increase in income + indirect impact due to higher non-food expenditures on health and sanitation, along with food consumption.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
3
Technological Progress & Implications for FNS
• Questions:1. Identify the process and quantify the extent
of improvement in food consumption of the household.
2.Identify the process of impact on nutrition security.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
4
Evidence from Malawi
• Household level data from Malawi on the impact of adoption of hybrid maize technology on household food security and nutritional situation.
• Maize: Major food crop and source of calories (85%).
• Statistical approach: Estimate differential levels of food security between technology adopters and non-adopters; and test for its significance .
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
5
Empirical evidence on Technological Impact
• Zambia: Land is not a constraint; still scope for growth by extensive cultivation is limited due to diminishing returns to land.
• Adopted improved technology- HYVs (hybrid) maize - to raise maize production.
• Constraints:• Farmers in eastern Province of Zambia grow
traditional maize for self-consumption and hybrid maize as a cash crop due to storage and processing requirements.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
6
Empirical evidence on Technological Impact
• Constraints:• Low adoption rate due to limited availability and poor
distribution channels of hybrid seeds and fertilizers. • Policy imperatives:
Market infrastructure, storage facilities and improvement of marketing channels.
Government incentives and support to improve on-farm storage capacity and village-level access to milling facilities.
Policies that offer innovative extension and credit systems.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
7
Empirical evidence on Technological Impact
• Impact:Benefit for small farmers & their food consumption.Adverse impact on women's share of income in large
farms.• Evidence from other countries:
Guatemala, Rwanda, Bangladesh• Bangladesh: Provision of credit and training to women
for the production of polyculture fish and commercial vegetables increased incomes but not micronutrient status of members of adopting households.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
8
Empirical evidence on Technological Impact
• International Food Policy Research Institute and International Center for Tropical Agriculture finding: biofortification an effective tool to end malnutrition.
• Constraint: lack of infrastructure, inadequate policies, lack of delivery systems for new varieties, low level of investment in research and less demand for such crops in the poorest regions.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
9
Empirical evidence on Technological Impact
• Madagascar: Strong association between better agricultural
performance (higher rice yields) and real wages, rice profitability and prices of staple food.
Net sellers, net buyers & wage labourers benefited.Technology diffusion is important; so are improved
rural transport infrastructure, increased literacy rates, secure land tenure and access to extension services.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
10
Post-harvest Technology & Food Security
• ‘Post-harvest crop loss’: Crop losses occur during pre-processing, storage
(estimated loses 33 to 50%), packaging and marketing.
Adversely affect household food security by reducing output, and income due to poor quality of crop.
Major constraint on food security in developing countries.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
11
Empirical verification
• Data source: Socioeconomic household survey data of Malawi.
• Question: Does food security differ between technology adopters &
and non-adopters?• Data requirement:
Household characteristics, such as age and sex, household income and expenditure patterns on food and non-food items and food intakes by the members of the family.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
12
Empirical verification
• Options:(i) Panel data: Survey the same set of households before
and after technology adoption.(ii) Cross section data households for a single time period
from technology adopters and non-adopters.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
13
Statistical Procedure
• Test for the statistical significance of the observed differences in food security between technology adopters versus non-adopters.
• Computes sample means for both subgroups and test the null hypothesis that there is no difference between their respective population means.
• Two assumptions: (i) Same variance for the two population groups (ii) unequal variances.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
14
Testing: Different Steps
1. Data description and analysis.2. Descriptive statistics.3. Threshold of food insecurity by each individual
component.4. Tests for equality of variances.5. t-test.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
15
Data Description & Analysis
• Sample size: 604 households from regions Mzuzu, Salima and Ngabu out of 5069 households
• Criteria for selection: Household has at least one child as member below the age of 5. Regions chosen because detailed data on food consumption
patterns for the household and nutritional status of the children are available; , they represent varied agro-ecological zones, cropping and livestock rearing patterns, consumption patterns and geographical (northern, central and lakeshore and southern) locations within the country.
• Out of the 604 households, 197 had information on 304 children (below the age of 5) related to nutritional status and general health conditions.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
16
Data Description & Analysis• Comprehensiveness of information:
All households provided information on food intake, quantity harvested for various crops and other socioeconomic information; facilitated identification of households (who had at least one child below the age of 5) which suffered from a nutrition insecurity problem.
All household data provided information on household characteristics such as age, education, sex of the household head, expenditure on and share of different food and non-food items consumed, number of meals consumed by the household on a daily basis (this variable in combination with other variables is used as an indicator of food security) and the time after harvest when the household stock of food runs out.
• Data can also be classified with respect to other characteristics like region and technology adoption.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
17
Measures for Analysis: Technology
• Technology: HYBRID (Dummy variable)- adoption of hybrid maize (a value of 1); non-adoption (a value of 0)
• Food Security:• (i) INSECURE: f(Household dependency ratio, the
number of meals that a household consumes) Categories:
If Depratio ≥ 0.5 and NBR ≤ 2 then INSECURE = 3 If Depratio < 0.5 and NBR ≤ 2 then INSECURE = 2 If Depratio ≥ 0.5 and NBR > 2 then INSECURE = 1 If Depratio < 0.5 and NBR > 2 then INSECURE = 0
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
18
Measures for Analysis
• Food Security: Income and consumption components(i) ‘Income component’ is determined by total livestock
ownership (LIVSTOCKSCALE) and measured in tropical livestock units (TLUs) (equivalence scale based on an animal’s average biomass consumption).
• LIVSTOCKSCALE – a proxy for income levels and ability to withstand shocks (Table 2.1).
• Aggregation: Biophysical scale of TLU is used (a la HDI normalization procedure) (Table 2.2).
Table 2.1 Tropical livestock unit values for different animals
Animal type TLU value
Cattle 0.8
Goat 0.1
Sheep 0.1
Pigs 0.2
Chicken, ducks, and doves 0.01
Source: International Livestock Research Institute (1999)
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
20
Table 2.2 Scaled values for livestock owned
Data value of livestock units (TLUs) Scaled value
6+ 1
4 0.67
3 0.5
2 0.33
1 0.17
0 0
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
21
Food Security Index
(ii) Consumption components: Number of meals (NBR) that the household consumes
during a given day (Table 2.3) and the months when the stock of food runs out (RUNDUM).
RUBNDUM, a measure of adequate stock of food, is also measured on a 0–3 scale, with the truncation being at the minimum value of 0.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
22
Table 2.3 Scaled values for number of meals per day
Number of meals per day Scaled value
3 1
2 0.67
1 0.33
0 0
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
23
Food Security Index
• Food Security Index: A weighted average of the three components - (1) the number of livestock owned (LIVSTOCKSCALE), (2) the number of meals consumed per day (NBR), and (3) stocks of food running out (RUNDUM).
• The weights are chosen in proportion to the variance of each component.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
24
Food Security Index
FOODSEC = 0.2798*NBR + 0.4821*RUNDUM + 0.2381 *LIVSTOCKSALE
where 0.2798, 0.4821 and 0.2381 are respectively the variances of the components NBR, RUNDUM, and LIVSTOCKSCALE.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
25
Table 2.4 Group Distribution of FOODSEC
Hybrid maize N Mean Standard deviation
Standard error mean
FOODSEC Non-adopters 131 0.3439 0.144 0.01261
Adopters 43 0.397 0.152 0.02318
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
26
Food Security by Technology
• Hybrid maize adopters have a higher mean for food security compared to non-adopters.
• Adoption of new technology improves food security.• Issue: it the observed differences of mean and
variance are statistically significant. • In other words, we want to determine if the
differences among the sample of technology adopters and non-adopters on food security is relevant for the population too.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
27
Threshold of food security by each individual component
• Problem with a continuous indicator of food insecurity.• (FOODSEC) is that it does not contain rules or
information to identify the food insecure households from the rest.
• In order fully to understand the households that are food insecure in each of the above components (namely livestock ownership, number of meals consumed per day and the month when the stock of food runs out), it is important to determine the cut-off point for each of the above components.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
28
Table 2.5 Threshold of food security components
Indicator Cut-off point Cumulative percentage
NBR 0.33 13.4
RUNDUM 0.33 69.8
LIVSTOCKSCALE 0.16 74.7
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
29
Nature of Food Insecurity
• NBR: About 13 per cent of the population is food insecure.
• RUNDUM(variable when food stock runs out): Almost 70 per cent of the population is food insecure.
• LIVSTOCKSALE: Almost 75 per cent of the population does not own any livestock.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
30
Table 2.6 Levene’s test of equality of variances
Variables F-statistic p value
INSECURE 0.566 0.452
FOODSEC 0.174 0.677
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
31
Student t-test for testing the equality of means
• Ho : μ1 – μ2 = 0• H1 : μ1 – μ2 ≠ 0
• Null hypothesis (Ho) asserts that the population parameters are equal. The statistic is the difference between the sample means.
• If it differs significantly from zero, we will reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the population parameters are indeed different.
• Since the two random samples are independent, i.e. probabilities of selection of the elements in one sample are not affected by the selection of the other sample, we want to verify.
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
32
Student’s t-test for equality of means
• Next step: Specify the sampling distribution of the test statistics
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
33
Standard error of the difference between the two means :
• where
• s12 and s2
2 are the estimates of the within group variability of the first and second group, respectively.
2
2
1
2
21 ns
ns
S pooledpooledXX
2
11
21
222
2112
nn
snsnspooled
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
34
t-test statistic
21
)( 2121
XXSXXt
Food Security Profile: Technology Dimension
35
Table 2.7 Student’s t-test for equality of means
Variables Assumptions t-statistic Attained significance (2-tailed)
INSECURE Equal variance assumed 2.33 0.02
Equal variance not assumed 2.363 0.019
FOODSEC Equal variance assumed -2.064 0.04
Equal variance not assumed -2.011 0.04