Determinants of Household Food Insecurity. A Global Overview

Determinants of food deficit in several emerging economies particularly in Africa are documented in existing literature. These factors are frequently than not context-specific (Anderson & Cook, 1999; Birara et al., 2015). Literature that link family features to food deficit has received greater consideration during the previous few years. This is an outcome of the appreciation that constituents of economic and social statuses that differentiate and describe household are important indicators of food deficit (Babatunde et al., 2007). The differences in factors that determine household food insecurity within various geographical locations demands the assessment of the factors in Chipinge district. This assists in identifying appropriate strategies that address food security challenges.

2.4.1 Household socio-economic features and food deficit

Food deficit is a multifaceted and composite matter that needs numerous integrative methods and theories to describe it (Agwu & Ogbonnaya, 2014; Ehebhamen et al., 2017). Grobber (2014) argues that family characteristics are vital and that household food deficit should be

26

considered as a multi-objective occurrence that is best described by people affected. Earlier studies (FAO, 2010; Kuwenyi et al., 2014; Krishnal, 2015) identified social physiognomies such as age, sex, literacy and marital status, livestock possession, land size and household size that determine household food deficit.

Food deficit and Household head’s age

The age of the household head determine food deficit of the family he/she controls through technology adoption, asset-building, or threat aversion choices. Family heads become more knowledgeable with increase in age and also get more acquaintance (Kahsay & Mulugeta, 2014) and capital (Maxwell, 2011), thereby determining household food deficit. On the other hand, numerous studies (Ellis, 2000; De Stage et al., 2012; Kuwenyi et al., 2014) discovered that as the household head‟s age rises, his/her effectiveness in executing agricultural tasks weakens ensuing in truncated farm productivity.

Relationship between sex of the head of household and food deficit

Female-headed families are anticipated to experience severe food deficit statuses than male- headed families. Ndiweni (2015) posits that a significant number of female-headed families in the Zimbabwean rural structure exist due to death or divorce. This condition leaves female headed households with inadequate assets such as livestock, land, and other fecund resources.

Furthermore, female heads encounter numerous challenges in the labour market as employers shun recruitment of female employees in the agricultural sector in Zimbabwe (Scoones, 2009;

Ndiweni, 2015). Female heads are accountable for sustaining the family including child care and household farm duties in addition to work schedules performed outdoor. They also face greater dependency ratio because their households rely on a sole income breadwinner (Birara et al., 2015). Thus sustainable interventions should address the needs of deprived households.

Numerous researches have maintained that female headed families are susceptible to deprivation as compared to male-headed families (Scoones, 2009; Zakari et al., 2014; Gichuhi, 2015). Incidences of food deficit are greater in female headed compared to male-headed families. This increases the problem of providing the family with adequate daily food requirements. A research done by Kuwenyi et al. (2014) in Swaziland also found out those male-headed families were more secure than women-headed families. The research cited above reveals that nearly 57 % of male-headed families were secured compared to 43 % of female-headed families. From the literature reviewed, it is clear that sex of the household head determine food deficit. However, this factor is context specific and unique depending on the

27

geographic characteristics of the area. Thus, the existing literature validates the necessity to unravel the determinants of food shortfall from diverse viewpoints.

Marital statuses and food deficit

The household head‟s marital status determine household food deficit (Babatunde et al., 2007).

Earlier studies (Bashir et al., 2012; Agwu & Ogbonnaya, 2014; Ehebhamen et al., 2017) discovered that family head‟s marital status has both positive and negative ramifications on food security. In a comparable research, Birara et al. (2015) note that single heads of households were affected more than their married counterparts. While approving the importance of connubial statuses on food deficit in Bangladesh, Fahmida et al. (2017) posit that families headed by married couples were more food insecure than their counterparts. This was a result of the fact that families with married couples usually have more household members.

Educational attainment of the family head and food deficit

Educational attainment affects farming production and therefore food deficit at the family level.

Various studies (Radimer et al., 1992; Agwu & 0gbonnaya., 2014; Peng et al., 2017) established that low education attainment among household heads make the introduction of better farming skills, tools and knowledge use difficult.

Family size and food deficit

Family size influence labour capital and food intake in the household. This therefore determines the family food deficit status (Scoones, 1999; Oyebanjo et al, 2013; Peng et al., 2017).

Household size affect food deficit, although its impact cannot be recognized earlier. A number of studies (Wambua, 2013; Tshediso, 2013; Uzokwe et al., 2016) established that bigger sized families are positively associated with food deficit. The explanation behind these findings is that bigger families require more capitals to meet their food needs. However, other studies (Shanner, 1982; Wabwoba et al., 2016) discovered that bigger households possess a large pool of labour force, thereby ensuring increase in agricultural production. The availability of human capital assists in the execution of smallholding tasks timely. Household members also participate in diverse non-farm and farm work, thereby, increasing and diversifying income sources. This in turn determine food deficit in a positive way.

Livestock possession and food deficit

Livestock are vital assets that perform a critical role as security against food deficit (Maxwell, 1996; Maude & James, 2010; Lawson et al., 2017). Proprietorship of livestock assets is a cornerstone in the survival options and defence against bankruptcy of several forms. Cattle, goats and sheep were the rudimentary worth units both in economic and social terms (Maxwell,

28

2011; Morello, 2012; O‟Brien & Cook, 2016). Cattle measure the worth of anything from children to wives, and the amount of food borrowed during food scarce seasons (Mjonono et al., 2009;

Kahsay & Mulugeta, 2014; Rukundo et al., 2016). Thus, without critical assets deprived households find it difficult to procure food. Intervention approaches that fail to address the asset requirements of poor household may not be appropriate within rural contexts.

Farming land size and food deficit

Farming land is a critical factor that determines household productivity (Maxwell, 2011; Hendrix

& Brickman, 2013; Lawson et al., 2017). Access to farm land permits production of both cash crops and food for households as well as for individuals. The extent of land possessed by a family is an imperative indicator of food deficit status. Kahsay & Mulugeta (2014) reveal that the extent of land possessed by families had negative or positive effect on food deficit in Ethiopia.

Kabui (2012) also discovered that farm land size was negatively and significantly associated with household food deficit in Kenya.