Is Variety the Spice of Life? Implications for Calorie Intake Author(s): Jere R. Behrman and Anil Deolalikar Reviewed work(s): Source: The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 71, No. 4 (Nov., 1989), pp. 666-672 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1928109 . Accessed: 21/04/2012 21:16Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Economics and Statistics.

http://www.jstor.org

NOTESIS VARIETY THE SPICE OF LIFE? IMPLICATIONS FOR CALORIE INTAKE R. Jere Behrman and Anil Deolalikar*

Abstract-The income elasticity calories generally subis of of stantiallysmaller than the income elasticity food expenditures. One reason may be an increasingconcern for food varietyas incomes increase.Food variety can be linkedwith of curves: (1) curvature two characteristics food indifference and (2) location of the curvesrelativeto the axes. Estimates suggest increasingtaste for varietyas food budgetsincrease. Therefore, such taste forvarietyapparently underliesin part the low income elasticitiesforcalorie demand,whichin turn cast doubt on the World Bank assertion that the nutrient intakesof poor populationswill improverapidlywithincome.

I. Introduction is Malnutrition thought manyto be a widespread by and severe problem in the developingworld. Many analystsand policy makersclaim thatthisproblemcan be lessened substantially onlywithincomeincreasesfor the poor that could come with considerableeconomic or The development incomeredistribution. WorldBank (1981, p. 59), forexample,states: There is now a wide measure of agreementon several broad propositions. Serious and extensive nutritional deficiencies occurin virtually develall oping countries,though they are worst in lowincome countries.... Malnutritionis largely a of reflection poverty:people do not have income for food. Given the slow income growththat is likely for the poorest people in the foreseeable future,large numberswill remain malnourished for decades to come... . The most efficient longtermpolicies are thosethatraise theincomeof the poor.... Calorie deficiencies thought be the most basic are to and first-order problem,and are the measure used to characterizewidespread malnutrition (e.g., Reutlinger and Selowsky,1976, World Bank, 1981), thoughother nutrient inadequacies also are claimedto be widespread. In a recentstudy,however, have demonstrated we that withrespectto incomemay not be as calorie elasticities failure high as oftenis claimedbecause of the frequentReceived for publicationMarch 3, 1988. Revision accepted 4, forpublicationJanuary 1989. of * University Pennsylvania and University Washington, of respectively.

in such estimates allow forthepositiveassociationof to nutrient prices with income observedin a numberof poor societies(Behrmanand Deolalikar,1987). We present estimatesfor a relatively poor rural south Indian populationthatindicatethat,althoughincome elasticities of food expenditure large,incomeelasticities are of calorie intakes are much smaller.A numberof other recent studies reportsimilarresultsfor a wide range of developing country populations: Knudsen and Scandizzo (1979) for Sri Lanka, Morocco and India; Greer and Thorbecke (1984) for Kenya; Garcia and Pinstrup-Andersen (1987) and Bouis and Haddad (1988) for the Philippines; Kumar (1987) for Kerala, India; Alderman(1986) for Sri Lanka, Thailand, Egypt,Sudan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Malaysia, Brazil, Bangladesh, and Morocco; Ravallion (1988) for Indonesia; and Behrman and Deolalikar (1988a) for a cross country sample of 67 countries, including47 developingcountries. These findings suggestthat even relatively poor individuals weigh heavily food attributesother than calorie contentwhen theymake marginalfood choices in responseto incomechanges.Reutlinger and Selowsky (1976), Shah (1983), and Behrman and Wolfe (1984) also emphasize the importanceof factorsother than caloriesin such choices. If these results regarding the magnitudeof income elasticitiesof calories are widelytrueforpoor populations, there are some importantimplications. First, increase calorie intakesof thepoor do not automatically withincomeincreasesassociatedwithecosubstantially in nomic developmentor income redistribution, contrast to the apparent claim of the World Bank (1981) and others.Second, if themarginal food choicesof such individualsare informed choices,thensuchchoicesseem to suggestthat theydo not see increasing theircalorie intakes to be such high priorityas often has been the suggestedby outsiders,thus supporting revisionist in view of nutrition developing countries expoundedby Sukhatme (1982), Srinivasan (1981), Seckler (1980), Payne (1989) and others. Third,if the marginalfood choices choices of such individualsare not informed theremay be a high the calorie implications, regarding information. social returnto the provisionof nutrition Fourth, the poor are much more responsiveto price policy than are those who are betteroff,which has implicationsforthe designof policiesthataffect prices.Copyrightc) 1989

[ 666 1

NOTES

667

Deolalikar (1987, 1988b). 2One referee has emphasizedthatcalorie intakeis but one dimensionof nutrition and thatincreasing foodvariety maybe necessaryto obtain othernutrients. However,as noted above, the most basic nutrient problemforhundredsof millionsof people in the developingworld is claimed to be calorie deficiency.Moreover,as observedat theend of the previousnote, available estimatesdo not suggestthatlow income elasticities for calories for such populationsonly reflect thatothernutrients are being purchasedwithadditionalincome.

In the presentpaper we exploreone possible quan- and consistentprice indices across countries(Kravis, tifiable explanation of the phenomenon that calorie Heston and Summers, 1982), whichpermit better repreelasticitiesare substantially less than food expenditure sentation international of incomedifferences better and elasticities:that food varietyper se is valued so that controlfor relativeprices than in previous studies,to people purchaseincreasedfood variety their as incomes estimate tasteforfood variety the and examinewhether increase even thoughthat may not alter theircalorie it dependsdirectly thetotalamountof food expendion 2 intakesmuch." We explorethisconjecture consid- ture and thus indirectly income. We first by on elaborate eringvariety be directly to relatedto two characteristics on our representation varietyand then turnto our of of consumerpreferences over variousfoods: the degree data and estimates. of curvature and the centrality (relativeto the axes) of location of indifference curves.If concernforlow-cost caloriesdominatesfood choicesat verylow incomes, we II. Preferences, Variety and Calorie Intake expect the food indifference curvesto be relatively flat There are a rangeof possible quantifications food of (so substitution among foods is considerableif relative depends only food prices change) and to be located close to the axis variety. One possible characterization or By for the traditionalcheapest source of calories. There- upon whether not any of each foodis consumed.3 if fore,thereis a tendency towardshighconcentration on this criterion, a consumerconsumes some of each relativelycheap sources of calories. As incomes and food, then maximumfood varietyis being elected. In food budgets increase,we posit that food indifference the two-foodcase, moving fromconsuming100% of curves across foods may become more sharplycurved total food in the formof food 1 to 100 - n% in the of of and centered further away from axis forthelow-cost form food 1 and n% in theform food 2 constitutes the to calorie source. For preferences characterized such a move fromno food variety completefood variety. by increasesover a specindifference curves,therewill be less concentration on In the severalfoods case, variety particular(cheap calorie-supplying) foods and greater trumas a consumermoves fromconsumingonly one all of variety foods consumedforgivenfoodpricesand less food to consuming foods. We preferan alternativecharacterization food of change in food compositionin responseto changes in whichdepends not only on whether not each or relativefood prices.We call a situation greater of curva- variety tureand locational centrality foodindifference of curves food is consumed,but also on the relativemagnitudes of each food consumed.In thetwo-food case, forexama taste forfood variety. ple, we considerthereto be more food variety selected We use the International ComparisonProject (ICP) basket of 100 - n% forfood 1 data with its purchasing-power-parity based incomes fora food consumption (and n% forfood 2) if n is 40% thanif n is 0.01%. We therefore propose a representation this notion of of varietythat focuseson the curvature and centrality of IUnderlying changingfood variety, course, are different location of consumer of indifference curvesacross foods. quantities of different attributes related to nutrition, taste, Figure 1 illustrates relationship the betweenthe curappearance, status value, textureetc. As income increases curves and the income people may choose greaterfood varietyin order to obtain vatureof the food indifference different combinations such attributes. of Unfortunately, how- elasticityof calories. To focus on the curvatureof ever, most of these attributes not measuredin available indifference are curvesas opposed to theirlocation relative socioeconomic data sets, so empirically cannot focus on to the axes, in this figureall indifference we curves are varietyor different income elasticitiesfor most of these ataround the 450 ray fromthe oritributes. Therefore concentrate thispaper on foodvariety drawn symmetrically we in ratherthanon theseunderlying characteristics. we empha- gin. Both foods are measuredin the same units (e.g., But size one of thesefood attributes-calories-in our exploration. kilograms). Calories are measuredon the verticalaxis, We also note that,based on microIndian data and cross-coun- as is food 1, in unitssuch thatone unitof food 1 equals try data, the other observed nutrients not have income do one unit of calories,and food 2 has verysmall calorie elasticitiesas high as food expenditure elasticities withrespect value per unit compared to food 1. Let 0