Volume 8, Issue 2 (May 2023)                   JNFS 2023, 8(2): 221-233 | Back to browse issues page


XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Mohammadi-Nasrabadi F, Omidvar N, Vedadhir A, Khoshfetrat M, Houshyar-Rad A, Zerafati-Shoae N et al . Cash Transfer versus Staple Food Subsidies: An Effective Factor on Food Security and Expenditure of Urban Households in Iran. JNFS 2023; 8 (2) :221-233
URL: http://jnfs.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-516-en.html
Department of Community Nutrition, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (1184 Views)
In 2010, food subsidy program implemented since 1979 was replaced by unconditional cash transfer (CT) in Iran. The present pre-and-post evaluation study aims to compare food security and expenditures of urban households during the implementation of food subsidy and CT programs. Methods: Using a stratified cluster sampling method, 266 households were selected from Tehran city. Data were collected in two phases: before (2009) and after (2012) implementing CT program using questionnaires including demographics; household expenditure; locally validated Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS); and three consecutive 24-hours diet recalls. Seven focus group discussions (FGDs) with women were also held. Results: After implementing CT program, the households' food and total expenditures increased and their family size decreased. Mild, moderate, and severe food insecurity increased from 19.3%, 13.3%, and 11% to 28.4%, 15.5%, and 12.5%, respectively (P<0.001). There was a significant decrease in consumption of fat and oils and sugary food groups (time effect P<0.05). The consumption of fruits, meat, and dairy products was lower in the food insecure women than in the food secure ones (group effect P<0.05). However, the food secure and insecure households behaved differently in terms of only sugar consumption (time group effect P<0.05). Based on the FGDs, relative deprivation and social gaps increased. Conclusion: Considering the reduction in welfare index, targeting poor/vulnerable groups, as well as conditional CT could be considered in Iran
Full-Text [PDF 595 kb]   (157 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (59 Views)  
Type of article: orginal article | Subject: public specific
Received: 2021/11/7 | Published: 2023/05/20 | ePublished: 2023/05/20

References
1. Aber L & Rawlings LB 2011. North-South knowledge sharing on incentive-based conditional cash transfer programs. World Bank: New York.
2. Attanasio O & Mesnard A 2006. The impact of a conditional cash transfer programme on consumption in Colombia. Fiscal studies 27 (4): 421-442.
3. Coates J, Swindale A & Bilinsky P 2007. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of Food Access: Indicator Guide FANTA Project: Washington, DC.
4. de Bem Lignani J, Sichieri R, Burlandy L & Salles-Costa R 2010. Changes in food consumption among the Programa Bolsa Famılia participant families in Brazil. Public health nutrition. 14 (5): 785-792.
5. Deitchler M, Ballard T, Swindale A & Coates J 2010. Validation of a Measure of Household Hunger for CrossCultural Use. Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance II Project (FANTA-2): Washington, DC.
6. Doshmangir L, Doshmangir P, Abolhassani N, Moshiri E & Jafari M 2015. Effects of targeted subsidies policy on health behavior in Iranian households: A qualitative study Iranian journal of public health 44 (4): 570-579.
7. Esmaeili A, Karami A & Najafi B 2013. Welfare effects of alternative targeted food subsidy programs in Iran. Food security. 5 (3): 451-456.
8. Fernald L, Gertler P & Hou X 2008. Cash component of conditional cash transfer program is associated with higher body mass index and blood pressure in adults. Journal of nutrition. 138 (11): 2250-2257.
9. Fiszbein A, et al. 2009. Conditional Cash Transfers: reducing present and future poverty. The World Bank: Washington DC.
10. Forde I, Chandola T, Garcia S, Marmot M & Attanasio O 2011. The impact of cash transfers to poor women in Colombia on BMI and obesity. International journal of obesity. 36 (9): 1209-1214.
11. Forde I, Rasanathan K & Krech R 2012. Cash transfer schemes and the health sector: making the case for greater involvement. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 90: 551-553.
12. Ghassemi H, Kimiagar M & Koupahi M 1996. Food and Nutrition Security in Tehran Province. National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute: Tehran.
13. Hajipour M & Fallsolyman M 2016. The effects of targeted subsidies on misery index in urban and rural settlements of Iran regions International journal of humanities and cultural studies 3(2): 714-725.
14. Hasani S 2010. Ministry of Commerce and Targeting Subsidies. Ministry of Commerce: Tehran.
15. Hjelm L 2016. The impact of cash transfers on food security, https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/IRB%202016_04.pdf
16. Hosseini S & Charvadeh MP- 2017. The impact of the targeted subsidies policy on household food security in urban areas in Iran. Cities 63: 110-117.
17. Hosseini S, Gharvadeh MP-, Salami H & Flora C 2017. The impact of the targeted subsidies policy on household food security in urban areas in Iran. Cities. 63: 110-117.
18. Kabeer N & Waddington H 2015. Economic impacts of conditional cash transfer programmes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of development effectiveness. 7 (3): 290-303.
19. Khoshfetrat M, Mohamadi NF, Omidvar N & Vedadhir A 2015. The Lived Experience and Satisfaction of Women with the Subsidy Targeting Program through Cash Transfer: A Qualitative Research in Tehran. Social Welfare. 15 (58): 91-121.
20. Lagarde M, Haines A & Palmer N 2009. The impact of conditional cash transfers on health outcomes and use of health services in low and middle income countries (Review). The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.: UK.
21. Mahendra S 2009. Poverty insights. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex: Brighton.
22. Michelle A 2008. Integrating survey and ethnographic methods to evaluate conditional cash transfer programs. In IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00810. International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC.
23. Mohammadi-Nasrabadi F 2016. Impact of cash transfer onfood security: A Review Nutrition and food sciences research. 3 (2): 3-10.
24. Mohammadi F, et al. 2011. Validity of an adapted Household Food Insecurity Access Scale in urban households in Iran. Public Health Nutr. 15 (1): 149-157.
25. National Institute of Health 1998. Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in adults: The Evidence Report. Obesety research. 6 (2): S51-S209.
26. Owusu-Addo E, Renzaho AMN & Smith BJ 2018. The impact of cash transfers on socialdeterminants of health and health inequalities in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Health policy and planning. 33 (5): 675-696.
27. Paes-Sousa R, Santos LMP & Miazak iS 2011. Effects of a conditional cash transfer programme on child nutrition in Brazil. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 89: 496-503.
28. Saeediankia A, Majdzadeh R, Haghighian-Roudsari A & Pouraram H 2023. The effects of subsidies on foods in Iran: A narrative review. Frontiers in sustainable food systems. 6.
29. Salarkia, N, Abdollahi M, Amini M & Neyestani TR 2014. An adapted Household Food Insecurity Access Scale is a valid tool as a proxy measure of food access for use in urban Iran. Food Sec. 6 (2): 275-282.
30. Sarkissian N, Rahmanian M, Azar M, Mayourian H & Khalili S 1980. Food composition table of Iran. In 131. National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute: Tehran.
31. Shei A 2013. Mortality Rates Brazil's Conditional Cash Transfer Program Associated With Declines In Infant. Health affairs 32 (7): 1274-1281.
32. Soltanpanah H, Zarei S & Dadashi I 2013. Study the effects of implementation of targeted subsidies on pharmaceutical industry. Technical journal of engineering and applied. 3 (19): 2544-2553.
33. Swindale A & Bilinsky P 2006. Development of a Universally Applicable Household Food Insecurity Measurement Tool: Process, Current Status, and Outstanding Issues. Journal of nutrition. 136 (5): 1449S-1452S.
34. Tootoonchi-Maleki S 2008. A brief study about basic experimental studies in area of paydown subside in some countries Economic Reseach Office, Islamic Parliament Research Center: Tehran.
35. Trenouth L, et al. 2018. The cost of preventing undernutrition: cost, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of three cash-based interventions on nutrition outcomes in Dadu, Pakistan. Health Policy and Planning. 33 (6): 743-754.
36. Vafaei-Yeganeh R, MousaviNik SH & Tabatabaei-Yazdi R 2011. Assessment of the yearly Budjet Bill of Iran, 2012; Targeted subsidies. Research center of Parliment: Tehran.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 3.0 | Journal of Nutrition and Food Security

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb