Me keb, Yednekachew; Yasunobu, Kumi; Elias, As es; Endalew, Bi a a
A icle
Compa a i e analysis o household ood secu i y and i s de e minan s
among P oduc i e Sa e y Ne P og am (PSNP) bene icia y, g adua ed,
and non-bene icia y in No hwes e n E hiopia
Cogen Economics & Finance
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Taylo & F ancis G oup
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Me keb, Yednekachew; Yasunobu, Kumi; Elias, As es; Endalew, Bi a a (2024) :
Compa a i e analysis o household ood secu i y and i s de e minan s among P oduc i e Sa e y
Ne P og am (PSNP) bene icia y, g adua ed, and non-bene icia y in No hwes e n E hiopia, Cogen
Economics & Finance, ISSN 2332-2039, Taylo & F ancis, Abingdon, Vol. 12, Iss. 1, pp. 1-15,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/23322039.2024.2344269
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/321476
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Cogen Economics & Finance
ISSN: 2332-2039 (Online) Jou nal homepage: www. and online.com/jou nals/oae 20
Compa a i e analysis o household ood secu i y
and i s de e minan s among P oduc i e Sa e y
Ne P og am (PSNP)beneficia y, g adua ed, and
non-beneficia y in No hwes e n E hiopia
Yednekachew Me keb, Kumi Yasunobu, As es Elias & Bi a a Endalew
To ci e his a icle: Yednekachew Me keb, Kumi Yasunobu, As es Elias & Bi a a Endalew (2024)
Compa a i e analysis o household ood secu i y and i s de e minan s among P oduc i e
Sa e y Ne P og am (PSNP)beneficia y, g adua ed, and non-beneficia y in No hwes e n
E hiopia, Cogen Economics & Finance, 12:1, 2344269, DOI: 10.1080/23322039.2024.2344269
To link o his a icle: h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/23322039.2024.2344269
© 2024 The Au ho (s). Published by In o ma
UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis
G oup
View supplemen a y ma e ial
Published online: 30 Ap 2024. Submi you a icle o his jou nal
A icle iews: 1427 View ela ed a icles
View C ossma k da a Ci ing a icles: 2 View ci ing a icles
Full Te ms & Condi ions o access and use can be ound a
h ps://www. and online.com/ac ion/jou nalIn o ma ion?jou nalCode=oae 20
GENERAL & APPLIED ECONOMICS | RESEARCH ARTICLE
Compa a i e analysis o household ood secu i y and i s de e minan s
among P oduc i e Sa e y Ne P og am (PSNP) bene icia y, g adua ed,
and non-bene icia y in No hwes e n E hiopia
Yednekachew Me keb
a,b
, Kumi Yasunobu
c
, As es Elias
c
and Bi a a Endalew
a,d
a
Uni ed G adua e School o Ag icul u al Sciences, To o i Uni e si y, To o i, Japan;
b
Ins i u e o Disas e Risk Managemen
and Food Secu i y S udies, Bahi Da Uni e si y, Bahi Da , E hiopia;
c
Facul y o Ag icul u e, To o i Uni e si y, To o i,
Japan;
d
College o Ag icul u e and En i onmen al Sciences, Bahi Da Uni e si y, Bahi Da , E hiopia
ABSTRACT
This s udy aims o compa e household ood secu i y and i s de e minan s among
PSNP bene icia y, g adua ed, and non-bene icia y. Da a was collec ed om 396 sample
households using a s uc u ed ques ionnai e and key in o man in e iew. Bina y
P obi eg ession was used o analyse he de e minan s o household ood secu i y.
Household ood secu i y was measu ed using Food Insecu i y Expe ience Scale (FIES)
and Household Hunge Scale (HHS). The s udy ound signi ican di e ences in house-
hold ood secu i y among bene icia y, g adua ed and non-bene icia y bo h in FIES
and HHS. The mean aw sco es o FIES and HHS o g adua ed households we e lowe
han bo h bene icia y and non-bene icia y households. G adua ed households had he
highes pe cen age o ood secu e households (67.4%), ollowed by non-bene icia y
households (61.5%) and bene icia y households (34.3%). The bina y p obi model
showed he numbe o clinic isi s by household head was he only ac o ha nega-
i ely associa ed wi h all he h ee g oups. The numbe o yea s bene i ed om PSNP
had a nega i e in luence on bo h bene icia y and g adua ed households’ ood secu -
i y. Whe eas li es ock had a posi i e e ec on he ood secu i y o bo h g adua ed
and non-bene icia y households, unlike dependency a io. Li elihood zone, d ough ,
and c edi we e only associa ed wi h bene icia y household ood secu i y, while c op
di e si ica ion de e mined only g adua ed households’ ood secu i y. Hence, he ind-
ings sugges ha policymake s and p ac i ione s should ocus on imp o ing access o
heal h ca e, limi he du a ion o PSNP pa icipa ion, p omo e c op di e si ica ion, and
p o ide p ope c edi use aining o enhance household ood secu i y.
IMPACT STATEMENT
E ec i e ood secu i y in e en ions play a signi ican ole in add essing ch onic ood
insecu i y. In E hiopia, P oduc i e Sa e y Ne P og am (PSNP) has been implemen ed o
p o ide p edic able and eliable suppo o ch onically ood insecu e households. Hence,
his s udy compa ed he household ood secu i y and i s de e minan s among PSNP
bene icia y, g adua ed, and non-bene icia y. The indings showed ha he household
ood secu i y s a us o PSNP bene icia y, g adua ed, and non-bene icia y we e signi i-
can ly di e en . G adua ed households had be e household ood secu i y s a us han
bo h bene icia y and non-bene icia y households. Mo eo e , he ac o s ha de e mine
he household ood secu i y s a us also a y among PSNP bene icia y, g adua ed, and
non-bene icia y. The numbe o yea s bene i ed om PSNP had a nega i e e ec on bo h
bene icia y and g adua ed households’ ood secu i y. Compa ing g adua ed households
o cu en bene icia ies and non-bene icia ies p o ides insigh s on he long- e m e ec s
o PSNP. This s udy helps policymake s and p ac i ione s o make changes on PSNP and
design e ec i e ood secu i y in e en ion conside ing he di e ences in ood secu i y
s a us and de e minan s among PSNP bene icia y, g adua ed and non-bene icia y.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Recei ed 31 Augus 2023
Re ised 13 Feb ua y 2024
Accep ed 14 Ap il 2024
KEYWORDS
Food insecu i y expe ience
scale; ood secu i y; p obi
model; P oduc i e Sa e y
Ne P og am; E hiopia
REVIEWING EDITOR
Robe Read, Uni e si y o
Lancas e , UK
SUBJECTS
De elopmen s udies; Ru al
de elopmen ; Economics
and de elopmen ;
Popula ion & de elopmen ;
Sus ainable de elopmen ;
Economics
CONTACT Yednekachew Me keb [email p o ec ed] The Uni ed G adua e School o Ag icul u al Sciences, To o i Uni e si y,
4-101 Koyama-Minami, To o i 680-8553, Japan
ß2024 The Au ho (s). Published by In o ma UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis G oup
This is an Open Access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/), which
pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed. The e ms on which his a icle has been
published allow he pos ing o he Accep ed Manusc ip in a eposi o y by he au ho (s) o wi h hei consen .
COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE
2024, VOL. 12, NO. 1, 2344269
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/23322039.2024.2344269
1. In oduc ion
Food insecu i y is an u gen issue ha impac s he well-being and li elihoods o millions o people
wo ldwide. Achie ing ood secu i y is a key UN Sus ainable De elopmen Goal (SDG), emphasizing he
need o sus ainable access o nu i ious ood o all. E hiopia, among o he de eloping na ions, has
been igh ing wi h ch onic and widesp ead ood insecu i y, which has a ec ed a signi ican po ion o
i s popula ion and la ge geog aphic a eas.
Wi h a popula ion o a ound 123 million people in 2022, E hiopia anked as he second mos popu-
lous coun y in A ica (UNDP, 2022). Po e y and ood insecu i y pe sis despi e he coun y’s apid eco-
nomic g ow h in ecen yea s. In 2020, abou 56% o he popula ion was es ima ed o be ood insecu e
mode a ely o se e ely, which showed abou 7 million inc ease compa ed o 2016 (FAO e al., 2021).
Recu en d ough s and o he shocks ha e le many people wi h ch onic ood insecu i y and humani a -
ian aid dependency. Humani a ian assis ance o en ails o li households ou o he po e y ap, e en
when i helps sa e li es (B
en
e e al., 2012).
Food secu i y in e en ions be o e 2002 we e dependen on eme gency ood aid and had limi a ions
in e ms o sus ainabili y and long- e m impac s. To p o ide p edic able and eliable suppo o ulne able
households in ch onically ood insecu e a eas, he P oduc i e Sa e y Ne P og am (PSNP) was launched in
2005 (Minis y o Ag icul u e and Ru al De elopmen (MOARD), 2010). E hiopia’s PSNP is one o Sub-
Saha an A ica’s la ges social p o ec ion p og ams, wi h abou 8 million bene icia ies, which accoun s o
a ound 10% o he popula ion and co e s mo e han 300 ch onic ood insecu e dis ic s (Desalegn & Ali,
2018). PSNP was success ul in sa ing li es and imp o ing ood secu i y bu ailed o build esilience. Mos
households ha e no been li ed ou o po e y by he p og am (Saba es-Wheele e al., 2021).
E idence om p e ious s udies on he impac s o PSNP in E hiopia a e mixed and di e en . Di e en
s udies ha e demons a ed he posi i e impac o PSNP on imp o ing household ood secu i y (Be hane
e al., 2015; Gilligan e al., 2009; Hailu & Ama e, 2022; Tadesse & Geb emedhin Zeleke, 2022); child en’s nu i-
ional s a us (Debela e al., 2015; Po e & Goyal, 2016); and asse accumula ion (Bo ga & D’Amb osio, 2021;
Wel eji e al., 2017). In con as o hese indings, o he s udies ha e no ound signi ican e ec o pa icipa-
ion in he PSNP on household ood secu i y (Bah u e al., 2020; Be lie, 2014; Geb ehiwo & Cas illa, 2019);
child nu i ional s a us (Bah u e al., 2020; Be hane e al., 2017; Geb ehiwo & Cas illa, 2019); asse accumula-
ion (Gilligan e al., 2009); li es ock holdings (Ande sson e al., 2011); ag icul u al inpu use and echnology
adop ion (Bah u & Zelle , 2022; Hoddino e al., 2012); and non- a m income (Weldegeb iel & P owse, 2013).
Mos exis ing s udies ha e ocused solely on bene icia y households, neglec ing he examina ion o
g adua ed households. Mo eo e , mos impac e alua ions done on PSNP only made compa isons
among cu en bene icia y and non-bene icia y households, whe eas e idence on g adua ed households
cu en ood secu i y s a us was no in es iga ed. The s udy by De e eux & Ul ichs (2015) and Saba es-
Wheele e al. (2021) ound ha he e was p ema u e g adua ion in PSNP which esul ed due o he pol-
i ical emphasis on high g adua ion numbe s as he p og am success. Consequen ly, households we e
o en g adua ed ou o he p og am based on quo as a he han ac ual po e y alle ia ion. In addi ion,
Saba es-Wheele e al. (2012) also indica ed ha many g adua ed households complained ha hey
g adua ed ea ly and had no con idence no needing he PSNP bene i in he u u e. Howe e , he s ud-
ies done on g adua ed households a e quali a i e s udies on s akeholde s and g adua es’pe cep ions
on PSNP g adua ion which did no add ess hei household ood secu i y s a us and associa ed ac o s.
Mo eo e , i is no well known whe he g adua ed household ha e be e ood secu i y s a us han bo h
bene icia ies and non-bene icia ies o no . Hence, his s udy was conduc ed o answe he ollowing
esea ch ques ions: Is he e a signi ican di e ence in household ood secu i y among PSNP bene icia ies,
g adua es, and non-bene icia ies? A e he de e minan s o household ood secu i y di e en among
PSNP bene icia ies, g adua es and non-bene icia ies? The e o e, his s udy aimed o compa e he ex en
and de e minan s o household ood secu i y among PSNP cu en bene icia ies, g adua es, and non-
bene icia y households. This s udy con ibu es o he exis ing li e a u e on ood secu i y in e en ions,
speci ically PSNP in E hiopia by explo ing he di e ences in ood secu i y ou comes and de e minan s
among bene icia y, g adua ed, and non-bene icia y households. Compa ing g adua ed households o
cu en bene icia ies and non-bene icia ies p o ides insigh s on he PSNP long- e m e ec s. This s udy
helps policymake s and p ac i ione s o make in o med decisions on p og am modi ica ions such as on
2 Y. MERKEB ET AL.
a ge ing, g adua ion, and amoun o ans e ; and esou ce alloca ion o a ge in e en ions e ec i ely
ha add ess po en ial dispa i ies among di e en g oups.
2. Ma e ials and me hods
2.1. Desc ip ion o s udy a ea
The s udy was conduc ed in Enebesie Sa Medi dis ic , Amha a egion, No hwes e n E hiopia (Figu e 1).
The dis ic is loca ed be ween 10390N o11
60N la i ude and 38150E o38
330E longi ude, and i s al i-
ude a ies om 950 o 3660 me e s abo e sea le el. I is one o he 64 ood insecu e and PSNP a ge ed dis-
ic s in Amha a egion whe e he PSNP has been implemen ed since he incep ion o he p og am in 2005.
In he dis ic , he e a e 37 kebeles, o which 25 kebeles a e ch onically ood insecu e and PSNP a ge ed.
The o al popula ion o he dis ic is abou 188,533. The annual ain all anges om 900 o 1200 mm, and
he mean mon hly empe a u e a ies om 10 o 22C. Ha ico bean, so ghum, e , whea , bean, maize,
and peas a e he majo c ops in he dis ic (Enebise Sa Medi Dis ic Ag icul u e O ice (ESMDAO), 2022).
The dis ic sha es h ee di e en li elihood zones, which a e Abay Beshilo Ri e Basin (ABB) (16 kebeles),
Sou hwes ‘Woina Dega’Whea (SWW) (12 kebeles) and Cen al Highland Ba ely and Po a o (CBP) (5
kebeles). The majo shocks which a ec c op and li es ock p oduc ion a e epea ed occu ence o d ough ,
c op pes s and li es ock diseases (Minis y o Ag icul u e and Ru al De elopmen (MOARD) & USAID, 2009).
2.2. Sampling p ocedu e and sample size
Mul is age sampling was used o selec ep esen a i e sample households, aking in o accoun possible
sou ces o he e ogenei y. In he i s s age, Enebesie Sa Medi dis ic was pu posi ely selec ed based on
he condi ion o ood insecu i y and he p esence o PSNP in e en ion since he p og am’s incep ion in
2005. In he second s age, he PSNP a ge ed kebeles we e s a i ied based on he exis ing li elihood zone
(LZ) classi ica ion (Abay Beshilo Ri e Basin, Sou hwes ‘woina dega’Whea , and Cen al Highland Ba ely
and Po a o) o cap u e hei he e ogenei y, which a e delinea ed aking in o accoun popula ion densi y,
ain all pa e ns, al i ude, ma ke dynamics, and dominan li elihood ac i i ies (Minis y o Ag icul u e and
Ru al De elopmen (MOARD) & USAID, 2009). Fo ins ance, he Abay Beshilo Ri e basin LZ is cha ac e ized
by lowland geog aphy, less han 900 mm annual ain all, spa se popula ion, c ops like so ghum and e ,
Figu e 1. Loca ion map o he s udy a ea.
COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 3
ma ke challenges, and e a ic ain all. The Sou hwes ‘woina dega’Whea LZ ea u es midland ag oecol-
ogy, cul i a ing e , whea , and maize, wi h 900 o 1200 mm annual ain all and good ma ke access. The
Cen al Highland Ba ley and Po a o LZ dis inguished by i s highland ag oecology, dense popula ion, ba ley
and po a o cul i a ion, 1200 o 1400 mm annual ain all, and limi ed ma ke access.
In he hi d s age, a o al o i e kebeles ( illages) we e andomly selec ed o ep esen he li elihood
zones in he dis ic , aking in o accoun he p opo ionali y o each s a um. In he ou h s age, he
sample bene icia y, g adua es and non-bene icia y households we e selec ed using a sampling ame o
each PSNP a ge kebeles ( illages). The selec ion o bene icia ies and g adua ed households is imple-
men ed based on he PSNP P og am Implemen a ion Manual (Minis y o Ag icul u e (MOA), 2014). The
PSNP p og am has a ask o ce called he Communi y Food Secu i y Task Fo ce (CFSTF), which is
esponsible o iden i ying he bene icia ies and g adua e households. The basic PSNP bene icia y eligi-
bili y c i e ia is being ch onically ood insecu e household who ha e aced con inuous ood sho ages
(3 mon hs o ood gap o mo e pe yea ) in he las 3 yea s. Due o he limi ed quo a o each kebele
( illage), all eligible households do no pa icipa e in he p og am. The e o e, he CFSTF made eligible
households’weal h anking based on he household asse s a us such as land holding, quali y o land,
li es ock holding, ood s ock, labo a ailabili y and income om ag icul u al and non-ag icul u al ac i -
i ies. The poo es households a e selec ed as bene icia ies conside ing he quo a alloca ed o each
kebele. Then, he PSNP bene icia ies g adua e when hey mee he c i e ia o achie ing household ood
sel -su iciency wi hou ex e nal suppo . In he dis ic , he benchma k o g adua ion is eaching an
asse alue o mo e han 9,000 Bi pe capi a. Non-bene icia y households a e hose households which
nei he pa icipa ed no g adua ed om PSNP. The lis s and espec i e numbe s o bene icia ies, g adu-
a es, and non-bene icia ies in each kebele we e ob ained om he Enebesie Sa Medi Dis ic
Ag icul u e O ice which was used as a sampling ame o his s udy. The sample bene icia y, g adua e
and non-bene icia y households we e selec ed in consul a ion wi h he Enebesie Sa Medi Dis ic
Ag icul u e O ice and PSNP expe s. Finally, P obabili y P opo ional o Size (PPS) ollowed by simple
andom sampling p ocedu e was used o d aw 396 ep esen a i e sample households om each s a-
um and g oup. The sample size was de e mined using he Yamane sampling o mula (Yamane, 1967)
as ollows:
n¼N
1þNe
ðÞ
2¼17992
1þ17992 0:05
ðÞ
2¼396
whe e n is o al sample size, N is he o al numbe o households in PSNP kebeles (17992) and e is he
ma gin o e o (5%).
2.3. Me hods o da a collec ion
S uc u ed ques ionnai e and key in o man s’in e iews (KII) we e used o collec p ima y da a. The
ques ionnai e was p epa ed and encoded in o Kobo oolbox which is a da a collec ion so wa e. Fi e
enume a o s and one supe iso we e ained abou he ques ionnai e con en and how o use he
Kobo oolbox. P e- es was ca ied ou in non-sampled households o check he consis ency and ele-
ance o he con en s o he ques ionnai e. The ques ionnai e was e ised based on he p e- es eed-
back. The ac ual da a collec ion was conduc ed using Kobo collec mobile applica ion om Janua y o
Feb ua y 2023. Du ing he da a collec ion, he collec ed da a we e checked daily on he Kobo oolbox
online se e . The ques ionnai e co e s a wide ange o a iables which includes sociodemog aphic cha -
ac e is ics, ag icul u e and non-ag icul u e ela ed issues, ood secu i y, shocks, PSNP ela ed issues, and
access o in as uc u e. Seconda y da a collec ed by e iewing a ious a icles, books, go e nmen pol-
icy and s a egy documen s and epo s.
2.4. Me hod o da a analysis
Desc ip i e s a is ics, c oss abula ion and ANOVA used o analyse he cha ac e is ics o households and
compa e he ex en o explana o y a iables among bene icia y, g adua ed and non-bene icia y house-
holds. Household ood secu i y was measu ed using Food Insecu i y Expe ience Scale (FIES) and
4 Y. MERKEB ET AL.
Household Hunge Sco e (HHS). FIES is an expe ience-based me ic o household ood secu i y de el-
oped by FAO (Wambogo e al., 2018). HHS is he mos sui able measu e o moni o ing and e alua ing
he impac o an i-hunge policies and p og ammes in a eas wi h ch onic ood insecu i y, including
hose unded by a pa icula dono ac oss a ious coun ies and cul u es (Balla d e al., 2011).
2.4.1. Theo e ical model
The Ag icul u al Household U ili y Model de eloped by Singh e al. (1986) was used o compa e house-
hold ood secu i y s a us and i s de e minan s in de eloping coun ies. I is he mos widely used model
o analyse u al household decision making and de e minan s o household ood secu i y (Feleke e al.,
2005; Yo o and Gnedeka, 2023). The model assumes ha households a e bo h p oduce s and consum-
e s. Households seek o maximize hei u ili y (in his case, household ood secu i y (HFS)) subjec o
a ious cons ain s ha include PSNP pa icipa ion (P), weal h (W), landholding (L), shocks (S) and o he
household cha ac e is ics (Z
i
) and w i en as ollows.
HFS ¼FP,W,L,S,Z
i
ðÞ
Gi en hese cons ain s, households make a ional decisions o achie e hei HFS h ough hei pa ici-
pa ion in he PSNP in e en ion. Households’consump ion choices would a y among PSNP bene icia-
ies, g adua es, and non-bene icia ies depending on hei esou ces and cons ain s. Acco ding o he
PSNP asse -based a ge ing c i e ia, he poo es households a e selec ed as bene icia ies. Non-bene icia-
ies a e be e o han bene icia ies in e ms o household asse s and income om ag icul u al and non-
ag icul u al ac i i ies. Hence, bene icia ies a e expec ed o ha e lowe household ood secu i y s a us
han non-bene icia ies. PSNP p o ides suppo o bene icia ies un il hey g adua e o imp o e hei
household asse s and income o achie e household ood secu i y a e g adua ion. G adua ed house-
holds a e he e o e expec ed o achie e he same o be e household ood secu i y s a us (HFS) han
non-bene icia ies. Non-bene icia ies a e used as a e e ence g oup o compa e he household ood secu -
i y s a us o bene icia ies and g adua ed households. The e o e, i is pa icula ly impo an o unde s and
how households in each g oup (bene icia y, g adua ed and non-bene icia y) achie e hei HFS based on
hei consump ion choices and cons ain s. Hence, his s udy analysed HFS s a us and associa ed ac o s
o each g oup o p o ide conc e e in o ma ion o policy make s o design in e en ions ha a ge
HFS o each g oup.
2.4.2. Econome ic model
To analyse de e minan s o household ood secu i y in bene icia y, g adua ed and non-bene icia y
households, bina y p obi model was used. The dependen a iable was household ood secu i y which
was measu ed using FIES. Following he FIES esul , he se e ely and mode a ely ood insecu e ca ego-
ies we e ecoded as ood insecu e, while he o he was ecoded as ood secu e due o insu iciency o
he obse a ions o eg ession analysis in he se e ely and mode a ely ood insecu e ca ego ies.
The e o e, he HFS o he bene icia y, g adua e and non-bene icia y households was measu ed as a
dummy a iable (1 i ood secu e and 0 i ood insecu e). As a esul , his s udy used bina y p obi model
o answe he esea ch ques ion: a e he de e minan s o household ood secu i y di e en among PSNP
bene icia ies, g adua es, and non-bene icia ies? The e o e, a o al o h ee bina y p obi models (one
model o each g oup) we e un o iden i y s a is ically signi ican ac o s a ec ing HFS o bene icia ies,
g adua es, and non-bene icia ies. The ma hema ical model o he bina y p obi model is speci ied as ol-
lows.
Y
i¼Xibþliwhe e Yi¼1i Y
i>0
0i Y
i0
Whe e:
Y
i
and Y
ideno e HFS o bene icia ies, g adua es, and non-bene icia ies and la en a iable,
X
i
a e explana o y a iables ha a ec HFS o each g oup and
liis he e o e m.
COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 5
Fi s , bi a ia e analysis was pe o med a 25% signi icance le el (Bendel & A i i, 1977) o selec
explana o y a iables o he mul i a iable analysis o he bina y p obi model. Household head sex, edu-
ca ion, a m ype, use o imp o ed seed, and numbe o ainings we e ound insigni ican in bi a ia e
analysis o he h ee g oups. A e es ima ing he bina y p obi model, he Hosme -Lemeshow goodness
o i es was conduc ed o check he model’s i ness o each g oup. The es esul con i med ha he
model is well i ed o explain he ela ionship be ween he dependen and explana o y a iables.
Ma ginal e ec s we e p edic ed o each explana o y a iable which we e used o in e p e s a is ically
signi ican a iables.
2.4.3. Desc ip ion and hypo hesis o a iables
This s udy was used composi e explana o y a iables such weal h s a us, dependency a io, and li es ock
size (Table 1). The weal h s a us o sample households was de e mined using weal h index de eloped
by Wo ld Food P og amme (WFP) (2009). The weal h index was compu ed using p incipal componen
analysis. Then, he weal h index was ca ego ized in o quin iles, which a e assigned as poo es (1s quan-
ile), poo (2nd quan ile), medium (3 d quan ile), ich (4 h quan ile) and iches (5 h quan ile). Due o
insu icien numbe o obse a ions in each ca ego y, his s udy ca ego ized household weal h s a us as
poo (by me ging he poo es and poo ), and ich (me ging he middle, ich, and iches ). Simila ly, p e-
ious s udies also ca ego ized quan iles in o ich and poo (Wo kie & Tes aw, 2021). The weal h index is
no an absolu e measu e o weal h, a he i is a ela i e measu e. Dependency a io is calcula ed by
di iding he numbe o non-wo king age (<15&>64) membe s o he household wi h wo king age (15-
64) membe s. The numbe o li es ock owned by he household was con e ed in o opical li es ock
uni (TLU) using he con e sion ac o s o S o ck e al. (1991).
3. Resul s and discussion
3.1. Desc ip i e cha ac e is ics o sample households
The mean household size, land size and li es ock (TLU) a e highes in g adua ed households whe eas
c op di e si ica ion, amoun o chemical e ilize s, a e highes in non-bene icia y households. The mean
numbe o li es ock owned by g adua ed households is 2.85 TLU, while he non-bene icia y and bene i-
cia y households had 2.63 and 1.2 TLU, espec i ely. The F- es esul showed ha he mean di e ence
ac oss bene icia y, g adua ed and non-bene icia y households in household size, land size, li es ock and
c op di e si ica ion we e signi ican a less han 1% p obabili y le el. G adua ed households had highes
mean household size in adul equi alence (3.95), ollowed by non-bene icia ies (3.55) and bene icia ies
(2.93). The a e age numbe o yea s g adua ed households bene i ed om PSNP we e 6.42 which is
highe han bene icia y households (4.95) (Table 2).
Table 1. Desc ip ion and hypo hesis o explana o y a iables.
Va iables Desc ip ion and measu emen Hypo hesis
Dependen Va iable
Household ood secu i y 1 ¼Food secu e; 0 ¼Food insecu e
Independen a iables
Li elihood zone 0¼Abay Beshilo; 1 ¼Sou hwes 2 ¼Cen al highland þ
Household head Ma i al s a us 1¼ma ied; 0¼single þ
C edi use Household ecei ed c edi (1¼yes; 0¼no) þ
Weal h S a us 1¼ ich; 0¼poo þ
D ough 1¼yes; 0¼no –
Household size Numbe o amily membe s in adul equi alence –
Land size Cul i a ed land size in hec a e þ
Dependency a io Ra io o non-wo king age (<15&>64) o wo king age (15-64) membe s –
Amoun o Fe ilize Amoun o chemical e ilize used in kg þ
C op di e si ica ion Numbe o c op a ie ies p oduced by a household þ
Li es ock owne ship To al li es ock owned by he household in TLU þ
Numbe o Yea s bene i ed om PSNP Numbe o Yea s bene i ed om PSNP þ
Numbe o clinic isi s Numbe o clinic isi s by household head –
Sou ce: Own su ey da a (2023).
6 Y. MERKEB ET AL.
The chi-squa e es esul demons a ed ha ma i al s a us and c edi usage had s a is ically signi i-
can associa ion wi h he h ee g oups a a p obabili y le el less han 1% (Table 3). Majo i y o he sam-
ple esponden s we e ma ied household heads in he g adua ed (75%) and non-bene icia y (66.2%).
G adua ed households had highes pe cen age o c edi use (34.8%). Whe eas 24.6% o bene icia ies and
17.7% o non-bene icia ies we e ecei ed c edi . The e is no signi ican di e ence in expe iencing
d ough among bene icia y, g adua e and non-bene icia y.
3.2. Food secu i y s a us and PSNP pa icipa ion
The F- es esul showed ha he mean di e ence in aw sco es o FIES and HHS be ween bene icia y, g adu-
a e, and non-bene icia y households was s a is ically signi ican a he 1% le el o signi icance (Table 4). I
should be no ed ha highe mean aw sco es indica e highe ood insecu i y s a us. The mean aw sco es o
FIES and HHS in bene icia y households we e 4.45 and 1.17 espec i ely. Bene icia y households had he
highes aw sco es as compa ed wi h g adua ed and non-bene icia y households. Non-bene icia y house-
holds mean aw sco es we e 2.86 in FIES and 0.92 in HHS which we e highe han g adua ed bu lowe han
bene icia ies. Consis en wi h hese esul s, s udies done by Hailu & Ama e (2022) and Saba es-Wheele e al.
(2021) ound ha he ood gap in bene icia ies we e highe han non-bene icia ies.
As indica ed in Table 4, using FIES g adua ed households ha e he highes pe cen age o ood-secu e
households a 67.4%, ollowed by non-bene icia y households a 61.5% and bene icia y households a
34.3%. Simila esul s we e ound using HHS wi h he highes p opo ion o households wi h no hunge
Table 2. Summa y s a is ics o con inuous a iables by PSNP pa icipa ion.
Con inuous a iables
Bene icia y G adua ed Non-bene icia y
F- alueMean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Household size 2.93 1.43 3.95 1.40 3.55 1.28 18.67
Dependency a io 0.46 0.50 0.33 0.41 0.46 0.51 3.16
Land size 0.63 0.41 0.87 0.44 0.79 0.59 8.79
Li es ock 1.20 1.41 2.85 1.48 2.63 2.01 32.15
C op di e si ica ion 2.53 1.17 2.85 1.02 2.92 0.92 5.17
Amoun o chemical e ilize 107.57 101.85 150.76 120.59 160.17 130.55 7.48
Numbe o Yea s bene i ed 4.95 2.10 6.42 3.73 NA NA 15.10
Numbe o clinic isi s 1.27 2.12 1.48 2.14 0.82 2.15 3.29
, indica e signi ican a <1% and 5% p obabili y le els, espec i ely; NA - no applicable.
Sou ce: Own su ey da a (2023).
Table 3. Desc ip i e esul s o ca ego ical a iables by PSNP pa icipa ion.
Va iables Ca ego ies
Bene icia y G adua ed Non-bene icia y
X
2
- alueN % F eq % F eq %
Ma i al s a us Single 29 21.6 14 10.6 28 21.5 52.785
Ma ied 52 38.8 99 75 86 66.2
Di o ced 51 38.1 16 12.1 16 12.3
C edi use Yes 33 24.6 46 34.8 23 17.7 10.216
Weal h s a us Rich 83 61.9 68 51.5 87 66.9 6.770
D ough Yes 102 76.1 97 73.5 102 78.5 0.891
Li elihood zone Abay basin 53 39.6 55 41.7 59 45.4 10.242
Sou hwes whea 58 43.3 49 37.1 61 46.9
Cen al highland 23 17.2 28 21.2 10 7.7
, indica e signi ican a <1% and 5% p obabili y le els, espec i ely.
Sou ce: Own su ey da a (2023).
Table 4. Compa ison in ood secu i y s a us among bene icia y, g adua ed and non-bene icia y households using FIES and HHS.
Va iables
Bene icia y G adua ed Non-bene icia y
F- alueDesc ip ion Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Mean(SD)
FIES aw sco e Coun o i ems wi h yes (0-8) 4.45(3.05) 2.27(2.53) 2.86(3.46) 18.434
HHS aw sco e Coun o i ems wi h yes (0-6) 1.17(1.34) 0.40(0.84) 0.92(1.38) 13.99
Ca ego ies %(N) %(N) %(N) X
2
- alue
FIES Food secu e 34.3% (46) 67.4% (89) 61.5% (80) 54.009
Mode a ely Food insecu e 29.1(39) 25.8% (34) 10% (13)
Se e ely Food insecu e 36.6% (49) 6.8% (9) 28.5% (37)
HHS No hunge 62.7% (84) 90.9% (120) 72.3% (94) 29.474
Mode a e &Se e e hunge 37.3% (50) 9.1% (12) 27.7% (36)
, indica es signi ican a <1% and 5% p obabili y le els, espec i ely.
COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 7
Kuma, B., & Ga a, G. (2023). Fac o s a ec ing ood p ice in la ion in E hiopia: An au o eg essi e dis ibu ed lag
app oach. Jou nal o Ag icul u e and Food Resea ch,12, 100548. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ja .2023.100548
Mekonnen, A., Tessema, A., Ganewo, Z., & Haile, A. (2021). Clima e change impac s on household ood secu i y and
a me s adap a ion s a egies. Jou nal o Ag icul u e and Food Resea ch,6, 100197. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ja .
2021.100197
Melke o, T., Schmid , M., Bona i, M., Siebe , S., M€
ulle , K., & Lana, M. (2021). De e minan s o pas o al household
esilience o ood insecu i y in A a egion, no heas E hiopia. Jou nal o A id En i onmen s,188(Ma ch), 104454.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ja iden .2021.104454
Minis y o Ag icul u e (MOA). (2014). P oduc i e sa e y ne p og amme phase IV. P og amme Implemen a ion
Manual (PIM),Vol. Ve sion 1, 1–179.
Minis y o Ag icul u e and Ru al De elopmen (MOARD) & USAID. (2009). An A las o E hiopian Li elihoods: The
Li elihoods In eg a ion Uni
Minis y o Ag icul u e and Ru al De elopmen (MOARD). (2010). P oduc i e sa e y ne p og amme: P og amme imple-
men a ion manual.
Misgina, A. (2014). Ru al household ood secu i y s a us and i s de e minan s: The case o Laelaymychew Wo eda,
Cen al Zone o Tig ai, E hiopia. Jou nal o Ag icul u al Ex ension and Ru al De elopmen ,6(5), 162–167. h ps://doi.
o g/10.5897/JAERD2013.0555
Mo a, A. A., Lacho e, S. T., & Handiso, Y. H. (2019). Assessmen o ood insecu i y and i s de e minan s in he u al
households in Damo Gale Wo eda, Wolai a zone, sou he n E hiopia. Ag icul u e & Food Secu i y,8(1), 1–11.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1186/s40066-019-0254-0
Muche, M., & Tolossa, D. (2022). Compa a i e analysis o housheold ood insecu i y be ween selec ed co ee and
whea g owe s o E hiopia. Cogen Food & Ag icul u e,8(1), 2149134. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/23311932.2022.
2149134
Po e , C., & Goyal, R. (2016). Social p o ec ion o all ages? Impac s o E hiopia’s P oduc i e Sa e y Ne P og am on
child nu i ion. Social Science & Medicine (1982),159,92–99. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.001
Saba es-Wheele , R., Lind, J., Hoddino , J., & Te e a Taye, M. (2021). G adua ion a e 10 yea s o E hiopia’s
P oduc i e Sa e y Ne P og amme: Su i ing bu s ill no h i ing. De elopmen Policy Re iew,39(4), 511–531.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/dp .12515
Saba es-Wheele , R., Muluge a, T., & Gi ma, B. (2012). Assessing enable s and cons aine s o g adua ion: E idence om
he ood secu i y p og amme, E hiopia (FAC Wo king Pape 44). www. u u e-ag icul u es.o g
Sileshi, M., Kadigi, R., Mu abazi, K., & Siebe , S. (2019). Analysis o households’ ulne abili y o ood insecu i y and i s
in luencing ac o s in Eas Ha a ghe, E hiopia. Jou nal o Economic S uc u es,8(1), 1–17. h ps://doi.o g/10.1186/
s40008-019-0174-y
Singh, I., Squi e, L., & S auss, J. (1986). Ag icul u al household models: Ex ensions, applica ions and policy. The Johns
Hopkins Uni e si y P ess.
Sisha, T. A. (2020). Household le el ood insecu i y assessmen : E idence om panel da a, E hiopia. Scien i ic A ican,
7, e00262. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.scia .2019.e00262
S o ck, H., Emana, B., Adnew, B., Bo owiccki, A., & Woldehawa ia , S. (1991). Fa ming sys ems and esou ce economics
in he opics: Fa ming sys em and a m managemen p ac ices o smallholde s in he Ha a ghe Highland ( ol. II).
Wissenscha s e lag Vauk.
Tadesse, T., & Geb emedhin Zeleke, T. (2022). The impac o he p oduc i e sa e y ne p og am (PSNP) on ood
secu i y and asse accumula ion o u al households’: E idence om Gedeo zone, Sou he n E hiopia. Cogen
Economics & Finance,10(1), 1–28. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/23322039.2022.2087285
Te e a, S. A., Tadesse, T. B., & Asma e, W. (2022). P e alence o household ood insecu i y in E hiopia du ing he
COVID-19 pandemic: E idence om panel da a Coping S a egy Index E hiopia Food insecu i y Panel da a.
Scien i ic A ican,16, e01141. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.scia .2022.e01141
Tigis u, S., & Hegena, B. (2022). De e minan s o ood insecu i y in ood aid ecei ing communi ies in E hiopia.
Jou nal o Ag icul u e and Food Resea ch,10, 100391. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ja .2022.100391
To a, T. T., Degaga, D. T., & U allo, A. U. (2021). D ough ulne abili y pe cep ions and ood secu i y s a us o u al
lowland communi ies: An insigh om Sou hwes E hiopia. Cu en Resea ch in En i onmen al Sus ainabili y,3,
100073. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.c sus .2021.100073
UNDP. (2022). E hiopia 2030: A coun y ans o med? Op ions o a nex gene a ion o e o ms (No.2; Wo king Pape
Se ies).
Wambogo, E. A., Gha as, H., Leona d, K. L., & Sahyoun, N. R. (2018). Validi y o he Food insecu i y expe ience scale
o use in sub-saha an A ica and cha ac e is ics o ood-insecu e indi iduals. Cu en De elopmen s in Nu i ion,
2(9), nzy062. h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/cdn/nzy062
Weldegeb iel, Z. B., & P owse, M. (2013). Clima e-change adap a ion in E hiopia: To wha ex en does social p o ec-
ion in luence li elihood di e si ica ion? De elopmen Policy Re iew,31(s2), o35–o56. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/dp .
12038
Wel eji, D., Mohammed, K., & Hussein, K. (2017). The con ibu ion o P oduc i e Sa e y Ne P og am o ood secu i y
o he u al households in he case o Bale Zone, Sou heas E hiopia. Ag icul u e & Food Secu i y,6(1), 1–12.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1186/s40066-017-0126-4
14 Y. MERKEB ET AL.
Woleba, G., Tadiwos, T., Bojago, E., & Senapa hy, M. (2023). Household ood secu i y, de e minan s and coping s a -
egies among small-scale a me s in Kedida Gamela dis ic , Sou he n E hiopia. Jou nal o Ag icul u e and Food
Resea ch,12, 100597. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ja .2023.100597
Wo kie, D. L., & Tes aw, L. M. (2021). Bi a ia e bina y analysis on composi e index o an h opome ic ailu e o
unde - i e child en and household weal h-index. BMC Pedia ics,21(1), 332. h ps://doi.o g/10.1186/s12887-021-
02770-5
Wo ld Food P og amme (WFP). (2009). Comp ehensi e ood secu i y & ulne abili y analysis guidelines.
Yamane, T. (1967). S a is ics: An in oduc o y analysis (2nd ed.). Ha pe and Row.
Yo o, K., & Gnedeka, K. T. (2023). Assess he le el and he de e minan s o household ood secu i y in Togo: The
ood expendi u es app oach. Scien i ic A ican,20, e01685.
Zeleke, G., Teshome, M., & Ayele, L. (2023). Fa me s’li elihood ulne abili y o clima e- ela ed isks in he No h
Wello Zone, no he n E hiopia. En i onmen al and Sus ainabili y Indica o s,17, 100220. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.
indic.2022.100220
COGENT ECONOMICS & FINANCE 15
