Do Market-oriented Engendered Agriculture-health Interventions Affect Household Nutrition Outcomes: Evidence from an Orange-fleshed Sweetpotato Project in Rwanda

Figures & data

Table 1. Distribution of sampled households (counts) by districts and gender of the household head

	Type of participation in the project by district
District	Control	Participant	Spillover	Total
Gakenke	41	84	50	175
Kamonyi	55	19	53	127
Muhanga	67	102	115	284
Rulindo	23	122	93	238
Burera	21	0	1	22
Total	207	327	312	846

Table 2. The effect of the intervention on expected outcome variables of treated and control households

Sub-samples	Treatment/participation type
	Treated (participant)	Not treated (control)
Participant	$\left(a\right)E\left(Y_{1i}/A_i=1\right)=X_{1i}{\beta }_1+{\sigma }_{1\mu }{\lambda }_{1i}$
Nonparticipant	$\left(c\right)E\left(Y_{2i}/A_i=1\right)=X_{1i}{\beta }_2+{\sigma }_{2\mu }{\lambda }_{1i}$	$\left(d\right)E\left(Y_{2i}/A_i=0\right)=X_{2i}{\beta }_2+{\sigma }_{2\mu }{\lambda }_{2i}$

Table 3. Summary statistics of households by gender and project participation

	Nonparticipant			Participant			Spillover			Total
Variables	Male	Female	Diff.	Male	Female	Diff.	Male	Female	Diff.	Male	Female	Diff.
FCS (0,112)	49.81	49.86	0.05	52.43	52.35	−0.08	55.96	52.74	−3.22	52.79	51.99	−0.80
Food insecure (Proportion responding Yes)	0.47	0.58	0.11	0.38	0.40	0.02	0.31	0.52	0.21***	0.39	0.48	0.10**
Head education (Years)	5.19	4.65	−0.55	5.89	4.64	−1.25*	5.93	4.82	−1.11**	5.67	4.71	−0.96***
Household size (count)	5.08	5.66	0.58*	5.03	4.95	−0.08	4.76	4.97	0.21	4.95	5.10	0.15
Member of a group (Proportion responding Yes)	0.36	0.37	0.01	0.93	0.90	−0.02	0.24	0.20	−0.04	0.49	0.53	0.04
Age (years)	42.09	45.24	3.14	45.31	47.28	1.97	43.82	46.79	2.97	43.69	46.68	2.99**
Sweetpotato area (hectares)	0.07	0.15	0.08	0.16	0.07	−0.1	0.08	0.08	−0.01	0.10	0.09	−0.02
Received remittance (Proportion responding Yes)	0.03	0.04	0.01	0.08	0.09	0.01	0.03	0.1	0.06*	0.05	0.08	0.03
Tropical Livestock Unit	0.90	0.84	−0.06	1.16	0.92	−0.24	1.35	0.8	−0.55*	1.14	0.86	−0.28**
Wealth index	6.68	6.72	0.04	6.84	6.81	−0.03	6.66	6.69	0.03	6.72	6.75	0.02
Male adult members (count)	1.55	1.54	−0.01	1.95	1.48	−0.47**	1.67	1.46	−0.21	1.72	1.49	−0.23**
Female adult members (count)	1.44	1.84	0.40**	1.61	1.99	0.38*	1.55	1.84	0.29*	1.53	1.90	0.37***
Distance to group (minutes)	20.65	17.35	−3.3	19.96	21.18	1.22	19.48	21.08	1.61	20.03	20.35	0.33
Number of observations	88	119	207	80	247	327	92	220	312	260	586	846

Source: Authors computation based on survey data. *, **, *** significant at 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively.

Table 4. Comparison of outcomes across the level of formal education of the household head and farm size endowments

	Education of the household head			Farm size
Outcomes	No education	1–8 years	Above 8 years	Less than 0.5 ha	0.5–1.5 ha	Greater than 1.5 ha
FCS	50.17	51.78	58.13	50.99	53.66	58.32
Food insecure	0.53	0.45	0.33	0.52	0.30	0.27
Wealth index	6.61	6.58	7.90	6.58	7.13	7.03
Number of observation (%)	142 (17%)	607 (72%)	97 (11%)	589 (70%)	178 (21%)	79 (9%)

Source: Authors computation based on Rwandan endline Survey, 2014

Table 5. Determinant food consumption score and food insecurity after matching

Models	Food consumption score (Tobit)		Food insecurity (Logit)
Independent variables	Marginal effect	t-statistics	Marginal effect	t-statistics
Treatment (1 = project participant)	2.85*	2.24	−0.30	−1.56
Gender of the household head (Male = 1)	−1.00	−0.89	−0.22	−1.28
Age of the household head (in years)	−0.11*	−2.46	0.01	1.09
Head education (in years)	0.46**	2.91	−0.05*	−1.98
Household size (Number of persons)	0.23	0.86	0.14***	3.31
Member of farmer group (Yes = 1)	0.40	0.38	−0.24	−1.50
Total number of sweetpotato varieties (count)	1.12*	2.23	−0.30***	−3.68
Total area operated by household (hectares)	1.05	1.92	−0.13	−1.33
Involved in informal business (Yes = 1)	3.93*	2.09	−0.70*	−2.23
Involved in self-employment (Yes = 1)	2.04	1.38	−0.31	−1.40
Received remittance (Yes = 1)	4.21	1.86	−0.65	−1.81
Tropical livestock unit (TLU)	2.05***	4.53	−0.48***	−4.47
Kamonyi district (Yes = 1)	1.85	1.08	0.14	0.52
Muhanga district (Yes = 1)	−1.99	−1.38	0.64**	2.91
Rulindo district (Yes = 1)	−1.43	−0.94	0.10	0.44
Burera district (Yes = 1)	−0.38	−0.11	0.82	1.61
Constant term	46.09***	15.80	0.44	0.99
Sigma	13.95***	35.41
N	791		791

Source: Authors computation using the survey data. Robust standard errors are presented in the parenthesis, *, **, *** significant at 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively.

Table 6. Endogenous Switching regression-based average treatment effects on treated and nontreated households

	Model: Food insecurity			Model: Food consumption score
	Decision stages			Decision stages
	Treated	Not treated	ATT (a1i-a2i)	Treated	Not treated	ATT (a3i-ai3)
All participants (n = 639) A	A1 = 0.42	A2 = 0.88	−0.46***	A3 = 53.01	A4 = 28.75	24.26***
Female participant (n = 467)	a11 = 0.45	a21 = 0.93	−0.48***	a31 = 52.53	a41 = 27.66	24.87***
Male participant (n = 172)	a12 = 0.34	a22 = 0.75	−0.41***	a32 = 54.32	a42 = 31.70	22.62***
Heterogeneity (Ai-Bi)	0.11***	0.18***	−0.07***	−1.79***	−4.04***	2.25***
All control (n = 207) CD	B1 = 0.39	B2 = 0.53	−0.14***	B3 = 57.54	B4 = 49.80	7.74***
Female nonparticipant (n = 119)	b11 = 0.42	b21 = 0.58	−0.16***	b31 = 56.43	b41 = 49.81	6.62***
Male nonparticipant (n = 88)	b12 = 0.34	b22 = 0.46	−0.12***	b32 = 59.04	b42 = 49.79	9.25***
Heterogeneity (Ci-Di)	0.08*	0.12***	−0.03	−2.61	0.02	−2.63
Ai-Bi	0.03**	0.35***	−0.31***	−4.52***	−21.05***	16.52***

Source: Authors computation using the survey data. Robust standard errors are presented in the parenthesis, *, **, *** significant at 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively.

Table 7. Result robustness check of the effect of the intervention on food insecurity and food consumption

	Food insecurity			Food consumption score
Model	Female (n = 586)	Male (n = 260)	All (N = 846)	Female (n = 586)	Male (n = 260)	All (N = 846)
OLS	−0.30**	−0.25	−0.25**	3.33*	4.06*	3.54***
PSM	−0.09	−0.12*	−0.08**	4.08**	4.98**	4.98***
IPWAR	−0.04	−0.09	−0.05	3.40**	4.20**	3.71***
AIPW	−0.067	−0.09	−0.06	2.95	4.14**	3.76**