Comparative Economic Studies

, Volume 59, Issue 1, pp 107–125 | Cite as

The Impact of Regime Type on Food Consumption in Low Income Countries

Original Article
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

Competing studies use food consumption to measure the impact of political regime on the welfare of the poor. Democracies may outperform autocracies by using growth to hide redistribution, improving caloric consumption and currying favor. Alternatively, autocracies may have greater incentives to lower food prices to quell urban unrest. We test these competing theories using a more detailed, continuous, nuanced measure of food consumption quality – cereal equivalent values. We find evidence to support the second hypothesis, that autocracies outperform democracies at low incomes. For higher incomes, democracies perform significantly better. Segregated by growth, autocracies again outperform democracies at low incomes.

Keywords

food consumption food cost political regime cereal equivalents 

JEL

O200 P51 Q18 

References

  1. Ballard-Rosa, C. 2016: Hungry for change: Urban bias and autocratic sovereign debt. International Organization 70: 313–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellemare, MF. 2011: Rising food prices, food price volatility, and political unrest. Munich Personal RePEc Archive.Google Scholar
  3. Blaydes, L and Kayser, MA. 2011: Counting calories: Democracy and distribution in the developing world. International Studies Quarterly 55: 887–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowman, KS. 2002: Will vote for food? Regime type and equity in the developing world. Politics & Policy 30(4): 736–760.Google Scholar
  5. Capeau, B and Verwimp, P. 2011: Dictatorship in a single export crop economy. Journal of Theoretical Politics 24(2): 210–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cornia, GA. 1994: Poverty, food consumption, and nutrition during the transition to the market economy in Eastern Europe. The American Economic Review 84(2): 297–302.Google Scholar
  7. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), FAOSTAT-Agriculture Database.Google Scholar
  8. Gutner, T. 2002: The political economy of food subsidy reform: The case of Egypt. Food Policy 27(5–6): 456–76.Google Scholar
  9. Ivanova, L, Dimitrov, P, Ovcharova, D, Dellava, J, Hoffman, DJ. 2006: Economic transition and household food consumption: A study of Bulgaria from 1985 to 2002. Economics and Human Biology 4(3): 383–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lagi, M, Bertrand, KZ, Bar-Yam, Y. 2011: The food crises and political instability in North Africa and the middle east. arXiv:1108.2455v1[physics.soc-ph].
  11. Penn World Tables, dataset.Google Scholar
  12. Polity IV Project: Dataset Users’ Manual. http://home.bi.no/a0110709/PolityIV_manual.pdf, pp. 13–15.
  13. Rask, K and Rask, N. 2011: Economic development and food production–consumption balance: A growing global challenge. Food Policy 36(2): 186–196.Google Scholar
  14. Rask, K and Rask, N. 2006: Transition economies and globalization: food system asymmetries on the path to free markets. In: Yotopoulos, PA and Romano, D (eds). The asymmetries of globalization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Rask, K and Rask, N. 2004: Reaching turning points in economic transition: Adjustments to distortions in resource-based consumption of food. Comparative Economic Studies 46: 542–569.Google Scholar
  16. Rask, N. 1991: Dynamics of self-sufficiency and income growth. In: Ruppel, FJ and Kellogg, ED (eds). National and regional self-sufficiency goals: Implications for international agriculture. Lynne Rienner Publishers: Boulder & London.Google Scholar
  17. Thompson, H. 2010: Economic policy under dictatorship: Agricultural and food policy as a tool of authoritarian power-sharing and control. In: Conference papersAmerican political science association, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
  18. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1975a: 10 years of annual livestock product marketing. Economic Research Service: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  19. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1975b: Livestock-feed relationships, national and state. Economic Research Service: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  20. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992: Weights, measures, and conversion factors for agricultural commodities and their products, Agricultural Handbook 697. Economic Research Service: Washington, DC (updated 2013).Google Scholar
  21. World Bank. 2005–2016: World development indicators. World Bank: Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Comparative Economic Studies 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsCollege of the Holy CrossWorcesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development EconomicsThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations