Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T18:59:01.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vulnerability of household consumption to floods and droughts in developing countries: evidence from Pakistan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2014

Takashi Kurosaki
Takashi Kurosaki*
Affiliation:
Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University, 2-1 Naka, Kunitachi, Tokyo 186-8603, Japan. Tel: +81-42-580-8363. Fax: +81-42-580-8333. E-mail: kurosaki@ier.hit-u.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aggregate shocks such as droughts and floods cannot be perfectly insured by risk sharing within a village. Given this inability, what type of households are more vulnerable in terms of a decline in consumption when a village is hit by such shocks and what kind of microeconomic mechanism underlies the household heterogeneity in vulnerability? These questions are investigated using two-period panel data collected in rural Pakistan in 2001 and 2004. We compare consumption response to droughts, floods and health shocks and investigate how the response differs across different types of households. Empirical results show that the impact of droughts was negligible, younger and more landed households were less vulnerable to floods, and households with greater access to formal financial institutions were less vulnerable to idiosyncratic health shocks. The empirical pattern suggests the possibility of risk sharing among households that are heterogeneous in both risk aversion and credit access.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 209 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Cavallo, E. and Noy, I. (2009), ‘The economics of natural disasters: a survey’, IDB Working Paper No. 124, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffman, M. and Noy, I. (2012), ‘Hurricane Iniki: measuring the long-term economic impact of a natural disaster using synthetic control’, Environment and Development Economics 17(2): 187–205.Google Scholar
Deaton, A. (1991), ‘Saving and liquidity constraints’, Econometrica 59(5): 1221–1248.Google Scholar
Deaton, A. and Zaidi, S. (2002), ‘Guidelines for constructing consumption aggregates for welfare analysis’, LSMS Working Paper No. 135, World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
de Janvry, A., Fafchamps, M. and Sadoulet, E. (1991), ‘Peasant household behavior with missing markets: some paradoxes explained’, Economic Journal 101(409): 1400–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dercon, S. (ed.) (2005), Insurance Against Poverty, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dutta, I., Foster, J., and Mishra, A. (2010), ‘On measuring vulnerability to poverty’, IED Discussion Paper No. 194, Institute for Economic Development, Boston University, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Fafchamps, M. (2003), Rural Poverty, Risk and Development, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Glewwe, P. (1991), ‘Investigating the determinants of household welfare in Cote d'Ivoire’, Journal of Development Economics 35(2): 307–337.Google Scholar
Government of Pakistan (various issues), Pakistan Economic Survey, Islamabad: Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan.Google Scholar
Hirashima, S. (2008), ‘The land market in development: a case study of Punjab in Pakistan and India’, Economic and Political Weekly 18 October: 41–47.Google Scholar
Ito, T. and Kurosaki, T. (2009), ‘Weather risk, wages in kind, and the off-farm labor supply of agricultural households in a developing country’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(3): 697–710.Google Scholar
Kurosaki, T. (1998), Risk and Household Behavior in Pakistan's Agriculture, Tokyo: Institute of Developing Economies.Google Scholar
Kurosaki, T. (2001), ‘Consumption smoothing and the structure of risk and time preferences: theory and evidence from village India’, Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics 42(2): 103–117.Google Scholar
Kurosaki, T. (2006), ‘Consumption vulnerability to risk in rural Pakistan’, Journal of Development Studies 42(1): 70–89.Google Scholar
Kurosaki, T. (2013), ‘Dynamics of household assets and income shocks in the long-run process of economic development: the case of rural Pakistan’, Asian Development Review 30(2): 76–109.Google Scholar
Kurosaki, T. and Fafchamps, M. (2002), ‘Insurance market efficiency and crop choices in Pakistan’, Journal of Development Economics 67(2): 419–453.Google Scholar
Ligon, E. and Schechter, L. (2003), ‘Measuring vulnerability’, Economic Journal 113: C95–C102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noy, I. (2009), ‘The macroeconomic consequences of disasters’, Journal of Development Economics 88(2): 221–231.Google Scholar
Perera, J. (2003), Irrigation Development and Agrarian Change: A Study in Sindh, Pakistan, Jaipur: Rawat Publications.Google Scholar
Perrings, C. (2006), ‘Resilience and sustainable development’, Environment and Development Economics 11(4): 417–427.Google Scholar
Sawada, Y. (2007), ‘The impact of natural and manmade disasters on household welfare’, Agricultural Economics 37(s1): 59–73.Google Scholar
Sawada, Y., Bhattacharyay, R., and Kotera, T. (2011), ‘Aggregate impacts of natural and man-made disasters: a quantitative comparison’, RIETI Discussion Paper No. 11-E-023, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Singh, I., Squire, L., and Strauss, J. (1986), Agricultural Household Models: Extensions, Applications, and Policy, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
United Nations (2010), Pakistan Floods Emergency Response Plan, September, New York: United Nations.Google Scholar