American Journal Of MultidisciplinaryResearch&Review (AJMRR) February-2024

American Journal of Multidisciplinary Research & Review (AJMRR)

Volume-03, Issue-02,
PP-01-10
www.ajmrr.com

Research Paper Open Access

BASIC CAPABILITY AND HOUSEHOLD FOOD

INSECURITY IN CAMEROON: CAPABILITY APPROACH
KOUGBE THEA NADEGE*
Assistant lecturer; University of Ngaoundere, Cameroon.

Abstract :Manyfactors have affected the welfare of householdssuch as environmentalhazards, internal and
external conflits, population growth and price fluctuations which have lead researches to ameliorate the situation
of households. This researchpaperhoweverseeks to investigatethe effect of basic capabilities on household food
insecurity in Cameroon. It uses Democracy and Health Survey (DHS) data collected by the National Institution
of Statistic (INS) of Cameroon in the year 2018 and food insecurity was measured using HDDS FANTA IIItool.
A Multinomial model was used to establish the relationship between basic capabilities and household food
insecurity in Cameroon. Descriptive and regression analysis were used to justify the pertinence of the results. By
means of this measures, results revealed that Household head education level was significant (P<0.001) predictor
of household food insecurity in all the panels. Socioeconomic predictors like wealth index, marital status,
household head sex, numbers of under-five children were significant to food insecurity depending on the
category of food insecurity. The remaining variables place of residence and household size were not significant
p>0.1.

Keywords : Basic capability, householdfoodinsecurity, entitlement, humandevelopmentcapability

I. INTRODUCTION
The world is on the average of a global foodcrisis, with a risingnumber of people experiencinghunger
and foodinsecurityevenbefore the COVID-19 pandemic. The global foodsupplysystems have been
partiallyundermined by acascadingcombination of growingconflicts, economicshocks, climate-relatedshocks and
wideninginequalities. Thesefactskeep the world offtrack in achievingzerohunger by 2030. 828 million people
may have sufferedfromhungerin 2021. That isnearly 1 in 3 weremoderately or severelyfoodinsecurein 2021,
meaningtheylackedregularaccess to adequatefood. The mostworrisomeincreaseswereseen in sub-SaharanAfrica,
followed by Central and SouthernAsia, and Latin America and the Caribbean. Recently, the outbreak of war in
Ukraine causes an additionalthreat to foodinsecurity, with the potential to provoke a surge in levels of hunger
and malnutrition, especiallyamong the poorest and mostvulnerable (SDG, 2022). Cameroon is not exempted of
food insecurity problems.Cameroon socio-economic conditions does not favour its situation, with a high level of
chronic poverty and social indicators remain very low and going poorest. The HDI speaks that approximately
39.9% of its population of 17.9 million live below the poverty line (WFP, 2020; WFP, 2017; WHO, 2012).The
concerted efforts of the entire global communityrecognizehunger and malnutrition as the root causes of poverty,
illiteracy, disease and the mortality of millions in developing countries (MDG, 2009). This state of beingis an
obstacle to human development byinflicting irreversible damage on individuals early in life (WFP, 2010) and
imposing large economic and social losses on countries. It can span generations in the form of hidden hunger, a
life sapping heritage of nutrient deficiency resulting from past practices of eating low-quality foods. The causes
and consequences of malnutrition on a country drawitsattentionon the factors that determinehousehold food
insecurity. Debates on the question of solving food insecurity problem are divergent, guided with specific vision
and approach. Some researchers‟ view the problem under the accessibility aspect, while others look the problem
through socioeconomic conditions.
Main approaches to the analysis of food security through the capability approach
The Entitlement approach to food security
The concept of entitlements was originally outlined by AmartyaSen (1981) in his seminal work, poverty
and famine. He shifts the analytical focus of research on famine from food availability to food accessibility.
Replacing the dominant notion that famine is caused by a decline in the food supply, supported by the

AJMRR Journal Page |1

American Journal Of MultidisciplinaryResearch&Review (AJMRR) February-2024

pessimistic (Malthusian) and optimistic (anti-Malthusian) theories. The pessimistic and optimistic1theories
contentions about the relations between population growth and food security reviewed have been challenged by
Sen (1981) who argues : “People do not frequently starve because of insufficient supply of food at local, national
or international levels, but because of unsatisfactory resources, including money (“entitlements”) to acquire
it”(Dorahet al.(2015)). Sen argues that hunger is a consequence of “entitlement failure,” or the inability to access
food through legal means (whether through the market, barter or government distribution). Entitlement
framework suggests that food insecurity results from a lack of effective demand arising from restricted access,
non-functioning or non-existent institutions and absence of rule of law. The concept highlights how hunger is not
experienced equally at a global, national, regional, community or even household levels. (Rachel, 2005).
Entitlements are defined as “the set of alternative commodity bundles that a person can command in a society by
using the entirety of rights and occasions that he or she faces” (Vogel & smith ,2002;Dorahet al.(2015), Sen,
1984; Leach et al. (1999)).
Somedenunciation argued that entitlement approach emphases intensely on the paradigm of assets and
little attention are accorded to other socio-economic factors. It is very economistic. While Sen had recognized
that migration, social disruption, and disease, are all portions of famine, the entitlement approach makes no room
for these. Instead, it concentrates only on command over food through production and exchange. On several
occasions Sen explicitly excludes from his account non-legal transfers of commodities, such as looting and
brigandage(De waal, 2008).The entitlement approach is valuable for illuminating the links between poverty,
exclusion and hunger. But by focusing almost completely on command over food, it speaks to only one side of
food security problemagree human development/capabilityapproach. Human development /CA approach
transcends command over income and commodities to focus on complementary inputs. Which implies increasing
people‟s capabilities, their freedom to be and do what they value. On the other hand, avoiding malnutrition and
destitution (is about more than food availability or intake) (Sen, 2009;Alkire, 2002).
Humandevelopment and capabilitityapproachtofoodsecurity
People-focused approach to development, is what is called human development.Human development is
a matter of economic and social, public and private and spiritualand political interest (Robeyns, 2002).Human
development approach is structured around two main objectives: first approach to development, in which the
objective is to achieve and sustain high rates of economic growth and a second approach in which the objective
is access to complementary inputs. In the second approach a healthy economy is one which enables people to
have access to complementary inputs such as:healthy life, a good education, a meaningful job, family life, clear
drinkable water, good sanitary conditions, democratic debate, visit one‟s uncle,and so on. In this approach, the
analysis shifts from the economy to the person and currency of assessment shifts from money to the things
people can do and be in their lives, now and in the future. The second approach is person centre. The negative
trends underline by the different approaches, created a need to put human flourishing at the centre of
development objectives.He criticized the focus on incomes as being consequentialist (neglecting how a particular
end was achieved and focusing only on outcomes); and involving physical condition neglect, such that incomes
might be high despite poor living conditions, including ill-health.The objective changes from economic
production and prosperity as the essence of development, now relates to “what life we lead and what we can or
cannot do, can or cannot be” (Senet al.(1987)).In the capabilitiesparadigm, povertyisunderstood as deprivation
of basic capabilities.
For fifteen years, some opponents of the capability approach have complained the absence of direction
to recognise what capabilities are especially valued. To this interrogation, Frances Stewart advocates that the
capabilities approach be strengthened by „„the valuation that priority should be given to achieving basic
capabilities(Stewart, 2019; Alkire, 2002). Which for Martha Nussbaum (2000) the term „basic capabilities‟ refers
to “the innate equipment of individuals necessary for developing the more advanced capabilities”, such as the
capability of speech and language, love, practical reason and work.ContrarytoSen‟s work, basic capabilitiesis
“the ability to satisfy certain elementary and crucially important functionings2up to certain levels” (Robeyns,
2016;Alkire, 2003).The relevance of basic capabilities is “not so much in ranking living standards, but in

1Ester Boserup's theory is known as an optimistic theory, and she based her theorisation on the
following indications: a) If population increases, there is larger workforce and hence more food is
produced; b) If population increases, mechanization occurs; more food is produced as more effective
means of producing high yields of crops using mechanization are devised; and c) If population
increases there will be increase in fertilizers use and more food production for the growing population,
hence more food security (Dorah et al. 2015, Boserup, 1993).
2
Functionings include working, resting, being literate, being healthy, being part of a community, being respected,
well-nourished, , poise, literate, knowledge, a warm friendship,clear drinkable water, being safe, etc, such as
waging a political campaign for election or performing a classical dance routine, and so forth. (Robeyns, 2005)
AJMRR Journal Page |2
American Journal Of MultidisciplinaryResearch&Review (AJMRR) February-2024

deciding on a cut-off point for the purpose of assessing poverty and deprivation” (Sen 1987).People in different
places and times have different values and experiences, the list of the most relevant functioning‟s depends on
circumstances and on the purpose of the exercise (Alkire, 2015;Sen, 1992; Robeyns, 2005; Saith, 2001). Basic
capabilities consist of non-individualist phases of social living that are of the most importance (Robeyns, 2002).
1.2. Objectives of the study.
The purpose of this paper is to identify the basic capabilitydeterminant ofhousehold food insecurity in
Cameroon.
1.3. Problem statement
In Cameroon, 11 per cent of the population are facing acute foodinsecurity. This represents 3 million people
(OHCA, 2023), up from2.8 million in 2022 and 2.6 million people in 2020 (FAFS, 2020). Experts saythese
figures indicate a continuing trend in recentyears. The increase in the reportednumber of acutelyfoodinsecure
people isprimarily due to worseningconflict in Far North, Northwest, and Southwestregions, flooding in parts of
Far North in late 2019. Additionally, the conflict in the Lake Chad Basin hadinternallydisplacedapproximately
297,000 people in Cameroon and forced more than 114,000 Nigerianrefugees to flee to the Far North.
Cameroonalsohostednearly 294,000 refugeesfrom CAR (FAFS, 2020). These crises, coupledwith the effects of
the COVID-19 pandemic, have contributed to foodinsecurity and malnutrition,
mainlyaffectingvulnerablehouseholds. It isobserved over 55 percent of Cameroonians live in poverty. This affect
several aspect of theirlivesfromhealth to education, living conditions and workamongothers. As aresult, 37.7
percent of people are severelyimpoverished (WFP, 2023). In addition Cameroon‟sgeneral inflation remains high,
close to 6.3 percent rate in 2022 according to FEWS NET. The overall high inflation continues to
limithouseholdpurchasing power and access to food, particularlyamong the urbanpoorhouseholds and
thoseaffected by conflict and insecurity(FEWS Net, 2023).Consequently, the limited accesses to food affect 25%
of rural and 12% of urban householdalmost 30% of householdsspend more than 75% of theirexpenditure on
food,althoughthereis a significantgeographical variation (WFP, 2017). While the rest of the world has made
significant progress towards poverty alleviation, Africa, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, Cameroon in
particular continues to lag behind.This study, therefore try to determine the relationship between household head
education level as a basic capability and household food insecurity in Cameroon.

II. Methodology
2.1. An overview of Survey area
This study was conducted in Cameroon. Cameroon is a lower middle-income country with a population
of over 25 million people of 230 ethnics and linguistic groups. It is located along the Atlantic Ocean, it shares its
borders with Chad, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and Nigeria (WB, 2019).
2.2. Data source
The study data were drawn from Demography and Health Survey (DHS) 2018 collected by the National
Institute of Statistics in conjunction with the World Bank. 2018 is the lastest DHS census on Cameroon. DHS are
amongst the best household survey on microeconomic information and depends mainly on household schedules
and questionnaires for women aged 15-49. Women are asked variety of information concerning their household
on topics such as education, gender relationships, sanitation, child health and nutrition, assets, non-tangible
resources, employment status, marital status, residence, religion, culture, health and nutritionand so on.,. DHS
provides relevant indicators for analysing socioeconomic determinants of household food security.
2.3. Dependent variable
The only dependent variable used for this study was Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) castoff
to line Hosusehold food insecurity. According to Swindal and Bilinksy (2006), HDDS is an appropriate indicator
to understand casual relationships amongst structural factors.The HDDS indicator provides a glimpse of a
household‟s ability to access food as well as its socioeconomic status based on the previous 24 hours recalled
period (Michael(2016), Kennedy et al. (2011)). The assessment summaries 16 food groups into 12 food groups,
according to the recommendations set by FAO operational guidelines for measuring dietary diversity in a
standardized way developed by Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA III) tools. The household
score will range from 0 to 12 and classification depends on the total number of food groups consumed by the
household. Due, to the absence of a universal cut-off or target level that indicates that a household is adequate or
inadequate diet diversity (Elliot (2014), Swindal and Bilinksy(2006)), it is recommend to use the mean score for
analytical purposes. Based on the mean score household are rank as follows: severely food insecure equal ≤1,
moderately food insecure equal >1&≤3, mildly foodinsecure equal 3>&≤5 and food secure>5.
2.4. Noneconomic Variable of interest: household head educational level
The independent variable used in the estimation of household food insecurity is education. Precisely
household head educational level. In DHS data, educational participation is captured by asking the respondent
questions concerning education level. Education is usually reported as the highest level of education attended or
completed. It is classified in categories of no education, primary, secondary and university levels. As mentioned

AJMRR Journal Page |3

American Journal Of MultidisciplinaryResearch&Review (AJMRR) February-2024

in section 1.1 Education is central to human flourishing. This is because, it does not only open the mind to
further horizons, it also opens the way to acquire other valuable capabilities.
2.5. Control variables
Control variables used in this study were carefully chosen based on literature reviews ofMelese and
Alemu (2021); (Alpízaret al. (2020); Akbar et al. (2020); Kara and Kithu (2020); Maia et al. (2019); Amrullahet
al. (2019); Smith et al.(2017); Zartazaviet al. (2017); Akinboade et al. (2016);Birhanelet al. (2014); Bogale
(2012); Haile et al. (2005); Donald et al.(1988);and statistical significance. Five control variables were used. It
consists of sex of household head (female, male), place of residence (rural, urban), marital status (married,
otherwise), household size (small ≤ 5, Medium >5 and <=10, Lager>10 and ≤15, Very large>15), number of
under-five children (Small <=2; medium>2 and ≤4; large>4).
2.6. Statistical analysis
The statistical analysis contains two stages. First, summary statistics of the dependent variable, the
independent variable and control variables were produced. Second, multinomial analysis was performed. A
multinomial logistic regression model is used for the dependent variable (household food insecurity) is a nominal
respond variable with more than two categories. The odds in multinomial analysis compares any category with
the reference category or baseline category. It is treated as a combination of a series of binary logistic regression
models with a particular category =1 and the base category =0. The multinomial regression statistical analysis
was elaborated as follows:
Specification of the model
In the multinomial logistic regression, the dependent variable is multinomial and ordered in nature. In
this case, the ordinary regression analysis is based on a latent regression of ordinal scales, where there is a clear
ordering between the categories of the dependent variable. The unconditional dependent variable (level of food
insecurity) takes the values (0, 1, 2, : : : , j) for some recognised integer J. In addition, it is a function of a set of
explanatory variables. The latent regression of the level of food insecurity Yi is expressed as Cordero-Ahimanet
al. (2020)
Y𝑖 ∗= 𝑥𝑖𝛽 + ɛ𝑖
where Yi* is the latent unobservable variable that has more than two classified categories and signifies the level
of FI observed in the home i, Xi is the matrix of a set of explanatory variables that determine the choice made by
the household i, β is the vector of parameters to be projected and ɛi is a random error term dispersed identically
and independently.
In the multinomial logistic regression, the ordinal variable Yi is a function of another variable Yi*, according to
household choice i between the alternatives (0, 1, 2, : : : , j) and in relation to several threshold points µ𝑗 (µ =
0
−∞𝑦µ𝑗 = ∞), as demonstrated in the following formulas

The FI variable is divided into four categories of increasing order and is coded as: 0 = foodsecurity, 1 = mild
food insecurity, 2 = moderate food insecurity, and 3 = severe food insecurity. The logistic distribution function
of the model is considered by Moon. In this case, the probability of a response for a given household (i)
according to the number of categories (j) is expressed as:

The vector of the model parameters was estimated by MLE (multinomial logistic equation). The categorical
dependent variable(FI levels), measured by the HDDS score, is analysed based on observable exogenous
variables. The αj parameters, called thresholds or breakpoints, are in increasing order (α1 < α2 < : : :). Their
number is j = 1, 2, : : : , j - 1, where j is the number of categories of the ordinal variable In this research, j = 4.

III. Results
3.1. Descriptive statistic of socio-economic conditions of Households
Descriptive statistics of the dependent variable
Table 1: Household food insecurity
Variable Modalities Effective Distribution (%)
Food insecurity Severely food insecure 429 22.69
(FI) Moderately food insecure 643 34.00
Mildly food insecure 277 14.65

AJMRR Journal Page |4

American Journal Of MultidisciplinaryResearch&Review (AJMRR) February-2024

Food secure 542 28.66

Total 1891 100
(Source: my own analysis from DHS 2018 data)
The household food insecurity on table 1 above shows that 22.69% of the population of Cameroon was severely
food insecure.This implies that these households take zero or one food group per day. 33% of the population was
moderately food insecure that is they can afford 3 food groups daily. The remaining 14.65% and 28.66%
formildly food insecure and food secure respectively are considered food secure. Because they consume between
four and above food groups per day.
Descriptive statistics: explanatory variable
The independent variables is a non-economic variable that is education. Precisely household head educational
level. It is classified in categories of no education, primary, secondary and university level. As mentioned in
section 2.4 Education is central to human flourishing, it‟s enlarges people capabilities. Descriptive statistic are
measured on the frequency and proportion of variables.
Table2: Descriptive statics of household head education level
Independent variables Measures Frequency Proportions %

No education 475 25.12

Primary 759 40.14
Education level Secondary 600 31.73
University 57 3.01
Total 1891 100
Source: my own analysis from DHS 2018 data
Table 2 contains the explanatory variable used in the analysis. The number of valid observations in our mode is
1,891 households distributed amongst the four categories of household head educational level. The percentage
column list the proportion of valid observations found in each of the response variable groups. 25.12 percent of
valid case had no educational level, 40.14 percent had a primary school level, 31.73 percent and 3.01 percent had
secondary and university educational level, correspondingly.
Control variables - Other variables influencing food insecurity
To better understand the true effects of non-economic variables on food insecurity, it is necessary to control
other factors that are also probable to influence food insecurity. These factors are hold constant to gauge the
relative effect of the education given other relevant factors.

Table3: Descriptive statistics of Control variables

Variables Categories Frequency Proportion (%)

Marital status Married 1770 93.6
other 121 6.4
Household head sex Male 1595 84.3
Female 296 15.7
Residence Urban 723 38.2
Rural 1168 61.8
Household size Small 681 36.0
Medium 891 47.1
Large 222 11.1
Very large 97 5.1
Household N° under five Small 530 28.0
children Medium 1255 66.4
Large 106 5.6
Wealth Index (WI) Poorer 385 20.4
Poor 378 20.0
Mild 373 19.7
Rich 402 21.3
Richer 353 18.17
Total 1891 100

Table 3 presents the distribution of Cameroonians households based on selected socio-economic and
demographiccharacteristics. The household characters examined include: marital status, gender of household
head, household size, and number of under-five children, wealth index and geographic location of the
households. Most of the household were married 93.6 percent and 6.4 percent otherwise. These household are

AJMRR Journal Page |5

American Journal Of MultidisciplinaryResearch&Review (AJMRR) February-2024

headed by male 84.3 percent with the great proportion living in rural areas 61.8 percent while the remaining 38.2
percent are in urban areas. Over one-quarters of households is composed of small size (≤5) 36.0 percent while
almost half belong to medium size (≤10) 47.1 percent. With a great majority of these households having children
with a medium number of age below five (≤ 4) 66.4 percent and 28.0 percent had a small number (≤2), this
implies that majority of the households are young generation with high birth rate.A great proportion of these
households were poor with 20.4 percent living under severe poverty conditions and 20 percent are poor. With
19.7 percent of household were rank under the middle category and the remaining percent for the rich and richer.
Table 4 Regression analysis
Variable b(se(b)) OR
Model 1 : severely food insecure
Household head Educationallevel
Primary -0.979 (-4.95)*** 0.375 (-4.947)***
Secondary -1.455 (-6.72)**** 0.233 (-6.718)***
Higher -1.107(-2.84)*** 0.331(-2.845)***
ᾳ1 -0.443 (-1.000)
Wealth index
Rich -0.507 (-2.12)** 0.603 (-2.119)**
richer -0.599(-2.29)** 0.549 (-2.293)**
Marital status
Married 1.214(3.85)*** 3.367 (3.847)***
Under five children
Medium 0.350(2.10)** 1.419 (2.02)**
Large 1.516 (3.55)*** 4.558 (3.546)***
Household size
Very large -0.972 (-2.27) 0.378 (-2.273)**
Household head Sex
Female 0.442 (0.441)** 1.529 (2.232)**
Model 2: moderate food insecure
Household head Educationallevel
Primary -1.030(-5.60)*** 0.375 (-5.602)***
Secondary -1.492(-7.49)*** 0.225 (-7.488)***
Higher -1.757(-4.18)*** 0.172 (-4.181)***
ᾳ2 0.854 (2.30)**
Wealth index
Mild -0.501 (-2.40)** 0.606 (-2.400)**
Rich -1.074 (-4.87)*** 0.342 (-4.871)***
richer -0.894(-3.77)*** 0.409 (-3.770)***
Marital status
Married 0.698(2.85)*** 2.010 (2.871)**
Household head sex
Female 0.322(1.82)** 1.381 (1.824)*
Model 3: mild food insecure
Household head Educationallevel
Primary -0.901(-4.13)*** 0.406 (-4.128)***
Secondary -1.212(-5.07)*** 0.298 (-5.699)***
Higher -1.451(-2.85)*** 0.234 (-2.848)***
ᾳ2 0.477(0.456)
Wealth index
Mild -0.419(-1.65)* 0.657 (1.649)*
Rich -0.935 (-3.44)*** 0.392 (-3.441)***
richer -0.926(-3.13)*** 0.396 (-3.132)***
Household size
Very large -0.977(-1.94)* 0.376 (-1.682)*
Observation 1,891
LR R2 0.0499
Log Likelihood -2413.154
LR X2( ) 252.39
Note: statistics values are shown in parentheses
*P <.10,**P<.05, ***P<.01

AJMRR Journal Page |6

American Journal Of MultidisciplinaryResearch&Review (AJMRR) February-2024

Results from the multinomial regression model

The regression models resultsare listed in Table 4.Each predicator is interpreted across the three
comparison. For household head educational level, the odd ration (OR) of being severely food insecure versus
food secure, moderately food secure versus food secure and mildly food secure versus food secure are 0.375,
0.375 and 0.406, respectively for the dummy variable primary education. Among them, all the OR were
significant, z= -4.977, -5.602 and -4.128 respectively,P<.01 for all the models, which indicates that household
head with no education are 0.406 times likely to be food insecure as compared to those with primary education.
Household head with secondary and higher education were significantly less likely to be food insecure than
those with less education, increases by OR= 0.233, OR 0.225 and OR= 0.298 respectively, for a one unit
increase in education of the household head.
The wealth index variable was found to be a significant factor to explain household food insecurity. It
was significant in all the panels with a decreasing OR= 0.603, OR= 0.342 and OR= 0.392 respectively, z=-2.119,
-2.400 and –3.441 correspondingly, P <.01 for all the models. Which indicates that the odd of being food
insecure decreases with increase in wealth possession. In addition, gender was found to be a significant predictor
of household food insecurity for model 1 and 2, but insignificant for model 3. In this sample; unmarried
household head were 3.4 times as likely to be food insecure in model 1 and 2.0 times as likely to be food
insecure in model 2 ( OR=3.367 and OR= 2.010 respectively) as compared to the married. Having a single
parent as head of a family also significantly increased the odd of being food insecure. Children in model 1 and 2,
households headed by female were one and a half as likely to be food insecure as those headed by male (OR=
1.529, z= 2.232, P <.05 and OR=1.381, z= 1.824, P <.10). The marital status of the parents of a household
increases the odds of childhood food insecurity.

IV. Discussion
This investigation explores the relationship between basic capabilities and household food insecurity in
Cameroon. Literature acknowledged a close link between household head educational level and household food
insecurity. Good nutrition advance human development, contrary to poor nutrition that constrain population in
poverty trap. Auteurs such as Melese and Alemu (2021) in Ethiopia, Alpizaret al.(2020) in Central America,
Kara and Kithus (2020) in Kenya, Maia et al. (2019) in Portugal, Diallo and Toah (2019)inMali, Amrullahet al.
(2019) in Indonesia, Mortazavi et al. (2017) in Iran, Smith et al. (2017) in Latin America and the Caribbean,
AkinboadeandAdeyefa (2016) in south Africa, Sisay and Edriss (2013) and GezimuGebre (2012) in Ethiopia,
Amazaet al. (2006) and Sanusi et al. (2006) in Nigeria found a positive relationship between household head
educational level and household food insecurity. The research results corroborates with the above findings. It
was found that the level of educational achievement of household head and the category of a household food
insecurity were significantly. So the odd of a household being food insecure relatively to completely food secure
increases significantly with educational level of household head and decreases with low educational level of
household head. This implies that, any step that leads to a rise in human development makes an improvement in
household food security.The perverse dynamic between food insecurity, education and poverty can last for
generations (Mc Calla, 2010). Enhancing capabilities in education and health also promotes better use of food by
communities (UNSCN, 2010) as a result better human development.
With regard to wealth index, the positive relationship with household food insecurity status indicates
that the probability of a household to be food insecure increases with no wealth possession. This suggests that
household with no or little set of assets at their possession are highly prompt to be food insecure compare to
those with a good possession of wealth. This results support earlier findings in this study by melese&Alemu
(2021), Akinboade et al.(2016)Birhanel et al. (2014), Sisay and Edriss (2013) and GazimuGebre(2012) in urban
areas of Africa. It was found to be the second important determinants of household food insecurity after the
educational variable.
With respect to the marital status, it significance decreases as we move from one panel to another. This
shows that married household have a lower probability to be food insecure. This is parallel to Maria et al.(2019)
finding in Portugal that unmarried household are more likely to be food insecure regardless of their sex, age,
education and income. Amrullah et al.(2019) in Indonesia also found that divorced household head are more
exposed to food insecurity. A view supported bySen‟s et al. (2013) under cooperative conflicts relationship
between women and men, says that cooperation enables a higher standard of living to couples than they would
maintain separately. Hence, each person benefit of a better condition than it would be if they split up. Children
below the age of five living in mono parental family were more likely to to food insecure compared to their
counterpart. Under five children were identify as determinant of household food insecurity for the severely food
insecure and moderately food insecure household. This findings are in parallel with Akinboade et al.(2016) that
had found under five children as determinants of urban poor food insecurity. Contrary toBirhanel et al.(2014)
and Sisay and Edriss(2013) found that under-five children are not a significant predictor of household food
insecurity as in the third category. Many literatures have shown that household headed by female are mostly

AJMRR Journal Page |7

American Journal Of MultidisciplinaryResearch&Review (AJMRR) February-2024

vulnerable and exposed to food insecurity, compare to those headed by men (Magana-Lemus et al. (2016), Jean
Baptiste (2015), Muhammedet al.(2020), Amrullahet al.(2019), Kakotaet al.(2015), Amazaet al.(2006) ). This
may be the result of the low level of education of women compared to men. Consequently, it reduces their job
opportunities in the society. Education is the main factor of human development. Human development is the
extension of capabilities and the freedom that people need to lead lives they value. However, Sisay and Edriss
(2013) found that household head gender was not significant predictor of household food insecurity. May be,
because he carried his investigation in urban capital were gender have almost equal opportunities.
Concerning household size, household with very large household size (>15) were found to be positively related
to household food insecurity for the severely and mildly food insecure, in contrast, household size with
moderately food insecure was insignificant. Recent studies like Melese&Alemu (2021), Kakota& al. (2015),
Sisay&Edriss (2013), GezimuGebre and past studies like Amaza et al.(2006) obtained similar results. The
possession of wealth and education permits to manage any household population pyramid, while those found in
the severe food insecure category are always in the absent of such human development advantages.
Lastly, the place of residence was found to be aninsignificant determinant of household food insecurity in all the
three categories of food insecurity. The same result was obtained in the first essay. In contrary Amrullahet al.
(2019) found that rural areas residence was significant predictor of household food insecurity. The geographical
place of residence dose not determine its accessibility to a bundle but the educational level of the household head
and the set of asset in their possession.

V. Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to assess the effectof basic capability determinant on household food
insecurity in Cameroon. DHS data were used for the 2018 period. A multinomial regression model was used as
estimation technique. Our results reveal that household head educational level as a basic capability factor is an
important determinant of household food insecurity. The odd of being food secure states that, as a household
head education level increases the predicted probability for that household to be food insecure decreases The
study also identify key demographic and social determinant of household food insecurity in Cameroon as
household size, gender of household head, children below the age of five, wealth index, and marital status, but
these factors varies depending on the household food insecurity category. Therefore efforts at reducing
household food insecurity in Cameroon should target toward improving the education level of Cameroonian
population. The results also obtained that the variables place of residence and household sizedo not explain a
household food insecurity condition in Cameroon.

References
[1]. Akbar, M., Niaz, R., &Amjad, M. (2020). Determinants of households‟ food insecurity with severity
dimensions in Pakistan: Varying estimates using partial proportional odds model. Health & social care
in the community, 28(5), 1698-1709.
[2]. Akinboade, O. A., Mokwena, M. P. &Adeyefa, S.A. (2016). Determinants of Food Insecurity among
the Urban Poor in the City of Tshwane, South Africa. Journal of Economics and Development Studies,
June 2016, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 101-114. DOI: 10.15640/jeds.v4n2a9. URL:
https://doi.org/10.15640/jeds.v4n2a9.
[3]. Alkire, S. (2012). Dimensions of Human Development, World Development Vol. 30, No. 2, Elsevier
Science Ltd pp. 181–205.
[4]. Alkire, S. (2002). Dimensions of human development. World development, 30(2), 181-205.
[5]. Alkire, S. (2003). The capability approach as a development paradigm. Material
[6]. Alkire, S., Roche, J. M., Ballon, P., Foster, J., Santos, M. E., & Seth, S.
(2015). Multidimensional poverty measurement and analysis. Oxford University Press, USA.
[7]. Alpízar, F., Saborío-Rodríguez, M., Martínez-Rodríguez, M.R., Viguera, B., Vignola. R., Capitán, T. &
Harvey, C. A.. (2020). Determinants of food insecurity among smallholder farmer household in Central
America: recurrent versus extreme weather-driven events. Regional Environmental Change (2020) 20:
22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01592-y
[8]. Amrullah, E. R., Ishida, A.., Pullaila. A., &Rusyiana, A. (2019). Who suffers from food insecurity in
Indonesia? International Journal of Social Economics. Vol. 46 No. 10, 2019.pp. 1186-1197. DOI
10.1108/IJSE-03-2019-0196
[9]. Birhanel, T., Shiferaw, S., Hagos, S. &Mohindra, K..S. (2014). Urban food insecurity in the context of
high food prices: a community based cross sectional study in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Public
Health 2014, 14: 680 . http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/680
[10]. Burchi, F., & De Muro, P. (2012). A human development and capability approach to food security:
Conceptual framework and informational basis. Background paper, 8.

AJMRR Journal Page |8

American Journal Of MultidisciplinaryResearch&Review (AJMRR) February-2024

[11]. Cordero-Ahiman, O. V., Vanegas, J. L., Beltrán-Romero, P., &Quinde-Lituma, M. E. (2020).

Determinants of food insecurity in rural households: the case of the Paute River Basin of Azuay
Province, Ecuador. Sustainability, 12(3), 946.
[12]. Desai. M.(1991). Human development: Concepts and measurement, European Economic Review 35,
350-357. North-Holland
[13]. Donald, R., Craig, G., and Victor, .O. (1998). Socio-Economic Determinants of Food Insecurity in the
United States: Evidence from the SIPP and CSFII Datasets. Economic Research Service/USDA, U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Technical Bulletin No. 1869.
[14]. Drèze, J., Sen, A., 1989. Hunger and Public Action. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[15]. Dorah, H. M., Maulid, W. &Mwatawala. (2015). Entitlement To Food Security Approach Explaining
Food Security In The Southern Highlands Of Tanzania More Than Other Theories, Asian Economic
and Social Society, Volume 5(3)
[16]. Elliot, V. (2014). Food security indicators: Integrating Nutrition and Food Security Programming for
Emergency response workshop.
[17]. Gasper, D. (2002) .Is Sen's Capability Approach an Adequate Basis for Considering Human
Development? Institute of Social Studies, Working paper series N°. 360
[18]. Haile. H. K., Alemu. Z. G., and Kudhlande. G. (2005). Causes of household food insecurity in
koredegaga Peasant association, Oromiya zone, Ethiopia. Working paper.
[19]. Kennedy et al. (2011). "Guidelines for Measuring Household and Individual Dietary Diversity"
[20]. Kara, A. M. &Kithu, L. M. (2020). “Education Attainment of Head of Household and Household Food
Security: A Case for Yatta Sub - County, Kenya.” American Journal of Educational Research, vol. 8,
no. 8 (2020): 558-566. doi: 10.12691/education-8-8-7.
[21]. Leach, M., Mearns, R. &Scoones, L. (1999). Environmental entitlements: Dynamics and
[22]. Maia, I., Monjardino, T., Frias, B., Canha˜o, H., Branco, J.C., Lucas, R., & Santos, A.C. (2019). Food
Insecurity in Portugal Among Middle- and Older-Aged Adults at a Time of Economic Crisis Recovery:
Prevalence and Determinants. Food and Nutrition Bulletin XX(X). DOI: 10.1177/0379572119858170.
journals.sagepub.com/home/fnb
[23]. Maria, S. F. (2013). Food Security, Gender, and Occupational Choice among Urban Low-Income
Household, World Development Vol. 42, pp. 89–99, 2013,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.08.005
[24]. Melese, M. &Alemu, M. (2021).. Severity of household food insecurity and coping strategies in
AnalemmoWoreda, Hadiya Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Development and Agricultural
Economics. Vol. 13(1), pp. 16-26, January-March 2021. DOI: 10.5897/JDAE2019.1124.
[25]. Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women's capabilities and social justice. Journal of human development, 1(2),
219-247.
[26]. Osmani, S. R. (2016). The Capability Approach and Human Development: Some Reflections, UNDP
Human Development Report Think Piece
[27]. Robeyns, I. (2002). In Defence of Amartya Sen. post-autistic economics review, 17(1), 5.
[28]. Robeyns, I. (2016). Capabilitarianism. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 17(3), 397-
414.
[29]. Rachel, B. K. (2005). Food Security in Northern Malawi: Gender, Kinship Relations and Entitlements
in Historical Context* Journal of Southern African Studies, Volume 31, N° 1,
[30]. Sen, A. (1987). Gender and cooperative conflicts.
[31]. Sen, A., 1981. Ingredients of famine analysis: availability and entitlements. Q. J.Econ. 96 (3), 433–464.
[32]. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford University Press.
[33]. Sen, A. (1999). On ethics and economics. OUP Catalogue.
[34]. Saith, R. (2001) .Capabilities: the Concept and its Operationalisation, QEH Working Paper Series 66,
Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
[35]. Swindale, A. and Bilinsky, P. (2006). Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) for Measurement of
Household Food Access: Indicator Guide (V.2). Washington,D.C.:FHI360/FANTA
[36]. Séverine, .D. &Shahani, .L. (2009). An Introduction to the Human Development and Capability
Approach: Freedom and Agency, Earthscan in the UK and USA ,pp 354
[37]. Smith, D. M., Kassa, W., &Winters, P. (2017). Assessing food insecurity in Latin America and the
Caribbean using FAO‟s Food Insecurity Experience Scale. Food Policy 71 (2017) 48–61.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.07.005
[38]. Stewart, F. (2019): The Human Development Approach: An Overview, Oxford Development Studies,
DOI: 10.1080/13600818.2019.1585793
[39]. Vogel, C, & Smith, J. (2002.) The politics of scarcity: conceptualising the current food security crisis in
Southern Africa. South Afr. J. Sci. 98:315–17

AJMRR Journal Page |9

American Journal Of MultidisciplinaryResearch&Review (AJMRR) February-2024

[40]. WFP (2017) Cameroon - Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA).
[41]. https://reliefweb.int/report/cameroon/cameroon-comprehensive-food-security-and-vulnerability-
analysis-cfsva-december-2017
[42]. WFP (2020). Evaluation
[43]. UN (2022) SDG.ISBN: 978-92-1-101448-8
[44]. ttps://nkafu.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Cameroon-Almost-97-Of-Household-Have-Problems-In-
Food-Crop-P
https://www.usaid.gov/cameroon/food-
assistancehttps://www.actionagainsthunger.org/location/africa/cameroon/
https://reports.unocha.org/en/country/cameroon/card/6uLXJidzlO/

AJMRR Journal P a g e | 10