Expert Opinon
Global Hunger Index does not really measure hunger – An Indian perspective
M Y Team Dt.15 Oct.2022
The Global Hunger Index (GHI) is calculated and disseminated annually. India, which is the 5th largest economy in the world and has a good ranking in many other indicators, has a poor ranking based on this index. After a critical review of the appropriateness of the indicators used in GHI, the Indian Council of Medical Research has the viewpoint that the indicators of undernourishment, stunting, wasting and child mortality do not measure hunger per se. Referring to this index as a Hunger Index, and thereby ranking countries is not appropriate, since many of the measures that are used to evolve an index that measures hunger are probably contextual. Countries should therefore evolve their own measures that are suitable for their own context.
The Global Hunger Index (GHI) was initially developed to focus attention and mobilize political will in the fight against hunger1. The GHI has subsequently been used as a metric to annually measure and track hunger at the global, regional and national levels, since 20062. India has ranked poorly in the GHI: in 20173, India ranked 100th among 119 countries and in 20191, India’s rank had slipped to 102. In 2020 India ranked at 94th position out of 107 countries4. This ranking was counterintuitive, considering that India ranks fifth in the world economy5. Hunger is an emotional subject and there have been many criticisms and rebuttals of the GHI. Indian policymakers have argued that the GHI is a misleading hunger index as its methodology ignores genetic factors6 wherein international norms on stunting and wasting may not be applicable to India78. Noted columnists in India have also commented on how a faulty metric, which is based on four measures or indicators (none of which actually measure hunger) is creating a flawed narrative against India910. Prominent researchers have commented that the GHI exaggerates the measure of hunger, lacks statistical vigour10, has a problem of multiple counts1112, and gives higher representation to under-five children. The measurement of hunger is complex and should not be oversimplified, as in the GHI13. Therefore, the use of alternative approaches should be considered to evaluate hunger1415. In view of these issues, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Department of Health Research of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, constituted in 2019 an Expert Committee to review the indicators used in the GHI. The deliberations of this Committee are presented here, and it is argued that the four indicators used in the GHI, [undernourishment, stunting, wasting and child mortality (CM)] do not measure hunger per se, as these are not the manifestations of hunger alone.
Is hunger manifested in undernourishment, stunting, wasting and child mortality?
It is of interest to examine whether the indicators used in the GHI actually measure hunger. If these are manifestations and consequences of hunger, the simple corollary is that among those who are relatively rich, having sufficient purchasing power and with no problem of access to food, the proportion of undernourished, stunting, wasting and CM should be negligible. To examine the corollary stated above, the findings from National Sample Survey Office (NSSO)16 and National Family Health Survey, 2015-16 (NFHS-4)17 are important and relevant. The data collected by these surveys provide estimates of the GHI parameters for different wealth quantiles. To calculate wealth for each household, a score is calculated using information on household characteristics, amenities and assets. The households are then ranked and categorized into five (1st to 5th) wealth quantiles which are lowest, second, middle, fourth and highest, respectively. It is evident that the top two wealth quantiles, the fourth and highest, which represent the top 40 per cent of the population, could be considered to be those who would have sufficient purchasing power and access to food to meet all their nutrition requirements. The measured proportions of undernourishment, stunted and wasted children in these two wealth quantiles (4th and 5th) were 7.3, 25.7 and 18.6 per cent, respectively, while the under-five mortality per 1000 live births was 25.81617. This indicates that undernourishment, stunting, wasting and CM are not the consequences of hunger alone, as these manifestations are seen among the relatively rich as well. Further, in the NFHS-4 data (Table I), stunting (27.1-38.2%) and wasting (14.2-20.4%) were significantly prevalent among children of normal body mass index (BMI, 18.5-24.9 kg/m2) and overweight mothers (BMI >25 kg/m2). Presumably, these mothers, with normal and higher BMI, should have no problem of shortage of food for their children, and as a corollary, the levels of stunting and wasting should have been negligible. Thus, these results reject the notion that the indicators of undernourishment, stunting, wasting and CM used in the GHI are the causes or the consequences of hunger. Therefore, it is not appropriate to consider the GHI as measuring hunger with accuracy. Additional inconsistencies with these indexes are given below.
Courtesy-ijmr
https://journals.lww.com/ijmr/Fulltext/2021/09000/Global_Hunger_Index_does_not_really_measure_hunger.10.aspx#:~:text=Prominent%20researchers