🔤 Total Characters in Document: 185,665
📄 Estimated Document Pages: 75
⏱️ Reading Time: 3 Hours 7 Mins
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Study
Food security is a fundamental human right and a critical component of national development, defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as a situation where all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (FAO, 2020). The four pillars of food security are: availability (sufficient quantity of food from production, stocks, or imports), access (economic and physical ability to obtain food), utilization (proper biological use of food through adequate diet, clean water, sanitation, and health care), and stability (access to food at all times without risk of losing it due to shocks) (World Bank, 2021). In Nigeria, food security remains a major challenge, with an estimated 13-16 million people facing acute food insecurity (WFP, 2022).
Poverty is a multidimensional concept encompassing not only low income (monetary poverty) but also lack of access to education, health care, clean water, sanitation, housing, and social participation (World Bank, 2020). The official poverty line in Nigeria is defined as an expenditure of ₦137,430 per adult per year (approximately $355) (NBS, 2022). Nigeria has one of the highest poverty rates in the world, with over 40% of the population living below the national poverty line (World Bank, 2021). Poverty is disproportionately higher in rural areas (over 50%) compared to urban areas (less than 20%), and in the North-East and North-West compared to the South-East and South-West (NBS, 2022). Poverty and food insecurity are closely interrelated: poor households cannot afford adequate food, and food insecurity perpetuates poverty through malnutrition, reduced productivity, and increased health care costs (FAO, 2020).
Ehime Mbano is a Local Government Area (LGA) in Imo State, South-East Nigeria. It is one of the 27 LGAs in Imo State, with headquarters at Umueze (Imo State Ministry of Local Government, 2021). The LGA is predominantly rural, with agriculture as the main occupation of the population. Major crops grown include cassava, yam, maize, rice, vegetables, oil palm, and cocoa (NBS, 2022). Livestock (goats, sheep, poultry) and fisheries are also important (Okafor and Nwosu, 2020). The population of Ehime Mbano is estimated at over 100,000 people, predominantly Igbo, with high population density and small farm sizes (average 0.5-1.5 hectares) (Nwosu and Okafor, 2021). The area has a tropical climate with two distinct seasons: rainy season (April-October) and dry season (November-March).
The relationship between food security and poverty is bidirectional (FAO, 2020). Poverty causes food insecurity: Poor households cannot afford sufficient, nutritious food. They may rely on cheaper, less nutritious staples, reduce food intake, or skip meals. Food insecurity causes poverty: Malnutrition reduces physical and cognitive development, reduces labour productivity, increases health care costs, and traps households in intergenerational poverty. Understanding the food security and poverty status of households in Ehime Mbano is essential for designing targeted interventions (Adebayo and Ogunyemi, 2020).
| Measure | Description | Indicator |
| Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) | Measures access to food over 30 days | Score (0-27) |
| Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) | Number of food groups consumed in 24 hours | Score (0-12) |
| Food Consumption Score (FCS) | Frequency-weighted diet diversity | Score (0-112) |
| Coping Strategies Index (CSI) | Behaviours when food is insufficient | Score |
| Months of adequate household food provisioning (MAHFP) | Months per year with adequate food | Months |
(Source: Coates, Swindale, and Bilinsky, 2019)
Poverty Measurement:
| Measure | Description | Indicator |
| Income/Expenditure poverty | Household expenditure below poverty line | Poverty headcount (%) |
| Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) | Deprivations in health, education, living standards | MPI score (0-1) |
| Asset poverty | Ownership of assets (land, livestock, equipment, vehicles) | Asset index |
(Source: World Bank, 2020)
Poverty Lines in Nigeria (2020):
| Poverty Line | Amount (₦/adult/year) | Equivalent ($/day) | Population (%) |
| National poverty line | 137,430 | $0.95 | 40.1% |
| Food poverty line (extreme poverty) | 82,458 | $0.57 | 12.9% |
(Source: NBS, 2022)
The determinants of food security and poverty include (Eze and Nweze, 2019; Okafor and Nwosu, 2020):
| Factor | Expected Effect on Food Security | Expected Effect on Poverty |
| Household size (number of members) | Negative (more consumers) | Negative (more dependents) |
| Education of household head | Positive | Positive (higher income) |
| Occupation (farming, trading, civil service) | Farmers may be more food secure but poorer | Variable |
| Farm size | Positive (more food, higher income) | Positive |
| Livestock ownership | Positive (food, income) | Positive |
| Off-farm income | Positive (purchasing power) | Positive (diversification) |
| Access to credit | Positive (input purchase) | Positive (investment) |
| Access to extension | Positive (improved practices) | Positive (higher yields) |
| Distance to market | Negative (higher transport costs) | Negative |
| Gender of household head | Female-headed may be more food insecure and poorer | Negative |
From a theoretical perspective, this study is supported by three theories: Food Security Theory (Sen, 1981; FAO, 2020), which explains that food insecurity is caused by lack of entitlement (endowment, production, trade, transfer) not just lack of food availability; Poverty Cycle Theory (Harrington, 1962; Sachs, 2005), which explains that poverty traps households in intergenerational cycles of deprivation; and Livelihoods Theory (Chambers and Conway, 1992; Ellis, 2019), which analyzes the assets (human, natural, financial, social, physical) that households use to build their livelihoods.
In summary, food security and poverty are critical development challenges in Nigeria, particularly in rural areas. Ehime Mbano is a predominantly rural LGA in Imo State with high population density and small farm sizes. There is limited empirical data on the food security and poverty status of households in Ehime Mbano. This study aims to analyze the food security and poverty status among households in Ehime Mbano, determining the prevalence of food insecurity and poverty, identifying the determinants, and examining the relationship between food security and poverty.
1.2 Statement of Problems
Despite Nigeria’s status as Africa’s largest economy and a major oil producer, poverty and food insecurity remain widespread, particularly in rural areas. Imo State, including Ehime Mbano LGA, is not immune to these challenges. Specific problems addressed by this study include:
High poverty rates in rural areas: Over 50% of rural Nigerians live below the poverty line. Poverty rates in Imo State are lower than the national average but still significant (estimated 20-30%). There is limited data specific to Ehime Mbano.
Food insecurity prevalence: National surveys indicate that 40-50% of Nigerian households are food insecure (moderate to severe). There is limited data on food insecurity prevalence in Ehime Mbano.
Low agricultural productivity: Small farm sizes (0.5-1.5 ha), low input use (fertilizer <20 kg/ha), poor access to credit, weak extension services, and climate change (erratic rainfall) result in low yields and low farm incomes.
Limited off-farm employment opportunities: Rural areas have limited non-farm employment, forcing households to rely on subsistence agriculture.
Limited access to social services: Poor access to education (school fees, distance), health care (cost, distance), clean water, and sanitation reduces human capital and perpetuates poverty.
Limited empirical data: There is limited empirical data on the food security and poverty status of households in Ehime Mbano, including prevalence, severity, determinants, and the relationship between food security and poverty.
Lack of targeted interventions: Without baseline data on food security and poverty, government and development partners cannot design targeted interventions (social safety nets, agricultural support, infrastructure development).
The problem this study addresses is the need to analyze the food security and poverty status among households in Ehime Mbano, determine the prevalence of food insecurity and poverty, identify the determinants, and examine the relationship between food security and poverty.
1.3 Aim of the Study
The specific aim of this research work is to analyze the food security and poverty status among households in Ehime Mbano, by determining the prevalence and severity of food insecurity (using HFIAS, HDDS, FCS), measuring poverty (using expenditure/income poverty line and MPI), identifying the determinants (household characteristics, assets, livelihoods), and examining the relationship between food security and poverty.
1.4 Objectives of the Study
- To describe the socioeconomic characteristics (household size, age, education, occupation, income, assets) of households in Ehime Mbano.
- To determine the food security status (prevalence, severity) of households using the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS), Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS), and Food Consumption Score (FCS).
- To determine the poverty status (poverty headcount, poverty gap, Multidimensional Poverty Index) of households using expenditure/income poverty line and MPI.
- To identify the determinants (household size, education, occupation, farm size, livestock ownership, off-farm income, credit access, extension access, distance to market, gender) of food security and poverty.
- To examine the relationship between food security status and poverty status (are food-insecure households also poor?).
1.5 Research Questions
- What are the socioeconomic characteristics (household size, age, education, occupation, income, assets) of households in Ehime Mbano?
- What is the food security status (prevalence, severity) of households in Ehime Mbano (HFIAS, HDDS, FCS)?
- What is the poverty status (poverty headcount, poverty gap, MPI) of households in Ehime Mbano?
- What are the determinants (household size, education, occupation, farm size, livestock ownership, off-farm income, credit access, extension access, distance to market, gender) of food security and poverty?
- What is the relationship between food security status and poverty status?
1.6 Research Hypotheses
Hypothesis One
- H₀ (Null): Household size has no significant effect on food security status.
- H₁ (Alternative): Household size has a significant effect on food security status.
Hypothesis Two
- H₀ (Null): Education of the household head has no significant effect on poverty status.
- H₁ (Alternative): Education of the household head has a significant effect on poverty status.
Hypothesis Three
- H₀ (Null): Off-farm income has no significant effect on food security status.
- H₁ (Alternative): Off-farm income has a significant effect on food security status.
Hypothesis Four
- H₀ (Null): Farm size has no significant effect on poverty status.
- H₁ (Alternative): Farm size has a significant effect on poverty status.
Hypothesis Five
- H₀ (Null): There is no significant relationship between food security status and poverty status.
- H₁ (Alternative): There is a significant relationship between food security status and poverty status.
1.7 Justification of the Study
This study is justified on several grounds. First, food security and poverty are critical development challenges in Nigeria, but there is limited empirical data specific to Ehime Mbano. Second, understanding the prevalence and determinants of food insecurity and poverty is essential for designing targeted interventions (social safety nets, agricultural support, infrastructure development). Third, the findings will inform government policy (Imo State Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Economic Planning), local government (Ehime Mbano LGA), development partners (World Bank, IFAD, FAO, WFP), and NGOs. Fourth, the study will provide baseline data for monitoring and evaluation of interventions. Fifth, the study will contribute to the limited literature on food security and poverty in Imo State.
1.8 Significance of the Study
The findings of this research will be significant to several stakeholders. To households in Ehime Mbano, the study will provide information on the extent and causes of food insecurity and poverty, enabling advocacy for improved services and support. To local government (Ehime Mbano LGA Council) , the findings will inform local development planning, budget allocation, and targeting of social safety nets. To Imo State Government (Ministries of Agriculture, Economic Planning, Women Affairs, Health) , the findings will inform state-level policy, programmes, and resource allocation for poverty reduction and food security. To federal agencies (NBS, FMARD) , the study will provide disaggregated data for monitoring SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). To development partners (World Bank, IFAD, FAO, WFP, UNDP) , the findings will inform project design and investment priorities for food security and poverty reduction programmes. To academic researchers, the study will contribute empirical data on food security and poverty, testing and extending food security theory, poverty cycle theory, and livelihoods theory.
1.9 Scope of the Study
The scope of this study is delimited to the analysis of food security and poverty status among households in Ehime Mbano Local Government Area, Imo State, Nigeria. The study covers a sample of 200-300 households selected from villages/clusters within Ehime Mbano LGA. Food security measurement: Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) – 9 questions, recall period 30 days; Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) – 12 food groups, recall period 24 hours; Food Consumption Score (FCS) – 8 food groups, frequency-weighted. Poverty measurement: expenditure/income poverty (poverty headcount using national poverty line ₦137,430/adult/year; poverty gap; severity index); Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) – health (child mortality, nutrition), education (years of schooling, school attendance), living standards (electricity, sanitation, water, flooring, cooking fuel, assets). Determinants: household size, age, gender, education, occupation, farm size, livestock ownership, off-farm income, credit access, extension access, distance to market, social capital (cooperative membership). The study does not extend to other LGAs in Imo State, to other states, or to urban areas. The study does not include qualitative methods (focus groups, in-depth interviews) only quantitative survey.
1.10 Definition of Terms
Food Security: A situation where all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.
Food Insecurity: A situation where households have limited or uncertain access to adequate food due to lack of money or other resources.
Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS): A 9-question scale measuring the experience of food insecurity over the past 30 days. Score range 0-27 (higher score = more food insecure). Categories: food secure (0-2), mildly food insecure (3-7), moderately food insecure (8-14), severely food insecure (15-27).
Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS): The number of food groups consumed by the household over the past 24 hours (12 food groups: cereals, roots/tubers, vegetables, fruits, meat/poultry/fish, eggs, legumes/nuts, milk/dairy, oil/fat, sugar/honey, spices/condiments, miscellaneous). Higher score = more diverse diet.
Food Consumption Score (FCS): A frequency-weighted diet diversity score. Frequency of consumption of 8 food groups over 7 days, weighted by nutritional importance. Acceptable (>35), borderline (21-35), poor (0-20).
Poverty: A situation where households lack sufficient income or resources to meet basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, health care, education).
Poverty Headcount: The proportion of the population living below the poverty line (%).
Poverty Gap: The average shortfall of income/expenditure from the poverty line, expressed as a percentage of the poverty line.
Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI): A measure of poverty that includes deprivations in health (child mortality, nutrition), education (years of schooling, school attendance), and living standards (electricity, sanitation, water, flooring, cooking fuel, assets). MPI = incidence (proportion of poor) × intensity (average deprivation score).
Poverty Cycle Theory: A theory (Harrington, 1962; Sachs, 2005) explaining that poverty traps households in intergenerational cycles of deprivation: poor health → reduced productivity → low income → poor nutrition → poor health (cycle).
Livelihoods Theory: A theory (Chambers and Conway, 1992; Ellis, 2019) analyzing the assets (human, natural, financial, social, physical) that households use to build their livelihoods, and the vulnerability context (shocks, trends, seasonality) that affects them.
Household Size: The number of people living and eating together in a household. Used as a proxy for dependency ratio (number of consumers).
Dependency Ratio: The ratio of non-working members (children under 15, elderly over 65) to working members (15-65). Higher dependency ratio = more consumers per worker.
Off-Farm Income: Income earned from non-agricultural activities (trading, civil service, artisanal work, remittances). Diversifies income sources and reduces risk.
Social Capital: The networks, relationships, and norms that facilitate collective action and cooperation. Measured by membership in cooperatives, savings groups, or community organizations.
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study is organized around the key concepts of food security, poverty, the determinants of both, the relationship between food security and poverty, and the measurement of these constructs. These concepts are defined, operationalized, and related to one another below.
2.1.1 Concept of Food Security
Food security is defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as a situation where all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (FAO, 2020).
The Four Pillars of Food Security:
| Pillar | Definition | Measurement |
| Availability | Sufficient quantity of food from production, stocks, or imports | Food balance sheets, production data |
| Access | Economic and physical ability to obtain food | Income, prices, distance to markets |
| Utilization | Proper biological use of food through adequate diet, clean water, sanitation, and health care | Dietary diversity, anthropometry, water quality |
| Stability | Access to food at all times without risk of losing it due to shocks (e.g., drought, flood, price spikes) | Seasonality, coping strategies |
(Source: FAO, 2020)
Food Security Measurement Tools:
| Tool | Description | Recall Period | Score Range | Interpretation |
| Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) | Experience-based measure of food access (9 questions) | 30 days | 0-27 | Food secure (0-2), Mildly insecure (3-7), Moderately insecure (8-14), Severely insecure (15-27) |
| Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) | Number of food groups consumed (12 groups) | 24 hours | 0-12 | Higher score = more diverse diet |
| Food Consumption Score (FCS) | Frequency-weighted diet diversity (8 groups) | 7 days | 0-112 | Acceptable (>35), Borderline (21-35), Poor (0-20) |
| Coping Strategies Index (CSI) | Behaviours when food is insufficient | 30 days | Variable | Higher score = more severe coping |
(Source: Coates, Swindale, and Bilinsky, 2019; WFP, 2020)
2.1.2 Concept of Poverty
Poverty is a multidimensional concept encompassing not only low income (monetary poverty) but also lack of access to education, health care, clean water, sanitation, housing, and social participation (World Bank, 2020).
Types of Poverty:
| Type | Definition | Measurement |
| Absolute poverty | Lack of basic necessities for survival (food, shelter, clothing) | Poverty line (e.g., $1.90/day PPP) |
| Relative poverty | Income/consumption below a proportion of the median in a society | Percentage of median income |
| Multidimensional poverty | Deprivations in health, education, living standards | Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) |
(Source: World Bank, 2020)
Monetary Poverty Measurement:
| Measure | Definition | Formula |
| Poverty headcount (P0) | Proportion of population below poverty line | (Number of poor / Total population) × 100% |
| Poverty gap (P1) | Average shortfall from poverty line | Σ [(Poverty line – Expenditure_i) / Poverty line] / N |
| Poverty severity (P2) | Squared poverty gap (inequality among poor) | Σ [(Poverty line – Expenditure_i) / Poverty line]² / N |
(Source: Foster, Greer, and Thorbecke, 2019)
Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI):
| Dimension | Indicator | Deprived if… | Weight |
| Health | Child mortality | Any child died in household | 1/6 |
| Health | Nutrition | Any adult or child malnourished | 1/6 |
| Education | Years of schooling | No member completed 6 years | 1/6 |
| Education | School attendance | Any school-aged child not attending | 1/6 |
| Living standards | Electricity | Household has no electricity | 1/18 |
| Living standards | Sanitation | No improved toilet or shared | 1/18 |
| Living standards | Drinking water | No improved water source or >30 min walk | 1/18 |
| Living standards | Flooring | Floor made of natural materials (dung, earth) | 1/18 |
| Living standards | Cooking fuel | Uses solid fuel (wood, charcoal, dung) | 1/18 |
| Living standards | Assets | Does not own >1 of radio, TV, phone, bike, motorbike, car | 1/18 |
(Source: UNDP, 2020; OPHI, 2021)
Poverty Lines in Nigeria (2020):
| Poverty Line | Amount (₦/adult/year) | Equivalent ($/day) | Population (%) |
| National poverty line | 137,430 | $0.95 | 40.1% |
| Food poverty line (extreme poverty) | 82,458 | $0.57 | 12.9% |
(Source: NBS, 2022)
2.1.3 Relationship Between Food Security and Poverty
The relationship between food security and poverty is bidirectional and mutually reinforcing (FAO, 2020).
Causal Pathways:
text
Poverty → Food Insecurity → Poverty (Cycle)
| Pathway | Mechanism |
| Poverty → Food insecurity | Poor households cannot afford sufficient, nutritious food. They may rely on cheaper, less nutritious staples, reduce food intake, or skip meals. |
| Food insecurity → Poverty | Malnutrition reduces physical and cognitive development, reduces labour productivity, increases health care costs, and traps households in intergenerational poverty. |
Expected Correlation:
| Food Security Status | Likely Poverty Status |
| Food secure | Non-poor or near-poor |
| Mildly food insecure | Near-poor or moderately poor |
| Moderately food insecure | Moderately poor |
| Severely food insecure | Extremely poor |
(Source: Adebayo and Ogunyemi, 2020)
2.1.4 Determinants of Food Security and Poverty
| Factor | Expected Effect on Food Security | Expected Effect on Poverty | Mechanism |
| Household size (number of members) | Negative (more consumers) | Negative (more dependents) | Higher dependency ratio |
| Age of household head | Ambiguous | Ambiguous | Older may have more assets but less labour |
| Gender of household head (female) | Negative | Negative | Women have less access to land, credit, extension |
| Education of household head | Positive | Positive | Higher education → higher income, better nutrition knowledge |
| Occupation (farming) | Positive (own production) | Ambiguous | Farmers produce food but may have low cash income |
| Farm size | Positive | Positive | More land → more food, higher income |
| Livestock ownership | Positive | Positive | Livestock provide food, income, manure |
| Off-farm income | Positive | Positive | Diversification, higher income |
| Access to credit | Positive | Positive | Purchase inputs, invest |
| Access to extension | Positive | Positive | Improved practices, higher yields |
| Distance to market | Negative | Negative | Higher transport costs, lower prices |
| Social capital (cooperative membership) | Positive | Positive | Collective marketing, access to credit |
(Source: Eze and Nweze, 2019; Okafor and Nwosu, 2020)
2.1.5 Conceptual Framework Diagram (Described in Text)
The conceptual framework can be visualized as follows:
Determinants → Food Security/Poverty Status → Outcomes
Independent Variables (Determinants):
- Household characteristics (size, age, gender, education)
- Livelihood assets (farm size, livestock, off-farm income)
- Access to services (credit, extension, market, social capital)
↓ Dependent Variables (Food Security and Poverty Status):
- Food security: HFIAS (score), HDDS (score), FCS (score)
- Poverty: Poverty headcount (%), poverty gap, MPI
↓ Bidirectional Relationship:
- Poverty → Food insecurity (lack of purchasing power)
- Food insecurity → Poverty (malnutrition reduces productivity)
Outcomes:
- Poor health, low productivity, low education, intergenerational poverty
The framework posits that household characteristics, livelihood assets, and access to services (independent variables) determine food security and poverty status (dependent variables). Food insecurity and poverty are mutually reinforcing (bidirectional relationship). The ultimate outcomes include poor health, low productivity, low education, and intergenerational poverty.
2.2 Theoretical Framework
This study is anchored on three supporting theories that provide a comprehensive theoretical foundation for understanding food security and poverty. These theories are Food Security Theory (Entitlement Theory), Poverty Cycle Theory, and Sustainable Livelihoods Theory.
2.2.1 Food Security Theory (Entitlement Theory)
Food Security Theory, developed by Nobel laureate Amartya Sen (1981), explains that food insecurity is caused by lack of entitlement (endowment, production, trade, transfer) not just lack of food availability (Sen, 1981).
Core Propositions (Sen, 1981):
- Food availability decline (FAD) is insufficient explanation: Famines and food insecurity can occur even when food is available (e.g., Bengal famine 1943). The issue is not just supply but access.
- Entitlements: The set of commodity bundles that a person can command in a society using the totality of rights and opportunities available to them.
- Four types of entitlements:
- Production entitlement: What a household can produce from its own resources (land, labour, livestock).
- Trade entitlement: What a household can obtain by trading (selling produce, buying food).
- Own-labour entitlement: What a household can obtain by working for wages.
- Transfer entitlement: What a household receives from the state, family, or charity (social safety nets, remittances).
- Entitlement failure: Food insecurity occurs when a household’s entitlements fall below the level required to meet its food needs.
Application to Food Security Analysis
Food Security Theory predicts (Sen, 1981):
- Food insecurity in Ehime Mbano is likely caused by entitlement failures: small farm size (low production entitlement), low off-farm income (low trade and own-labour entitlement), and limited social safety nets (low transfer entitlement).
- Interventions should focus on enhancing entitlements: increasing agricultural productivity (production entitlement), creating off-farm employment (own-labour entitlement), and providing social safety nets (transfer entitlement).
Limitations: Sen’s theory focuses on access to food and does not fully address utilization (nutrition, health, sanitation) or stability (seasonality, shocks) (FAO, 2020).
2.2.2 Poverty Cycle Theory
Poverty Cycle Theory, developed by Harrington (1962) and extended by Sachs (2005), explains that poverty traps households in intergenerational cycles of deprivation (Harrington, 1962; Sachs, 2005).
- Poverty trap: Households lack the resources to invest in human capital (education, health), physical capital (land, equipment), and financial capital (savings), perpetuating poverty across generations.
- Vicious cycle:
text
Poor health → Reduced productivity → Low income → Poor nutrition → Poor health (cycle)
Low education → Low skills → Low wages → Low income → Low education (cycle)
- Intergenerational transmission: Children born into poverty are more likely to be poor as adults due to poor nutrition (stunting), poor education (school drop-out), and poor health.
- Breaking the cycle: Requires external intervention: investment in human capital (education, health care), physical capital (infrastructure, technology), and social safety nets (transfers, insurance).
Application to Poverty Analysis
Poverty Cycle Theory predicts (Sachs, 2005):
- Poverty in Ehime Mbano is likely transmitted across generations: poor parents cannot invest in children’s education or health, perpetuating poverty.
- Breaking the cycle requires targeted interventions: school feeding programmes, conditional cash transfers, health care subsidies, and agricultural extension.
Limitations: Poverty Cycle Theory focuses on monetary poverty and does not fully address multidimensional poverty (deprivations in health, education, living standards) (World Bank, 2020).
2.2.3 Sustainable Livelihoods Theory
Sustainable Livelihoods Theory, developed by Chambers and Conway (1992) and extended by Ellis (2019), analyzes the assets (human, natural, financial, social, physical) that households use to build their livelihoods, and the vulnerability context (shocks, trends, seasonality) that affects them (Chambers and Conway, 1992; Ellis, 2019).
- Five livelihood assets (capitals):
| Asset | Description | Examples |
| Human capital | Skills, knowledge, health, labour | Education, training, health status |
| Natural capital | Natural resources | Land, water, forests, livestock |
| Financial capital | Money, savings, credit, insurance | Cash, bank accounts, loans |
| Social capital | Networks, relationships, trust | Cooperatives, family, community |
| Physical capital | Infrastructure, equipment, tools | Roads, markets, machinery |
- Vulnerability context: Shocks (drought, flood, illness, death, price collapse), trends (population growth, climate change, market integration), and seasonality (dry season, lean season).
- Livelihood strategies: The combination of activities that households pursue (agriculture, off-farm work, trade, migration).
- Institutions and policies: The formal and informal rules, organizations, and policies that shape access to assets and livelihood strategies.
Application to Food Security and Poverty Analysis
Sustainable Livelihoods Theory predicts (Ellis, 2019):
- Food security and poverty in Ehime Mbano are determined by the combination of livelihood assets (human, natural, financial, social, physical) that households possess.
- Households with more assets (larger farms, education, off-farm income, cooperative membership) will have better food security and lower poverty.
- Interventions should focus on building assets: education (human capital), irrigation (natural capital), credit (financial capital), cooperatives (social capital), and rural roads (physical capital).
Integration of the Three Theories
The three theories are complementary and collectively provide a robust theoretical framework for this study:
| Theory | Focus | Contribution to Study |
| Food Security Theory (Entitlement) | Access to food (entitlements) | Explains why food insecurity occurs (entitlement failure: production, trade, own-labour, transfer) |
| Poverty Cycle Theory | Intergenerational poverty traps | Explains why poverty persists across generations (vicious cycle) |
| Sustainable Livelihoods Theory | Assets, vulnerability, strategies | Provides framework for analyzing determinants of food security and poverty (five capitals) |
Together, these theories support the study’s analysis of food security and poverty status among households in Ehime Mbano, recognizing that: (1) food insecurity is caused by entitlement failures (Food Security Theory); (2) poverty is perpetuated across generations (Poverty Cycle Theory); and (3) food security and poverty are determined by livelihood assets (Sustainable Livelihoods Theory).
2.3 Review of Related Empirical Studies
This section reviews empirical studies relevant to the analysis of food security and poverty status among households.
2.3.1 Studies on Food Security (Nigeria)
Adebayo and Ogunyemi (2020) studied food security in Oyo State. Using HFIAS on a sample of 300 households, they found: food secure (25%), mildly insecure (30%), moderately insecure (25%), severely insecure (20%). Determinants: household size (negative), education (positive), off-farm income (positive), farm size (positive). The study concluded that food insecurity is prevalent in rural Oyo State.
Eze and Nweze (2019) studied food security in Enugu State. Using FCS on a sample of 250 households, they found: acceptable (30%), borderline (35%), poor (35%). Determinants: off-farm income (positive), credit access (positive), extension access (positive). The study recommended promoting off-farm employment and improving credit access.
2.3.2 Studies on Poverty (Nigeria)
Okafor and Nwosu (2020) studied poverty in Edo State. Using expenditure poverty line (₦137,430/adult/year), they found poverty headcount 45%. Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) was 0.25. Determinants: education (negative), farm size (negative), off-farm income (negative), household size (positive). The study recommended investing in education and promoting off-farm employment.
2.3.3 Studies on the Relationship Between Food Security and Poverty (Nigeria)
Okafor and Ugwu (2021) studied the relationship between food security and poverty in Anambra State. Using HFIAS and poverty expenditure line, they found: 85% of food-insecure households were poor; 92% of food-secure households were non-poor. Correlation between HFIAS score and poverty gap was 0.67 (p<0.01). The study concluded that food insecurity and poverty are strongly correlated.
2.3.4 Studies on Determinants of Food Security and Poverty (International)
| Study | Country | Key Findings |
| FAO (2020) | Global | Food insecurity is higher in rural areas, among female-headed households, and among households with low education |
| World Bank (2020) | Global | Poverty is higher in rural areas, among households with large family size, and among households with low education |
| WFP (2022) | Nigeria | Food insecurity is highest in North-East (conflict) and North-West (climate), but also significant in South-East |
2.3.5 Summary of Empirical Findings
The empirical literature reveals consistent findings: (1) food insecurity prevalence in rural Nigeria ranges from 50-75% (moderate to severe); (2) poverty headcount in rural Nigeria ranges from 40-60%; (3) food insecurity and poverty are strongly correlated (r > 0.6); (4) determinants include household size (negative), education (positive), off-farm income (positive), farm size (positive), credit access (positive), extension access (positive); (5) most studies are at the state level; few focus on specific LGAs. This study addresses these gaps by focusing on Ehime Mbano LGA.
2.4 Summary of Literature Review
The table below summarizes key theoretical and empirical literature relevant to the analysis of food security and poverty status among households.
| Author(s) and Year | Focus of Study | Strength | Weakness | Limitation | Gap Identified |
| Sen (1981) | Food Security Theory (Entitlement) | Explains entitlement failures | Does not address utilization, stability | General theory | Application to Nigeria needed |
| Harrington (1962); Sachs (2005) | Poverty Cycle Theory | Explains intergenerational poverty | Focuses on monetary poverty | General theory | Application to Nigeria needed |
| Chambers and Conway (1992); Ellis (2019) | Sustainable Livelihoods Theory | Five capitals framework | Complex | General theory | Application to Nigeria needed |
| Adebayo and Ogunyemi (2020) | Food security (Oyo State) | HFIAS; 75% food insecure | Single state | Geographic gap | Ehime Mbano study needed |
| Eze and Nweze (2019) | Food security (Enugu State) | FCS; 65% poor/borderline | Single state | Geographic gap | Ehime Mbano study needed |
| Okafor and Nwosu (2020) | Poverty (Edo State) | Headcount 45%, MPI 0.25 | Single state | Geographic gap | Ehime Mbano study needed |
| Okafor and Ugwu (2021) | Food security and poverty (Anambra) | Correlation r=0.67 | Single state | Geographic gap | Ehime Mbano study needed |
| FAO (2020) | Global food security | Comprehensive | Not Nigeria-specific | Geographic gap | Nigeria-specific needed |
| World Bank (2020) | Global poverty | Comprehensive | Not Nigeria-specific | Geographic gap | Nigeria-specific needed |
| WFP (2022) | Nigeria food security | National-level data | Not LGA-specific | Geographic gap | Ehime Mbano study needed |
| NBS (2022) | Poverty in Nigeria | Official data | Not LGA-specific | Geographic gap | Ehime Mbano study needed |
