Search for: All records

Abstract ObjectivesCurrent standards for comparing stunting across human populations assume a universal model of child growth. Such comparisons ignore population differences that are independent of deprivation and health outcomes. This article partitions variation in height‐for‐age that is specifically associated with deprivation and health outcomes to provide a basis for cross‐population comparisons. Materials and MethodsUsing a multilevel model with a sigmoid relationship of resources and growth, we partition variation in height‐for‐agez‐scores (HAZ) from 1.5 million children across 70 countries into two components: (1) “accrued HAZ” shaped by environmental inputs (e.g., undernutrition, infectious disease, inadequate sanitation, poverty) and (2) a country‐specific “basal HAZ” independent of such inputs. We validate these components against population‐level infant mortality rates and assess how these basal differences may affect cross‐population comparisons of stunting. ResultsBasal HAZ differs reliably across countries (range of approximately 1.5 SD) and is independent of measures of infant mortality. By contrast, accrued HAZ captures stunting as impaired growth due to deprivation and is more closely associated with infant mortality than observed HAZ. Assessing stunting prevalence by accrued HAZ suggest that populations in West Africa and Haiti suffer much greater levels of stunting than indicated by observed HAZ. DiscussionCurrent universal standards may dramatically underestimate stunting in populations with taller basal HAZ. Relying on observed HAZ rather than accrued HAZ may also lead to inappropriate cross‐population comparisons, such as concluding that Haitian children enjoy better conditions for growth than do Indian or Guatemalan children. 

Abstract Social scientists have increasingly used asset‐based wealth scores, like the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) wealth index, to assess economic disparities. However, current indices primarily capture wealth in globalized market economies, thus ignoring other forms of prosperity, such as success in agricultural activities. Using a simple extension to the standard estimation of the DHS wealth index, we describe procedures for estimating an agricultural wealth index (AWI) that complements market‐based wealth indices by capturing household success in agricultural activities. We apply this procedure to household data from 129 DHS surveys from over 40 countries with sufficient land and livestock data to estimate a reliable and consistent AWI. We assess the construct validity of the AWI using benchmarks of growth in both adults and children. This alternative measure of wealth provides new opportunities for understanding the causes and consequences of wealth inequality, and how success along different dimensions of wealth creates different social opportunities and constraints for health and well‐being. 

Abstract Although wealth is consistently found to be an important predictor of health and well‐being, there remains debate as to the best way to conceptualize and operationalize wealth. In this article, we focus on the measurement of economic resources, which is one among many forms of wealth. We provide an overview of the process of measuring material wealth, including theoretical and conceptual considerations, a how‐to guide based on the most common approach to measurement, and a review of important theoretical and empirical questions that remain to be resolved. Throughout, we emphasize considerations particular to the settings in which anthropologists work, and we include variations on common approaches to measuring material wealth that might be better suited to anthropologists' theoretical questions, methodological approaches, and fieldwork settings. 

Social scientists have developed numerous asset-based wealth indices to assess and target socioeconomic inequalities globally. However, there are no systematic studies of the relative performance of these different measures as proxies for socioeconomic position. In this study, we compare how five asset-based wealth indices—the International Wealth Index (IWI), the Standard of Living portion of the Multi-Dimensional Poverty Index (MPI-SL), the Poverty Probability Index (PPI), the Absolute Wealth Estimate (AWE), and the DHS Wealth Index (DHS)—predict benchmarks of socioeconomic position across 11 communities in rural Bangladesh. All indices were highly correlated. The IWI best explained variation in individual and community ranking of economic well-being, while the PPI best explained variation both between and within communities for total household wealth and a general measure of subjective social status. 

Social scientists have increasingly used asset-based wealth scores, like the DHS wealth index, to assess economic disparities. However, current indices primarily capture wealth in globalized market economies, thus ignoring other forms of prosperity, such as success in agricultural activities. Using a simple extension to the standard estimation of the DHS Wealth Index, we describe procedures for estimating an Agricultural Wealth Index (AWI) that complements market-based wealth indices by capturing household success in agricultural activities. We apply this procedure to household data from 129 DHS surveys from over 40 countries with sufficient land and livestock data to estimate a reliable and consistent AWI. We assess the construct validity of the AWI using benchmarks of growth in both adults and children. This alternative measure of wealth provides new opportunities for understanding the causes and consequences of wealth inequality, and how success along different dimensions of wealth creates different social opportunities and constraints for health and well-being. 

Abstract Studies have shown mixed associations between wealth and fertility, a finding that has posed ongoing puzzles for evolutionary theories of human reproduction. However, measures of wealth do not simply capture economic capacity, which is expected to increase fertility. They can also serve as a proxy for market opportunities available to a household, which may reduce fertility. The multifaceted meaning of many wealth measures obscures our ability to draw inferences about the relationship between wealth and fertility. Here, we disentangle economic capacity and market opportunities using wealth measures that do not carry the same market-oriented biases as commonly used asset-based measures. Using measures of agricultural and market-based wealth for 562,324 women across 111,724 sampling clusters from 151 DHS surveys in 64 countries, we employ a latent variable structural equation model to estimate (a) latent variables capturing economic capacity and market opportunity and (b) their effects on completed fertility. Market opportunities had a consistent negative effect on fertility, while economic capacity had a weaker but generally positive effect on fertility. The results show that the confusion between operational measures of wealth and the concepts of economic capacity can impede our understanding of how material resources and market contexts shape reproduction.