Is There an Intrahousehold "Flypaper Effect"? Evidence from a School Feeding Program

This paper examines whether an intrahousehold "flypaper effect" exists in the case of supplementary feeding programs. It attempts to determine whether and to what extent households reallocate resources in response to government programs. That is, do the benefits of feeding programs "stick" with the children, or do parents reallocate or "tax away" food from the children in the presence of school or other supplementary food programs?

Prior to this study, few researchers had addressed the question of how effectively targeted programs actually improve child nutrition, or to what extent their benefits may be neutralized by the household. This study examines these questions through analysis of a school feeding program in the Philippines.

The Study
The study was based on data on five feeding programs in the United States and abroad, and on survey data from the Philippines. The feeding programs were the National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, and the Special Milk Program in the United States; plus two supplementary feeding programs in Tamil Nadu and Costa Rica. Because of methodolog- ical problems, these data were not used to draw definitive conclusions, but rather to highlight important feeding program issues.

The Philippines data came from a 1994-95 follow-up to the Cebu Longitudinal Health and Nutrition Survey. This survey of 3,189 children in 159 schools, most of whom where underweight and had low nutritional status, collected information on school attendance, the school feeding program (a morning snack of sweetened bulghur porridge, sponsored by CARE), and related issues. The dietary recall section of the survey asked each child to recall all food consumed the previous day. This information was then used to determine the caloric intake of both participants and nonparticipants in the feeding program.

"...children who participated in the school feeding programs continued to receive about the same number of calories from home as the nonparticipants."

Findings
The study found that among most of the households surveyed, an intrahousehold "flypaper effect" did exist. In other words, children who participated in the school feeding programs continued to receive about the same number of calories from home as the nonparticipants. The households generally did not reallocate or "tax away" the benefits of the child feeding program by reallocating food to other household members. In the rare cases when such reallocation did occur, it took place in the poorest households, where nutritional needs were the greatest.

The theory of altruism holds that households ordinarily distribute resources according to the maximum benefit of their members. According to this theory, as well as observations of numerous policy interventions, one should expect households to transfer food away from children in the presence of feeding programs in order to more efficiently feed other family members.

In the case of school or other supplementary feeding programs, this phenomena appears to simply not occur. The paper does not offer definitive explanations as to why the intrahousehold "flypaper effect" exists but suggests that this as a subject for further research.

Policy Implications
The common practice of reallocating household resources away from the intended recipients of government programs is a major consideration for policymakers planning a variety of household interventions. This study finds consistent evidence that supplementary feeding programs do benefit their targets, in this case, children. Whereas households can be expected to reallocate resources in other types of interventions, this is not the case for child feeding programs.

To order a discussion paper, please fill out an online order form, email IFPRI-FCN@cgiar.org or send requests to Food Consumption and Nutrition Division, IFPRI, 2033 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, U.S.A.