How Do Droughts Impact Household Food Consumption and Nutritional Intake? A Study of Rural India
This paper investigates the impacts of droughts on food expenditure and macronutrient consumption among rural Indian households. To isolate causal effects, I exploit random year-to-year variation in a dry shock, defined as the absolute deviation of rainfall below its long-run mean. I find that the dry shock has a statistically significant and negative effect on household nutrition. For a median dry shock, I estimate that households spend 1 percent less per capita per month on food and consume up to 1.4 percent fewer calories, protein, and fat. Disaggregating the effects by food group, I demonstrate that household diets become less balanced as a result of droughts: the dry shock leads households to rely primarily on cereals and to purchase less vegetables, fruits, pulses, and animal-sourced foods. Hence, droughts negatively impact not only the quantity but also the quality of rural household diets. Finally, I explore the potential channels for these effects. I argue that rather than higher food prices, a decline in household market and non-market income is the primary reason for lower household food consumption and nutrition during droughts. Taken together, these findings suggest that attaining food security amid extreme weather conditions requires an integrated approach that focuses on food not only for survival but also for leading a healthy and active life.
Revitalizing Transatlantic Maritime Security
This project will generate concrete policy proposals, particularly in the maritime domain, and look at ways for the United States and Europe, and Norway in particular, to adapt their m...
Governing oceans in an age of global shifts
How can we ensure that the oceans are governed in a secure and sustainable way? How can coastal states like Norway use the oceans to increase their economic growth? Welcome to this seminar and launch of NUPI’s new Center for Ocean Governance.
Mind the Gap: National Views of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific
Japan has played an intrinsic role in formulating and promoting the concept of a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” (FOIP) by making its version a core element of its foreign policy repertoire as it continues to strengthen and expand its presence beyond its immediate neighborhood. This chapter discusses the diplomatic, political, economic and security dimensions of Japan’s FOIP, expanding on both the strengths and challenges of the concept and its implementation.
Poland and Norway – strategic partnership in the making?
In 2019 Poland marks 20th anniversary of its membership in NATO as well as 15th anniversary of its membership in the EU. This year Poland will also mark 100 years since the establishment of diplomatic relations with Norway. What are Poland’s foreign and security policy priorities in the time to come? And how are Poland’s relations with Norway going to develop in years to come?
Report on significant distortions in the economy of the Russian Federation for the purpose of trade defence investigations (EU-Russia trade)
This project will produce a comprehensive study of Russia's economy, focusing on regulations, laws, subsidies and other aspects that may interfere in competition in the markets. ...
Improving Future Ocean Governance – Governance of Global Goods in an Age of Global Shifts
Japan’s G20 presidency in 2019 will take the lead in promoting environmentally sustainable economic growth and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As a gathering of coastal states, under Japan’s presidency the G20 will specifically work to reduce marine plastic pollution and support marine biodiversity. This policy paper highlights how oceans are governed spaces and points to the key role of the oceans in realizing the SDGs. We argue that the G20 can and should play an important role in addressing major governance gaps in ensuring the sustainable management of oceans. Recognizing that there are increased geopolitical tensions, and that we do indeed already have comprehensive multi-level governance systems in place to handle many aspects of the growing ‘blue economy’ and avoiding the tragedy of the commons, the G20 should primarily stress the need for full and effective implementation of existing instruments and measures at the national, regional and global levels and increased consistency across levels of governance. This would effectively address many of the challenges and make use of the opportunities of the oceans. However, the rapidly moving horizon of technological development and insufficient progress in mitigating global climate change represent new governance challenges that require renewed effort and innovative thinking for a sustainable future for the oceans. This policy paper provides recommendations as to how G20 states can: consolidate their own capacity and assist non-G20 states in taking responsibility for strengthening marine science and implementation of existing regulatory frameworks, exercise innovative global and regional leadership to address emerging opportunities and associated governance challenges and facilitate the meaningful involvement of the private sector and the public in ensuring a collective governance order around oceans.
The Arctic Council and US domestic policymaking
One widely recognized achievement of the Arctic Council and its various working groups has been the production of collectively generated assessments on Arctic problems. Assessment reports such as the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) provide an important baseline of shared knowledge for making collective circumpolar policy recommendations. But how does the knowledge produced through Arctic Council working groups figure into the policymaking of the Arctic states? This is an important question for understanding Arctic politics and the relationship between national decisionmaking and international relations more generally. Much of what the Arctic Council produces is in the form of recommendations, declarations of intent, and commitments to "best practices" in areas of shared interest and activity. While in recent years the Council has produced three binding agreements covering specific functional areas—search and rescue (2011), oil pollution preparedness and response (2013),and science cooperation (2017)—much ongoing Arctic collaborative work falls outside of these areas. This policy brief explores how science/policy outputs of and discussions at the Arctic Council fit into the Arctic political discourse of the USA, with an emphasis on key actors within the executive branch: the White House, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency.