Devising multi-pronged strategies for those highly prone to food insecurity in the future remains a challenge for food policymakers. This set of food-insecure households faces different kinds of shocks (economic, political, environmental, pandemic, personal, etc.), which render them vulnerable to food insecurity. This study identifies those who are vulnerable to food insecurity, and will be useful for policymakers to resolve food insecurity related challenges in crisis or no crisis periods on an ex-ante basis. This paper decomposes the total welfare loss resulting from vulnerability to food insecurity into components due to ‘food poverty’ (expected consumption of the current food secure falling below the food poverty line), and risk (variability of food consumption over time). The last term can be further decomposed into the aggregate (region or community-specific), and idiosyncratic (household or individual-specific) risks. The paper identifies the key determinants of the different components of vulnerability to food insecurity based on household consumption expenditure surveys conducted in rural India in 2004–05, 2009–10, and 2011–12. Expected utility-based measures, and pseudo-panel regression techniques were used to identify risk-prone households. The key findings are: idiosyncratic risk is the largest driver (a loss in the utility of almost 51%) as compared to the poverty and covariate shocks; states with poor Public Distribution System (PDS) performance are more susceptible, a rise in the price of staple food items increases the chances of food insecurity, gendered disparity persists over time, forward social and religious groups are more vulnerable, and finally a higher level of urbanization increases the exposure and sensitivity to shocks (like the spread of contagious diseases), disrupts the supply of food commodities from rural markets, loss in income, and increase in rural vulnerability to food insecurity. Our key policy suggestion is a mix of cash versus in-kind transfers to resolve rural food insecurity related issues, tend towards resiliency, and simultaneously tackle the triple burden of malnutrition and SDG-2 related goals.

为将来极易发生粮食不安全状况的人们制定多管齐下的战略仍然是粮食政策制定者面临的挑战。这组粮食不安全的家庭面临各种冲击（经济，政治，环境，流行病，个人等），这使他们容易受到粮食不安全的影响。这项研究确定了那些容易受到粮食不安全威胁的人，这将有助于决策者事前解决危机或无危机时期与粮食不安全有关的挑战。本文将由于“粮食贫困”（当前粮食安全的预期消费量低于粮食贫困线）导致的对粮食不安全的脆弱性造成的总福利损失分解为风险，以及风险（粮食消费随时间的变化）。可以将最后一个术语进一步分解为总体风险（特定于区域或社区）和特质风险（特定于家庭或个人）。本文根据2004-05、2009-10和2011-12年在印度农村进行的家庭消费支出调查，确定了易受粮食不安全影响的不同因素的关键决定因素。预期的基于效用的措施和伪面板回归技术被用来识别易患风险的家庭。主要发现是：与贫困和协变量冲击相比，特质风险是最大的驱动因素（实用性损失近51％）；公共分配系统（PDS）绩效不佳的州更容易受到影响，主食价格上涨增加了粮食不安全的机会，随着时间的流逝，性别差异仍然存在，先进的社会和宗教团体更加脆弱，最后，更高水平的城市化增加了人们对冲击（如传染病的传播）的敏感性和敏感性，扰乱了来自农村市场的食品供应，收入损失以及农村人口的增加粮食不安全的脆弱性。我们的主要政策建议是现金与实物转移相结合，以解决与农村粮食不安全相关的问题，趋向于弹性，并同时解决营养不良和可持续发展目标2相关目标的三重负担。