Table 10. Panel fixed effects for selected vulnerable groups and selected variables of interest

||Female headed households|Hous|eholds headed byhead with lower ed|ucation|Households with lar|ge number of older|people|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Lof of food expenditure|-0.088 (0.075)|-0.092|* (0.054)|-0.|067 (0.069)|||
|Log of health expenditure|-0.222 (0.192)||-0.241* (0.158)||-0.15|7 (0.190)||
|Doctor's visits|-0.022|(0.141)|-0.012|(0.081)||-0.06|5 (0.111)|
|Number of observations|1268<br>964|1227|2014<br>1467|1934|1602|1232|1550|
|Number of groups|422<br>375|420|643<br>566|638|539|481|534|
|Year dummies|YES<br>YES<br>YES|YES|YES<br>YES|YES|YES|YES||
|R2|0.036<br>0.0708|0.0141|0.038<br>0.0292|0.018|0.047|0.037|0.0067|
|All models estimated with robus<br>All models estimated with contr<br>education of the head of the ho<br>score matching. Robust standar|t standard errors. *** denotes significance at 1<br>ol variables used in the propensity score match<br>useholds (where appropriate), as well as an ass<br>d errors are reported in parantheses.|% level of significan<br>ing exercise: age of<br>et index. The results|ce, ** denotes significance at 5% level<br>the head of household, whether or not<br>of the control variables are not report|of signficance<br>the househol<br>ed but are co|, * denotes signficanc<br>d is headed by male (<br>nsistent with the resu|e at 10% level of si<br>where appropriate<br>lts obtained in the|gnificance.<br>), level of<br>propensity|

# 7. <u>Discussion</u>

We find that on average, Russian households affected by the 2009 crisis where no different to households that were not affected by the crisis in terms of household’s health and nutrition behavior. The finding is not very surprising given Russia’s wealth and ability among many households to move towards home production of food, during and in the aftermath of the crisis. Previous research also failed to find robust and significant impacts of crises on nutrition in Russia. Stillman and Thomas (2004) for example find that nutritional status appears to be resilient to variation in household resources. Gross energy intake, adult body mass index (BMI), and child stature all change very little as expenditure deviates from its long-run average. In contrast, they find a positive, significant and substantively large effect of longer-run resources on energy intake, two indicators of diet quality, adult body mass index (BMI), and child stature. Their study suggests that fluctuations in income might have a more significant effect in long than in short run. Dore et al (2003), while assessing dietary trends for children in low and high income households during this politically and economically unstable period from 1994 to 2000, find that low income children maintained a steady energy intake per kilogram weight throughout the study period, whereas intake for high income children increased energy intake per kilogram weight significantly. Their results suggest that Russian households were able to conserve their diet structure for children by using what appear to be food-related behavioral mechanisms during periods of economic crisis.

On the other hand, our analysis does confirm a strong link between crisis-affected poor households and out-of-pocket health expenditure, which is in line with the existing literature. Frankenber et al (1999) and Cutler et al (2002) find that, in general, households that are crisisaffected reduced healthcare utilization in Indonesia and in Mexico during crises because of out of pocket expenses.

Moreover, our results also suggest that there is a strong link between vulnerability and out-ofpocket health expenditure (and, in certain instances, food) especially in the periods of crisis. Certain vulnerable families (such as those with household heads with low educational attainment) 18