Conclusion

Changes in food insecurity driven by income shocks during lockdown differ significantly. Households that faced an income reduction during lockdown faced a 10 percentage point increase in the probability of being food insecure compared with households without income decreases. In addition, shocks in the employment of the main income earner during the lockdown help explain some of the differences in the change of food insecurity. Households whose main income earner worked less hours, stopped working, or did not work before lockdown faced higher increases in food insecurity than households whose main income earners kept working their usual number of hours during lockdown. We also find significant differences between households whose main income earner was able to work but worked less hours and households whose main income earners were not able to work, lost their job, or had no job before lockdown.

Finally, consistent with our previous analysis, we find significant differences in the change in food insecurity between the West Bank and Gaza. Even after controlling for other characteristics, the increase in the probability of being food insecure was 8.4 percentage points higher in the West Bank than in Gaza (figure 3.16 and table 3A.1 in the annex).

Conclusion

The 2020 RAPS underscores that COVID-19 seriously disrupted the livelihoods of Palestinian households through the labor market channel between March and May 2020, the period of emergency, or the lockdown. Our in-depth analysis of the phone survey and the 2018 SEFSec find that the pandemic affected not only the poorest households but also those that were relatively better-off prior to the start of the pandemic. What follows are a few key takeaways to help guide future targeted interventions.

First, our analysis suggests that although 20 percent of previously employed main income earners lost their job during the period of emergency, employment losses do not fully explain the observed income loss during the lockdown. Rather, another major factor is at work: changes in the demand for work for workers who had not lost their jobs. This helps explain some of the differences in the impacts of the pandemic on household incomes between the West Bank and Gaza. Among previously employed main income earners, less than half were able to work at least partially, and only a fraction were able to work as usual. In the West Bank, 40 percent of the previously employed main income earners reported still having a job but not being able to work. In Gaza, however, a higher share of main income earners who stopped working may have lost their jobs permanently.

Second, the pandemic has revealed how vulnerable Palestinian households are to food insecurity, even those who were better off prior to the lockdown. On the basis of the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (SDG Indicator 2.1.2), we observe that 1 out of 3 Palestinian households suffered from moderate or severe food insecurity during the period of emergency. This rate increased from about 1 out of 4 households in 2018. The West Bank saw the highest increase, with the percentage of moderate or severe food insecurity of households increasing from 8.7 in 2018 to 22.8 during the March–May 2020 period.

Third, during the lockdown, the negative impacts of the pandemic on household incomes were both prevalent and severe. They affected households across all expenditure quintiles, although the share of households with self-reported losses of income is slightly higher among the poorest quintiles, both in the West Bank and in Gaza. In the West Bank, the main income earners at all welfare levels experienced job loss or were unable to perform their work, while in Gaza, the main income earners from the poorest households were more likely to lose their job during the lockdown.

Fourth, self-reported income loss is correlated with higher food insecurity during the lockdown. This finding is true across the income distribution. For all quintiles in the West Bank and in Gaza, households whose income decreased were more food insecure than households whose income did not decrease, with differences being between 10 and 20 percentage points.

What might be future areas of inquiry? One question focuses on the differences in results between the West Bank and Gaza. Could other factors not observed in the surveys be in play, such as preexisting social protection nets? In Gaza, before the pandemic, these nets covered almost 80 percent of households, while in the West Bank, the coverage was lower, although it more than doubled during the lockdown. Our findings suggest that further studies are needed to explain the dramatic increase in food insecurity in the West Bank, beyond changes in income and work conditions.

Another line of inquiry could center on the situation of households whose main income earner was not working before the period of emergency. Our results suggest that half of these households experienced income losses during the lockdown and that, on average, food insecurity increased compared with households whose main income earner kept working as usual or continued working at least partially. The group is heterogeneous and includes, among other factors, (a) households with a retired pensioner as main income earner, (b) households whose main income earner was looking for work when the economy closed, and (c) potentially, households that report the household head to be the main income earner despite other members providing the main source of income.