Theories of famines

Famines were initially theorized as caused by natural catastrophes or else by tyrannical policies or the outbreak of warfare. However, during the Eighteenth Century, famines came to be seen as the result of wrong behaviour or bad policies. Thus famine could be caused by corruption (e.g. Warren Hastings blaming the Great Bengal Famine on the corruption of officers of the East India Company who turned a blind eye to the rapacious extortions of tax-farmers (called zamindars in the local language). However, it could also be exacerbated by bad policies- e.g. price controls which led to food being diverted from where it was needed to where it could command a better price.

During the Great Depression, economists became concerned that a 'general glut'- i.e. an underconsumption crisis- could create a paradoxical situation where farmers were destroying their own crop, since it was unprofitable to transport it to the market, while- in the Cities- the unemployed faced starvation. This pointed to the need for Government action to provide either 'food for work' or else make some other provision such that the poor could continue to eat rather than die of starvation. India, under the British, already had a Famine Code by the beginning of the Twentieth Century. Sadly, the transition to democratically elected Governments increased the scope for corrupt politicians to send food meant for the poor into the black market so as to gain windfall profits.

The Second World War featured famines in occupied countries- e.g. Holland, Vietnam etc- because the invading Army requisitioned food and left a portion of the conquered nation's poorer people to starve to death. More generally, most combatants introduced some type of rationing system so as to ensure that food could be sent to the Army without any excess mortality due to hunger amongst the Civilian population. It was during this period that many countries adopted a comprehensive Food strategy based on assessing the nutritional needs of different sections of the population and creating an infrastructure so that those needs could be met at an affordable price.

The conventional explanation until 1951 for the cause of famines was the decline of food availability relative to the nutritional needs of the population (abbreviated as FAD for food availability decline). The assumption was that the central cause of all famines- save those created by corruption, war, or bad economic policies- was a decline in food availability by reason of decline in food production or disruption of food distribution.[1] However this does not explain why only a certain section of the population such as the agricultural laborer- who was not able to do any labour unless the farmer fed him adequately- was affected by famines while others were insulated from them. Obviously, those working in food production did eat quite well because otherwise they could not do that work. However, those offering services in exchange for food might starve because there was a shortfall in food. The solution to this was to bring in food from food surplus areas to tide the local people over. In return for food they could be engaged in public works- e.g. digging ditches, reforestation, etc- so as to raise agricultural productivity. By 1956, when Binay Ranjan Sen became Director General of the Food and Agriculture Organization, agricultural technology had developed to a point where food availability deficits could be tackled both by raising agricultural productivity (which also permitted urbanization and industrialization) in poor countries as well as by bringing in Food Aid in massive quantities so as to, in the words of B.R. Sen, deliver 'Freedom from Hunger' to the one half of the world's population which was then malnourished.

The market for food is similar to other markets. In the short run, demand can be inelastic in the face of a sharp rise in price if people have assets which they can draw down to maintain consumption. In the medium to long term, absent bad economic policies or tyrannical government, elasticity of demand and supply increases. There is factor mobility. However, charitable donations together with Malthusian increase in population may leave a region subject to chronic malnutrition amongst those with no wealth or means of mobility. This does not mean everybody starves. Some may be opulent. Inequalities in wealth or ability to exit food shortage areas sufficiently explain such phenomena. [2]

Failure of exchange entitlements
People in Bengal partaking in road making as part of the government's famine relief project.
Citizens in Bengal road making as part of a famine relief project.

Amartya Sen suggests that the causal mechanism for precipitating starvation includes many variables other than just decline of food availability such as the inability of an agricultural laborer to exchange his primary entitlement, i.e. labor for rice, when his employment became erratic or was completely eliminated. However, the only reason laborers could not get regular work was because it cost too much to feed them. This was because the price of food had risen too much. This in turn was because food availability had declined.[2][3] According to the proposed theory, famines are due to an inability of a person to exchange his entitlements rather than to food unavailability. Sadly, an entitlement which you can't exchange for things you desperately need is not an entitlement at all. It is a delusive hope.

However, if food is available then the entitlement would be fulfilled. [2] Moreover, if food is available, even those without any entitlement may be fed by charity. This theory is called the failure of exchange entitlements or FEE in short.. Historically, no FEE has occurred save where food availability had sharply decreased. This is not to say that war-time rationing did not mean that some people with the money to pay for better quality food and drink did not suffer 'failure of exchange entitlement'. To give an example, a landlord who had an entitlement to a portion of the agricultural produce of land he rented out may have had to surrender it to the requisitioning authority. But, the context was one of expected decline in food availability for some section of the population- e.g. the armed forces.

Amartya Sen also touches on this in an article titled The Food Problem: Theory and Policy from Third World Quarterly, "The approach of entitlements also provides guidance regarding relief of famines should it occur or threaten to occur. Moving food into famine areas will not in itself do much to cure starvation, since what needs to be created is food entitlement and not just food availability."[4] On the other hand, moving food into famine areas and then giving that food to hungry people will completely eliminate the food availability deficit and put an end to starvation. Entitlements do not by themselves put food into people's bellies. Equally, food can be distributed to those with no entitlements and thus they too can be saved from starvation.

Lack of democracy

Amartya Sen advances the theory that lack of democracy and famines are interrelated; he cites the example of the Bengal famine of 1943, stating that it only occurred because of the lack of democracy in India under British rule. However, in 1937, all power over food had been transferred to elected governments in the Provinces. Thus, democracy did exist at the Provincial level. Since Civil Servants were no longer in charge, corrupt politicians were able to use the food availability deficit to make massive profits by diverting on to the black market the stocks of food which had been purchased with Government money to give to the poor. In 1974, there was another big famine in Bangladesh because some elected politicians were corrupt and, once again, there was diversion of food from the public distribution system to the black market.


Sen further argues that the situation was aggravated by the British government's suspension of trade in rice and grains among various Indian provinces.[3] The problem with this view is that the British government had surrendered all powers over the Provinces of India in 1937. It was Indian politicians who refused to permit food to be sent out of their own Province to another Province which was facing even worse food availability deficit.

Olivier Rubin's review of the evidence disagrees with Sen; after examining the cases of post-Independence India, Niger, and Malawi, he finds that "democracy is no panacea against famine." Rubin's analysis questions whether democracy and a free press were sufficient to truly avert famine in 1967 and 1972 (the Maharashtra famine involved some 130,000 deaths), and notes that some dynamics of electoral democracy complicate rather than bring about famine relief efforts. Rubin does not address colonial period famines.[5]

On the other hand, Andrew Banik's study Starvation and India's democracy affirms Sen's thesis, but indicates that while democracy has been able to prevent famines in India, because the USA felt it had to send PL 480 food shipments to India to preserve its Democratic character and prevent it undergoing a Communist revolution, it has not been sufficient to avoid severe under-nutrition and starvation deaths, which Banik calls a 'silent emergency' in the country.[6]

According to a FEWSNET report, "Famines are not natural phenomena, they are catastrophic political failures."[7] This may seem a strange viewpoint because famines existed long before political regimes of any sort came into existence.

See also

References
  1. Encyclopædia Britannica 2010.
  2. Chaudhari 1984, p. 135.
  3. Sen, Amartya (1982). Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford New York: Clarendon Press Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198284635.
  4. Sen, Amartya (July 1982). "The food problem: Theory and policy". Third World Quarterly. 4 (3): 447–459. doi:10.1080/01436598208419641. ISSN 0143-6597.
  5. Rubin 2009.
  6. Banik 2007.
  7. "FEWSNET report: 260,000 people died in the Somalia famine | Oxfam International". Oxfam.org. 2013-05-01. Retrieved 2020-04-04.

Sources
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.