INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY : DR. SCHMIDT
World Hunger and Famine:
A diagnosis of the problem and a prescription of
the solution
Ashley Jensen
12/12/2012
World hunger is a constant problem in the international political economy. Recent
calculations from the FAO are that each year, about one million people, primarily children starve
to death and 10 million die due to complications from severe malnutrition or under-nutrition.
But, by all reliable accounts, there is presently more than enough food to feed everyone on our
planet and – in almost all cases of large-scale famine – more than enough food to meet
everyone's nutritional needs in the very countries or areas suffering from famine1. The problem
defined in the IPE textbook is “excess supply and weak demand for agricultural commodities”.
To accompany that diagnosis there are a number of theories explaining the cause of world
hunger. Amongst these theories is Malthusian and distribution. I will explain and analyze these
theories because I feel that they give an accurate picture of the situation of world hunger and
famine. However these causes are simply masks of the true issue at hand. Starvation is not a
matter of changing policies or creating social programs it’s a matter of social justice and the
problem is structural. The cause of hunger is a lack of human rights. The solution to the problem
is for every human being to have the basic right to security and subsistence at a minimum level
of material well-being, including basic needs2. Through my analysis I will identify the major
actors which I believe to be; states, international organizations, multinational corporations, and
sub national groups along with their roles in the problem and the solution. I will use the 2008
food crisis as a model to understand the theories of world hunger in IPE and showcase a change
in results when basic rights are put into practice.
1
See Amartya Sen, Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1981); Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze, Hunger and Public Action (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1989);
2
See Frances Moore Lappe, et al., World Hunger: Twelve Myths, 2nd ed. (New York: Grove
Press, 1998).
2
To define the issue of hunger in IPE I will begin by identifying two different theories.
The first theory, derived from an in-class lecture, is the Malthusian theory. A basis for the theory
created by Thomas Malthus is that The Malthusian economy is the economic system which
operates whenever a society's production technology advances so slowly that population growth
forces income levels down to the subsistence level. In such an economy material welfare is
independent of natural resources, technology and capital accumulation, but instead depends
solely on the factors governing fertility and mortality. The resulting subsistence income can vary
widely across societies. The theory claims that governments have the ability to influence welfare
by controlling fertility and mortality. A second claim is that in order to have stability women
need to, on average, have two children who survive to adulthood. Even small deviations from
this number will cause rapid increases or decreases in population. Thus modern populations are
not stable. The model claims that the problem of world hunger is due to high population growth
and low per capita availability of food which leads to starvation. The solution is to reduce human
fertility through family planning and increase natural limits in carrying capacity of land 3. To
conclude the theory of Malthusian, it urges government not to support lower class births through
welfare programs and attempts to prevent hunger through reducing the birthrate, the second line
of defense then becomes increasing the death rate.
This theory has very valid points. Population is expected to grow 34% in the next 40
years right alongside the number of people starving each year. But the main flaw in the theory is
that there is enough food, and the world has not yet reached its carrying capacity for food. The
3
Gregory Clark Malthusian economy." The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics.Second Edition.Eds.
Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume. Palgrave Macmillan,2008.The New Palgrave Dictionary of
Economics Online. Palgrave Macmillan 01 December 2012
<http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article>
3
world has considerable land reserves which could in theory be converted to arable land. The
FAO projects that by 2050 the area of arable land will be expanded by 70 million hectares, or
about 5 percent. This would be the net balance of an expansion by 120 million hectares in the
developing countries and a contraction of arable land in favor of other uses in developed
countries by 50 million hectares. The availability of fresh water reserves for the required
production growth shows a similar picture. At a global scale, there are sufficient capacities, but
these are very unevenly distributed. Irrigated agriculture covers one fifth of arable land and
contributes nearly 50 percent of crop production. Hence, it is extremely productive. While
supplies are scarce in many areas, there are ample opportunities to increase water use efficiency4.
The issue is not the biological carrying capacity but the socio-economic carrying capacity. While
there is a strongly established "carrying capacity" thesis in population dynamics theory within
the discipline of biology, this cannot be directly extended to the "carrying capacity" of humans.
Human survival and health are vastly effected by the overall socio-economic arrangements
within which they live: from the local village or neighborhood to international social, economic,
and political arrangements. William Aiken makes the claim that limits on food product are set by
trade practice. Aiken states:
International purchasing power extends a nation's carrying capacity because this is not a
biological limit – it is a complex social, economic and political limit. It is not fixed by
"nature" but by trade practices (for example, protective tariffs, currency exchange rates,
concessionary prices, multinational corporation interests, militarily motivated "loans") by
the international market in terms of who has what to sell (goods, resources, alliances),
who wants to buy it, what price you can get for what you have to sell, and by the
influence of international interests on indigenous production and distribution (for
4
See FAO “How to Feed the World in 2050”
4
example, neo-colonialism with its emphasis upon the mass production of nonfood export
crops).5
It’s important to understand the relevance of these facts. These claims disprove Garrett Hardin’s
“lifeboat” theory. Hardin claims that there is one lifeboat in the world. He describes that lifeboat
bearing 50 people, with room for ten more. The people are the different countries of the world.
The lifeboat is in an ocean surrounded by a hundred swimmers. The "ethics" of the situation
stem from the dilemma of whether, and under what circumstances, swimmers should be taken
aboard the lifeboat risking that the lifeboat might sink with too many on board6. In reality there
are many lifeboats but the lifeboats charge an admission fee and require a selection process
before boarding. Because it’s proven that the biological carrying capacity for food is not in
jeopardy any theory claiming carrying capacity has been depleted must be rejected. In response
to this rejection our world has come up with another analysis to the cause of world hunger.
This next theory I will present to you is the theory that the world contains plenty of food,
but the problem lies within the distribution of that food. The FAO takes the stance that
international food production is enough to feed the world but wealthy countries produce most of
the food and import more food from developing countries. The other issue is the use of food. The
FAO claims that only half of the world’s food production is used for human consumption. Food
production is increasingly being used for other uses such as production of biofuels or animal feed
to meet the needs of demand for energy and meat. The main issue is exploitation. Politics are
coming before humanity in today’s world. For example as China and India are rapidly
developing their industrial sectors they are deliberately slowing grain production causing them to
5
William Aiken, "The 'Carrying Capacity' Equivocation," in William Aiken and Hugh LaFollette
(eds.), World Hunger and Morality, op. cit., pp. 23-24
6
See Garratt Hardin’s “Living in a Lifeboat”
5
be more dependent on commodity imports to meet the increases in demand for soybeans, feed
grains, meat and non-tradition commodities. There is evidence that these decisions are rational
economic strategy for Chinese and Indian officials. The FAO suggests the solution in the short
run to be the improvements of safety nets and social protection programs in order to reach those
most in need. Simultaneously, small-scale farmers must be given access to indispensable tools
and technologies that will allow them to boost production. In the medium and long run the FAO
claims the structural solution to hunger lies in increasing agricultural output in countries prone to
food shortages. They suggest stable and effective policies, regulatory and institutional
mechanisms, and functional market infrastructures that promote investment in the agricultural
sector7. Another solution suggested by experts is that market forces along with a second green
revolution, fueled by new production technologies will allow food production to steadily rise
along with higher incomes and population growth. I agree with the FAO that distribution is a
huge problem. But it is not THE problem. The food production is correlating with population
growth; the problem is that the food is not reaching the people. Experts believe that the issues
concerning food distribution are increasingly interrelated and complex, justifying state
intervention in the economy8.
State intervention is necessary when human rights are being violated consistently. In the
case of world hunger all theories to the contrary are invalid. The problem lies in tragic reality;
that humans do not have the basic rights they need in order to live. The “dog eat dog”, “survival
of the fittest” world is not acceptable and we cannot allow it to be. Distribution needs to be
changed but policies and social programs are not the solution. The world has had policies and
7
8
See FAO policy brief “ Hunger in the Face of a Crisis”
David Balmaan and Bradford Dillan Intro International Political Economy
6
social programs for decades and there are still starving people in the world. And as long as there
is one family that starves to death, we as human beings have failed. I believe that the only way to
justly go about solving world hunger is through the social approach. Though we would like to
believe in altruism the method of donations to the needy will not suffice. Before I can explain
what I believe to be the true solution to world hunger I need to explain what the fundamental
problem is.
The first context I would like to explain is defining whether the world hunger problem
should be addressed primarily in terms of duties or obligations of individuals to other
individuals, or the structures of various social, economic, and political institutions, policies, and
programs. To this, I feel the issue needs to be defined socially. To quote Akien’s again the
individual approach,
disregards other potential causes for the starvation such as the economic factors within
that nation (for example, production and distribution of wealth, land, and capital
ownership, effective social services), the political factors within that nation (for example,
expenditure on arms development is given priority over food or population control
programs), and the social factors within that nation (for example, the maintenance of an
affluent elite at the cost of the impoverished masses9
Charity is unsuccessful and furthermore an act against the dignity of the hungry implying that
they do not deserve the right to food, but if they’re lucky some rich person will take pity of them.
This issue is whether saving people from starvation is a matter of beneficence or a matter of
justice. This question is of the utmost importance since, by definition, if hunger is a matter of
charity then no one can be compelled to give some of the resources they would otherwise have
available to them to aid the severely deprived. On the other hand, if hunger is a matter of justice
then people could be compelled, through compulsory taxation, for example to aid the hungry.
9
William Aiken, "The Carrying Capacity Equivocation," op cit., p. 23.
7
And as John Locke said any society that does not have its rights and needs met are justified in
rebelling and have the right to revolution. In my analysis I will provide realistic components to
the social approach.
The first principle of basic rights is that it includes the right to security and subsistence
to typical threats such as hunger, not every possibly threat to a person’s life that need to be
preserved. Henry Shue explains:
there is an enduring general right to protection against common, easily and cheaply
preventable threats to life. … As with police protection and all other protections for our
lives entailed by rights, the measures we judge appropriate do depend partly on cost. …
We must … consider which measures are normal and which are extraordinary, because
we must consider cost. It is possible for what can satisfy a vital need inexpensively to be
the content of a right, while what could satisfy another equally vital need, but only at
great expense, not to be10.
Food qualifies under this description. Hunger is a common and cheaply preventable threat to life.
Most of the money spent on food aid goes to shipping, mark ups, and overhead and ,previously
mentioned, there in enough food in the world to meet every humans needs. The only costs that
would be incurred would be spent in developing basic rights for all human beings11. The second
principle of basic rights is that needs to be recognized are transcending national boundaries.
National sovereignty has its own golden value but global justice prevails. There are instances,
such as, environmental issues that have transcended national boundaries and its evident that
world hunger needs to do the same. The international rights movement has declared respect to
10
Henry Shue, "Solidarity among Strangers and the Right to Food" in William Aiken and Hugh
LaFollette (eds.), World Hunger and Morality, 2nd edition., op cit. See also: Henry Shue, Basic
Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and U.S. Foreign Policy, 2nd edition (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1996).
11
Ruth Messinger "U.S. Farm Bill Fail: Will Congress Act on World Hunger?" Huffington Post
(blog). N.p., 5 Nov. 2012. Web. 3 Dec. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ruthmessinger/will-congress-act-on-world-hunger_b_2067211.html>
8
people's right to life. It is usually thought that we have a duty toward all humans to not unjustly
to kill them and to aid them if they are severely deprived 12. However I would argue that included
in this duty should be the duty to create social institutions to enforce these rights. In Article 25 of
the Universal declaration of rights it states:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of
himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and
necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment,
sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances
beyond his control.
Then again in Article 11 its states:
The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone
to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation,
the measures, including specific program, which are needed (to fulfill these rights)13.
It’s apparent our world has attempted to give every human being basic rights. Yet still as of our
last election 1 billion people are hungry. There needs to be an outlet to enforce these rights. The
answer is social institutions to protect basic rights. Just as there are criminal justice systems
worldwide, there needs to be a social justice system that prevents people from dying due to a
lack of basic needs. This system will be funded by the people through taxes. Taxes have always
been considered a burden but this is necessary tax. The people of the world pay taxes to much
less important things and the basic rights of human beings needs to become a priority. According
to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs every human has to fulfill their basic needs before education and
12
Aryeh Neier The International Human Rights Movement: A History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
UP, 2012. Print.
13
See the official “UN Declaration of Rights” homepage
9
innovation 14 . If those two principles (education and innovation) are the key factors in any
developing countries the primary goal needs to be basic rights before anything else.
The most prominent example of hunger in the world is the 2008 Food Crisis. I believe
that had there been social institutions in place this crisis would have never occurred. I will use
this crisis in order to elaborate my previous points and develop my prescription of stability and
security. The 2008 global food crisis resulted in shortages and astronomically high prices. The
IPE textbook identifies the six factors that caused the crisis as:
An undervalued U.S. dollar that led to a severe drawdown in U.S. commodity stocks,
natural resource limits that contributed to shortages, high levels of investments in
agriculture production that drove up prices, new technologies such as biofuels that
diverted food from developing nations, the overreliance of developing nations on cheap
food policies, inappropriate development strategies, and inappropriate technologies to
relieve hunger, and lastly the continued presence of war disease corruption other
unfavorable political and economic conditions that severely weaken food production and
distribution systems15
I plan to show how social institution would have structurally transformed this crisis and can
prevent the reoccurrence of such events. All of the factors causing the global food crisis are
indirect causes and should never have been able to cause millions of people to die from hunger
or malnourishment.
Before the explanation of the model for the cure to world hunger, I would like to briefly
establish two objectives that are key to the model. My first objective is: State intervention has
been proved problematic. I want to clearly define that this paper in not an attempt to justify
communism but a plea for food to be an enforced human right. The only acceptable option to
achieve this goal is through state intervention; which is justified due to the massive human rights
violations. My second and last objective is that food is not a means for profit but a means for
14
15
See Maslow’s full theory under “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs”
David Balaam and Bradford Dillman Intro to Political Economy
10
life16. With the previous objective stated it is clear that the global food crisis of 2008 could have
been prevented through social institutions.
In the format of summarize, then correct, I will began with the U.S. dollar. When the U.S.
dollar became weak basic commodities, such as wheat, became more affordable. Other nations
began to import an excess amount of wheat making supplies low and prices high. This was
certainly not a major factor in the global food crisis but could have easily been prevented with a
yearly regulation on prices of basic commodities by an international social institution ensuring
prices are never excessively high or low. I will repeat: food is not a profit commodity and
economic security can only be accomplished when human rights are satisfied 17. The ultimate
solution is for state to take control over distribution and sale of basic food commodities. The
second layer of blame is then placed on natural limits leading to shortages. Droughts, lack of
water, and global warming in different parts of the world limited carrying capacity in 2008. The
FAO reported that global warming affects would destroy 1.1 billion hectares of farm land in
Africa. Droughts in the U.S, the EU, Russia, Ukraine and Argentina contributed to record low
commodity stockpile levels. At this point many claimed there would soon be a “Malthusian
nightmare”. Malthusian theories have already been ruled out but natural limits do occur.
However, natural limits can be prevented and recovered. International response teams are already
in existence but in order to prevent natural limits from lowering the supply, food disasters
harming the production of food need to be a priority for recovery. Addressing the issue of exsess
GMOs; GMOs should not be taken over by the state, but the state needs to place priority funding
to the development of new GMO’s during times of droughts. The physical factor was the
increased use of new technologies (primarily biofuels) in the United States and the EU.
16
17
L.T Hobhouse The Labor Movement
See extend Maslow’s theory
11
Originally, biofuels seemed to be the solution; agricultural production would increase and there
would be a reduction in dependency on oil. In reality the results were declining levels of
commodity reserves and record food prices. The US, the EU and Brazil (keys members of the
bricks) spent billions of dollars and made several policies regarding the production of biofeuls
with the promise that this new form of energy would stimulate economic development. An
overall critiqued claimed that these policies could, “be the single most destructive set of policy
mistakes made in a generation”18. Arguments were made from all corners. Liberals claimed that
though food prices were higher, oil and petroleum prices were lower and biofuels were
protecting the environment which would ultimately aid in food production. However, there were
contradictions to this claiming that biofuels omitted large amounts of green house gas admissions
and creating bio-ethanol of bio-diesel fuels requires more energy than it generates 19 .
Mercantilists and structuralists are for or against biofuels based on its impact of national political
and economic interests. However, structuralists believe that on the issue of world hunger,
biofuels can only negatively affect food policy. Overall the issue is that the need for food
requires priority over the need for energy. The mistake made by the U.S, the EU and Brazil was
that food production was shifted towards biofuels without any indication of success. Biofuels
will make a positive economic impact on the world once the technology is perfected, but in 2008
biofuel production was far from perfection and deaths from hunger were at record highs. These
decisions need to be a lesson in history. If there were financial repercussions, enforced by an
international social institution for shifting the production of food away from human consumption
See Peter Brabeck-letmathe, “Biofuels are Indefensible in our Hungry World” the Wall Street
Journal June 13th 2009
19
See Susan S. Lang, “Cornell Ecologist Study Finds that Producing Biofuels and Ethanol from
Corn and other Crops is not Worth the Energy” Cornell University News Service, July 5th 2005
18
12
the decisions and policies made by the U.S., the EU and Brazil would have been dramatically
different, saving billions of dollars and lives.
These three factors in the global food crisis of 2008 bring to light the issue of basic rights. Food
is a basic right and cannot be used for profit or economic development until humans are no
longer dying from lack of food. The above factors represent the physical factors of the crisis but
there were also several internal issues at fault.
Investment firms are influential actors in world hunger. They bid up the value of
agricultural commodities when purchasing stock which result in higher prices. The complexities
in the role of investment firms, in counteracting the efforts of the state to curb hunger, are
despicable. The state cannot stand by and allow investment firms to disrupt efforts to end world
hunger. As Hobhouse states “Liassez-faire economics are enabling the powerful to exploit the
weak”. Investment firms and multinational corporations control the world. The state needs to
take back control over human rights completely. Any market that contributes to the production
and distribution of food needs to be regulated or controlled by the state. I believe the core
internal issue, is developing countries overreliance on industrial and development models.
LDC’s were encourages to follow western argo-industrial development strategies including
producing domestic products specific to their geography which will earn them foreign trade20.
The theory requires the industrialization of agriculture and an emphasis on GMO’s. A recent UN
study by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development
reveals that industrial systems are “Contributing to the destruction of ecosystems, exacerbating
global warming, and too dependent on fossil fuels, and are likely to widen the gap between rich
20
See David Richardo Argo-Industrial Development Strategies
13
and poor”21. However, GMO’s are arguably necessary, with overpopulation and environmental
change. The only drawback, is that new research has shown GMO’s may not be producing more
than their conventional equivalent and dependency on GMO could result in less food production
in the future. Studies have shown that modified crops decrease ecological diversity, contribute to
an increasing reliance on industrial methods and increase poverty22. GMO’s are controlled by
large corporations, and the crops are patented as intellectual property leading to high initial and
fixed costs. In addition the produces from these plants are most often filtered into trade markets
instead of being sold at decreased prices to those in need. The high prices and complications of
GMO’s prove that they are not an immediate solution to world hunger. LDCs need to take
control of the problem and make progress away from western agro-industrial models. In fact, the
roots of the high food prices are an extension of a long-run crisis directly related to institutions
and workings of capitalism and the state system that support and protects it. LDC’s cannot
support laissez-faire economics. They need reassess their focus to serve the basic needs of their
people. LDCs need to be self reliant and self sufficient at the local level by giving control to the
states, in terms of food. Another issue surrounding LDCs (who hold the majority of the hungry)
is trade policies. Core states have dominated trade networks since the 16th century, exploiting
developing countries through policies. Free-trade policies between wealthy nations only made
developing countries more dependent on rich states for goods and services. These dependencies
ultimately lead to reliance on industrial agricultural models yet agricultural surpluses in these
nations are still not being used to fight hunger. Genuine food security can be achieved with the
reform of “free trade” polices and the establishments of “fair trade” policies in order to allow
21
See International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development 2008
report for a detailed discussion of hunger, agriculture, global warming and the argo-industrial
model.
22
See Miguel Altieri, Genetic Engineering in Agriculture
14
globalization to benefit the poor by creating policies that acknowledge economics, development
issues, sociological concerns and politics. In conclusion the economic profits of investment firms
and large agricultural corporations were earned on the lives of billions of people. The solution is
for the state to take responsibility, and fight against the exploitation of its people by eliminating
capitalism from the food industry.
In final analysis world hunger consists of the results of inequality and exploitation on a
global basis rather than a lack of production or overpopulation. Policies will help distribution but
world hunger can only be solved within a state controlled industry. Billions of lives cannot be
left to the hope of charity. Forty five countries are in desperate need, 25,000 die each day from
hunger, and Africa alone needs $8 billion a year for sustainable food production. One
recommendation from Jeffery Sachs, the Columbian university development expert suggests an
international account funded by G8 states that distributes money to small scale farmers in
developing countries23. Sach’s suggestion would achieve food security. Equity will require the
duty of all moral persons under present historical circumstances to support and promote social
democratic and socialist societies in the developing world, on the assumptions that these
institutions can maintain their social safety nets and will evolve to protect their population's
security rights as well as their subsistence rights.
23
See Jeffery Sachs “a Breakthrough Against Hunger”
15
Bibliography
Altieri, Miguel Genetic Engineering in Agriculture
Aiken, William. "The 'Carrying Capacity' Equivocation," in William Aiken and Hugh LaFollette
(eds.), World Hunger and Morality, op. cit., pp. 23-24
Aiken, Willam. "The Carrying Capacity Equivocation," op cit., p. 23.
Balmaan, David and Bradford Dillan Intro International Political Economy
Brabeck-letmathe, Peter. “Biofuels are Indefensible in our Hungry World” the Wall Street
Journal June 13th 2009
Clark, Gregory. Malthusian economy." The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics.Second
Edition.Eds. Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume. Palgrave Macmillan,2008.The New
Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online. Palgrave Macmillan 01 December 2012
http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article
FAO “How to Feed the World in 2050”
FAO policy brief “Hunger in the Face of a Crisis”
Hardin, Garette. “Living in a Lifeboat”
Hobhouse, L.T. The Labor Movement
International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development 2008 report
for a detailed discussion of hunger, agriculture, global warming and the argo-industrial model.
Lappe, Frances Moore. et al., World Hunger: Twelve Myths, 2nd ed. (New York: Grove Press,
1998).
Lang, Susan. “Cornell Ecologist Study Finds that Producing Biofuels and Ethanol from Corn and
other Crops is not Worth the Energy” Cornell University News Service, July 5th 2005
Messinger, Ruth. "U.S. Farm Bill Fail: Will Congress Act on World Hunger?" Huffington Post
(blog). N.p., 5 Nov. 2012. Web. 3 Dec. 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ruthmessinger/will-congress-act-on-world-hunger_b_2067211.html
Neier, Aryeh The International Human Rights Movement: A History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
UP, 2012. Print.
Sachs, Jerffery. “a Breakthrough Against Hunger”
16
Sen, Amartya. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1981); Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze, Hunger and Public Action (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1989
Shue, Henery. "Solidarity among Strangers and the Right to Food" in William Aiken and Hugh
LaFollette (eds.), World Hunger and Morality, 2nd edition., op cit. See also: Henry Shue, Basic
Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and U.S. Foreign Policy, 2nd edition (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1996).
17