Economic Theories of Famine

In this economics perspective, there are three main economic explanations of famine based on different sets of causal explanations (Blaikie et al., 2004:137). They are (i) Food Availability Decline (FAD), (ii) ‘Market Failure’ to supply food, and (iii) Food Entitlement Decline (FED). In the following each of these explanations is described.

i. Food Availability Decline (FAD): FAD approach states that famine occurs when adequate food is not produced in an area. This is just a balance sheet of available food (production) and population. This approach is related to “neo-Malthusian explanations, which focus on potential famine inducing consequences of rapid population growth outstripping the limits of food production” (Blaikie et al., 2004:133). FAD approach focuses on supply side of the picture and population growth which exceeds the means of subsistence. FAD is criticized at least for two reasons. First famine can occur in an area where there is no decline in aggregate production. Secondly some areas, which do not produce food al all, can have access to food through purchasing food from elsewhere. Thus critiques of FAD argue that distribution of and access to food matter more than the aggregate production in a specific area. Therefore, FAD has a limited power to explain famines which would occur with or without it.

ii. ‘Market Failure’ to Supply Food: In this approach famine is seen as being caused by imperfect markets which fail to supply food to meet the demand for food. In this view the problem is not a fall in the aggregate regional production, but a market failure is not enabling

the satisfaction of effective demand. In other words a functioning market, which should be capable of supplying the food that is in demand, is not able to operate (Blaikie et al., 2004:139).

In a classical economic thought, famine was attributed to interference of government in the market (i.e. in fixing price of grain). In times of food shortage where the government orders the dealers to sell grain at a price that it determines, dealers tend to withhold supply sometimes causing famine. Anticipation of food shortage can lead to speculation and hoarding. Likewise, excess supply to the market at lower prices fixed by the government would encourage increased consumption, which ultimately leads to higher prices quickly resulting in famine again. Therefore, according to the classical thought, in a situation where free commence and trade prevails; the effects of seasonal conditions are not powerful forces to result in famines (Fassil, 2005:50).

In relation to classical economic thought, some writers (Ravillion, 1996; Fassil, 2005) stated that contemporary analysis of famine causation still retains the main elements of classical thought. Ravillion (1996:4) added that the new emphasis is, therefore, to understand the circumstances of individuals in famine-vulnerable settings, and how those circumstances interact with economy-wide variables. The traditional emphasis on food availability and population growth to explain famine has been challenged. And the debate among scholars for better explanation of famine causation has been continued in the past five decades. In relation to this, the landmark work of Sen (1981) who introduced the concept of ‘entitlements’ has stimulated debates among contemporary economists in search of broader perspective to understand famine.

iii. Food Entitlement Decline (FED): On the basis of case studies in Africa (i.e. Ethiopian 1973/74 famine) and in Asia (Bangladesh famine of 1974), Sen established his theory of

‘entitlement’ to explain famine causation in broader perspective than FAD approach did. In his seminal work Sen has challenged the notion of ‘food availability decline’ as primary cause of famine. He attributes famine primary to the loss of ‘entitlements’. In arguing for the “loss of entitlements” as cause of famine, Sen explains as follows:

… the temptation to see (famine) as invariably associated with a large and sudden drop in food production and availability is strong, but famines have occurred without such a drop both in Asia and Africa. Sometimes famines have coincided with years of peak food availability, as in the Bangladesh famine of 1974. Since food and other commodities are not distributed freely, people’s consumption depends on their entitlements, that is, on the bundles of goods over which they can establish ownership through production and trade, using their own means. Some people own the food they themselves grow, while others buy them in the market on the basis of incomes earned through employment, trade, or business. Famines are initiated by severe loss of entitlements of one or more occupation groups, depriving them of the opportunity to command and consume food. […] something very like this happened in the Wello famine in Ethiopia in 1973, with impoverished residents of the province of Wello unable to buy food, despite the fact that food prices in Dessie (the capital of Wello) were no higher than in Addis Ababa and Asmera. In deed there is some evidence of some food moving out of Wello to the more prosperous regions of Ethiopia where people had more income to buy food (Sen 1990, quoted in Fassil, 2005:52-53).

Sen’s explanation of famine causation is broader framework than FAD. Devereux (2000:19-20) and Edkins (2002:13) noted that Sen’s entitlement approach has shifted the analytical focus away from food availability towards the inability of groups of people to acquire food.

The approach has made two contributions to famine literature: (i) a general analytical framework for examining all famines (the entitlement approach), and (ii) a new theory of causation (exchange entitlement failure) Devereux (2000:19-20).

And yet some authors (Ravillion 1996:4; Devereux, 2000) criticized the entitlement approach.

Some critiques questioned “whether those only people facing entitlement failure will go hungry, because there are evidences that some poor people with ample entitlements prefer to go hungry at certain times rather than sell their assets” (Ravillion 1996:4)⁴⁶. Still some writers criticized it claiming that the ‘entitlement’ approach is “a long-standing explanation of famine dressed in new garb” (Srinivasan, 1983; Rangasami, 1985; Clay, 1991 quoted in Ravillion 1996:7). Others also argued that Sen underestimates the importance of aggregate food availability (Devereux, 2000:20; Bowbrick, 1986 cited in Ravillion 1996:6).

Devereux (2001:258) further identified four limitations of entitlement approach that include, (i) the failure to engage with social relations and power inequalities (i.e. social vulnerability);

(ii) inability to explain collective outcomes of social crisis (hunger related and communicable diseases) and economic crisis with regard famine mortality; (iii) inapplicable in contexts (e.g.

in common property regimes where resources are controlled collectively and rights or claims are mediated by non-market institutions; and (iv) unable to explain the violations of entitlement (e.g. withholding food, looting grain, raiding cattle) and deliberate starvation or use of famine as weapons.

In general the main limitation of entitlement approach is its failure to engage with famine as both a social process and a political crisis. The entitlement approach is mainly an economistic analytical framework which gives attention to economic aspects of famine excluding the social and political aspects. Devereux summarized the limitations and inadequacies of Sen’s entitlement approach in the following terms:

… a failure to recognize individuals as socially embedded members of households, communities and states; and the failure to recognize famines as political crises as much as they are economic shocks or natural disasters. As a result an elegant framework which privileges the economic aspects of famine and excludes the social and political: the importance of institutions in determining entitlements (at intra-household and community level), famine as a social process (mortality due to communicable diseases), and violations of entitlement rules by others (war and complex emergences). Without a complementary social and political analysis, the entitlement approach can illuminate only a small part of a very complex phenomenon (Devereux, 2001:259).

Indeed in a later work (Hunger and Public Action), Dreze and Sen (1989 cited in Watts and Bohle, 1993) have addressed poverty and hunger equation, primarily in terms of command over food. In their view famine and hunger are defined by ‘entitlement collapse’ and the

46 Ravillion again has faced counter-critique from Devereux (for detail see Devereux, 2000).

socially circumscribed distribution of entitlements over basic needs. They also prescribe state action for ‘entitlement protection’ and ‘entitlement promotion’. And yet Watts and Bohle (1993:117) argue that though Dreze and Sen view “entitlement as embracing broader domains of wellbeing i.e. not only food intake (biology), but also health and education (the social environment), they have less to say about ‘capacity’, and totality of rights which secure basic needs. Devereux (2001:261) also contends that Sen’s policy prescription (i.e. technocratic bias) in preventing famine, privileges public action over political action to empower the poor.

On the other hand, having recognized the strength of entitlement approach in relating poverty and hunger, Bohle and Watts (1993:117) suggested ideas for broadening the entitlement approach for famine analysis. According to them a famine analysis based on entitlements must account for:

i. the particular distribution of entitlements and how they are reproduced in specific circumstances;

ii. the larger canvas of rights by which entitlements are defined, fought over, contested, and won and lost (empowerment and enfranchisement); and

iii. the structural properties [… crisis proneness…] of the political economy which precipitates entitlement crises.

These suggestions for consideration are similar to what Devereux has identified as limitations of the entitlement approach. In general in addition to its theoretical contribution to famine theory, Sen’s theory of entitlement has invoked a wide range of heated academic debates, and invited various critiques and counter-critiques in the past three decades. These in turn have further inspired other explanations which give attention to social, political and institutional factors in theorizing famine causation. This leads us to consider the political economy approach to famine causation.