Why people starve?

This week's readings cover a range of aspects and interpretation of hunger, famine and food insecurity, such as availability, accessibility, utilization, power and politics based relational aspect and institutional aspect that includes market, technology, knowledge system, rules and regulation and food aid. All of these aspects form the food system which is tightly connected with the larger political-economic, environmental and socio-cultural contexts. Therefore, for me, questions like why people starve actually demand discussion on what the starvation is all about. There are several terminologies used for various levels of starvation: food (in)security, hunger, famine, etc. Without going detail into their distinction, here I try to synthesize several interpretation of starvation based on this week's readings. 

Traditionally food security is understood in terms of food balance: how much food is produced in a particular area and how much is needed. Lester Brown has added range of factors in such availability-interpretation of the food crisis that is imbalance between demand and supply of food. According to him, population growth, rising affluence and consumption of meat, and use grain for bio fuels affect the demand side where as the depletion or degradation of environment soil erosion, aquifer depletion, loss of crop-land, diversion of irrigation water to cities, peak of modern agriculture and climate change in terms of heat waves, ice melting, rising sea levels affect the supply side. This is only a narrow interpretation of food crisis, however much practiced in the policy making. Such interpretation was further refined by more comprehensive theories like that of Amartya Sen's entitlement theory.

According to Sen, it's not food availability; but inaccessibility and entitlement failure is main reason of hunger and famine. Although Sen's entitlement approach is much borader, Edkins has critiqued it as depoliticized technologized response that can fit in all contexts. According to him, food crisis is not a result of some failures demanding technological or managerial fix, it is rather a political act creating winners and losers; therefore needs to be dealt politically. According to him food system is a site of power, politics and sometime violent interactions. He further suggests that famine should be treated like crime, which needs identification of perpetrator. I accept Edkin's attempt for more nuanced understanding of famine, not only based on causal factors, but to focus on impacts and political consequences of food crisis. But distinction between interpretation of Brown and Sen and interpretation of Edkins is not much helpful because they stand on different epistemological, ontological and methodological grounds. For me, Edkins' analytical approach complements Brown's or Sen's more generalized policy oriented approach. In some context, for example from the perspectives of policy makers or during the emergencies, Edkins' approach of changing power relation may not help much. However, in the long run, this gives more nuanced understanding of food crisis.

Richard Manning discusses how knowledge, market, technology and institutions related to food and agriculture has shaped the human history. He looks food and agriculture from much broader perspective of power politics by questioning narrow understanding of utilization limited to nutrition and highlighting its commodity and fuel value. From market liberal perspective, Robert Paarlberg advocated for modern scientific knowledge based, market promoted and technology intensive green revolution. For him green (environmental) and red (social justice) promises of organic agriculture is simply not possible. As a usual market liberal, his disregard to the environmental, public health, socio-cultural and politico-economic costs of green revolution is understandable but clearly removed from the reality. Although the current political economy may support his argument and attract of policy attention in developing coutries, the course he has been advocating for underdeveloped society is simply not possible. Such interpretation highlights need of further discussion on what is the meaning of "coming out of poverty" for underdeveloped countries. We can imagine what would be consequences of the development aid for "non-organic" green revolution to the societies which are already paying price of similar aid made in the past.

Patel's interpretation of nutritional and gender aspect of food is more related to the utilization. Most of attempts of food security are related to increase the production and distribution (availability and access) of food. Such attempt ensures food security only at the higher level, e.g. at the state or community or household level. If we come below the household level gender relation matters much because most of women member in the household are poorly nourished and it has implication to kids' health and education.  

In the current world, famine and starvation leading to loss of lives may not exist in several countries, but that does not mean there is no starvation. Starvation exists at different level in different extent. We need to shift our attention from availability and accessibility approach to more nuanced accessibility and utilization approach. It requires consideration of the larger political economic and environmental contexts, which allow us to see food security beyond the economic growth and production enhancement. This is not a romanticization of peasant farming. We definitely need improvement in the peasant farming. There are several example of locally owned environmentally suited farming system in different parts of the world that needs to be explored and expanded.