Are All Famines Man-made Famines?

Currently, between eight and nine hundred million people in the world endure malnutrition every single day. Shortage of food, poor nutrition, endemic hunger, starvation; many people across the globe are constantly facing a battle to simply acquire the most basic requirements of life. Famine is perhaps the most extreme manifestation of the perils of this battle. Famine is a somewhat difficult state to define and can often mean different things to different people. In its simplest definition, famine is associated with severe shortages and causally associated with hunger, starvation and mass mortality. However, it is important to acknowledge that whilst the shortage of food is frequently a key causal factor in the chain of events leading up to famine, it is neither necessary nor sufficient alone to cause a famine to occur.

As has been noted by Walker (1989), famine is very much a process rather than an event. He proposes it as 'a socio-economic process which causes the accelerated destitution of the most vulnerable, marginal and least powerful groups of a community, to a point where they can no longer, as a group, maintain a sustainable livelihood' (cited in Devereux, p.16). Most significantly, Walker highlights the distinction between insider and outsider definitions of famine. For those on the inside of a famine, the 'victims', widespread mortality is the final result of an enduring process that began long before with a critical food shortage. Outsiders in contrast, in particular, foreign media, perceive this deluge of deaths as the beginning of famine.

Whilst no two famines are ever identical in causation, manifestation and character, there are a series of long-term causes such as income loss of instability, environmental degradation or changing social structures; short-term, immediate triggers or precipitating factors that dislodge the last food security of individuals and groups that can be found to exist in many cases of famine across varying regions of the world. Precipitating factors may include all those factors which actually reduce the food supply (drought, floods, war, epidemics and others) as well as those which it is feared will do so, and any which reduce the purchasing powers of the poor (preventing famine).

One of the key debates in famine causation is that between the view of famine as an act of God and nature versus famine as an act of man. Who holds responsibility for famine? Are all famines man-made? Indeed, due to its multi-dimensional nature, an analysis of famine throws up a number of complexities. In seeking an understanding of famine causation, one must consider the extent to which natural events alone can be held responsible versus the role of governments and the public in creating conditions of widespread food shortage resulting in mass death. Indeed, many explanations that on the surface seem to posit famine as attributable to nature, on further exploration can arguably be attributed to man.

This essay poses the argument that with few exceptions to the rule, all famines, despite time and geography, can be considered to be man-made. This argument is principally based on the fact that whilst nature alone may create conditions of food shortage, it is the way in which that food shortage is dealt with by a series of factors involving the intervention of government, economy and man, which dictates whether or not a famine will result. Indeed, famine is often very much about dealing with the impact of natural events and food shortage.

Theories on famine causation have shifted over the course of the last century. In the past, attempts to understand famines have focused on the causes and consequences of food production decline or, in other theories, the disruption of access to food. In his 2007 book, The New Famines, Devereux draws a distinct line from first generation theories focused on failures of food supplies to a paradigm shift in the 1980s towards explanations of famine rooted in failures of access, proposing a new shift that calls for an understanding of famine causation focused on failures of accountability and response.

Arguably the first to attempt a theory explaining the reasons behind famine and the mass mortality that most often arises, was the Reverend and scholar, Thomas Malthus (1766-1834). Malthus' ideas were constructed around the premise that population growth due in part to industrialization, had resulted In too many mouths to feed with the world's resources. In 1798, Malthus proposed famine as "the last, most dreadful resource of nature". Essentially his theory was founded on the notion that man will always need food, that population and the demand for food increase at parallel rates and since food production will always grow at a slower rate than population, there will be a binding constraint on population growth with famine being the mechanism of control (Devereux, 1993, p.9).

However, Malthus' theory failed to take into account two things. Firstly, that there existed the scope for technological improvements allowing for a raise in agricultural productivity and secondly, that there would be both a transport and communication revolution, theoretically making the trade of food from countries with a surplus to those with a deficit easier. Just how effective this is in practice however will be discussed in greater detail later on. Despite these criticisms though, some truth can still be found in Malthus' theory and a relationship between population pressure and vulnerability to hunger and famine can indeed be seen to exist.

The ideas of Malthus were very much behind one of the principal theories of famine causation that still persists in discussions today, that of Food Availability Decline (F.A.D). Essentially, this theory posits that people starve because of a local, national or regional decline in food availability to a level below the minimum necessary for the population's survival. This decline has been suggested to be caused by an array of factors, both natural and man-made, from drought to war, flooding to changing government policy.

Whilst on the surface, this theory holds a great deal of credence, it contains a number of weaknesses. Primarily, it fails to discuss factors related to demand, paying attention only to the supply of food available and not the demand for that supply. As Sen has noted (1981), it also fails to consider the relationship of people to food and ignores the distributional effects of food supply shocks. It speaks nothing of who is the most vulnerable to a decline in food availability? Why do declines occur?

In the 1980s, in his book Poverty and Famines, Sen attempted to answer these questions, coming up with what has been termed Entitlement theory. The entitlement approach to famine is based on the belief that it is not a general lack of availability of food that is responsible for famine but rather, the failure of certain groups to access food, making them vulnerable. Sen's theory is based on supply and demand, drawing a distinction between aggregate availability or supply of food and an individuals access to or ownership of food.

Entitlements may be trade based, production based, labour based or formed from inheritance and transfers and are liable to alter or collapse at any moment. Entitlement prompts questions of who wins and who loses in famine, highlighting the hierarchy of suffering that often exists. It is those with the fewest entitlements that find themselves the most vulnerable in times of potential hardship, such as those that occur after a natural disaster or during the outbreak of war.

Like Malthus and F.A.D however, Sen's Entitlement approach to famine has its limitations. Certainly, an individual's entitlements are not often clearly delineated and may be of an ambiguous nature. Equally so, entitlements are constantly shifting and individuals may at any time acquire extra-entitlement transfers, for example, through looting. Moreover, Sen's theory doesn't explain those deaths that may occur during a famine period not as a direct result of starvation but rather, as a result of infectious disease and epidemics. Further to that, as has been pointed out by Svedberg, he does not account for choice and the cases in which individuals may choose hunger over selling their vital assets. This is not, as it may seem, a choice to starve but rather a consideration of the long-term viability of consumption and a desire for survival.

Theories of famine causation cannot be based on the decline of food availability or a lack of access to food alone. As previously noted, there are usually a complex series of factors at play in famine causation. More recent focus has extended away from arguably uni-directional analysis based on availability or access and has been more focused on asking the important question of who is to be held to account for famines? Nature? Individual men? Governments? The public?