Tell me more ×
Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This article claims:

While all efforts should be made to get emergency food aid to Africa during this famine, the tradition of US food aid in Africa is actually part of the problem. Giving food to the hungry seems like the epitome of charity, but under the current system it has stifled the growth of agriculture in Africa and helped continue the cash crop system forced on Africa during Colonialism.

This Facebook meme extends the claim to all countries:

enter image description here

This is not limited to Africa, either, and as the first article shows, this "charity" is affected by politics and affects business: Haitian farmers undermined by food aid

The food aid from the USA is also expensive ($2.3 billion in 2010) but not expensive enough to be adequately nutritious: U.S. food aid must boost nutrition for long-term recipients, adopt sturdier packaging

Does food aid cause famines?

share|improve this question
Actually it's even worse than the image suggest, as it doesn't mention violence. IMO it's more like: shortage of food -> violence -> international food aid -> farmers out of jobs, join the paramilitary groups -> more violence -> worse shortage of food. At this point you have no farmers and warlords control the food from international aid. Note, that for example this was taken in account by EU food aid to ex-soviet countries. There food rather than given away, was sold. – vartec Nov 13 '12 at 13:03
1  
Without a detailed research, my opinion is the step three is phony, with a shortage of food at level of cronical malnutrition population, all the received / produced food is consumed. in semi-economic terms: the willingness to pay for food will buy all the supplied food or being unable to pay for locally produced food the farmer goes out of business for the economic reasons, not by the food aid. – Alen Nov 13 '12 at 14:33
@Alen: economics 101, supply and demand. If you have supply of food for free it diminishes the value of food sold by farmers. Also, you say "willingness to pay for food" - that's right, people are not willing to pay for something that they get for free. – vartec Nov 13 '12 at 14:40
1  
@vartec: then the free food run out and you have to option of starve to death or buy food (or are they willing to die to get free food?), maybe they never get the free food (because is two warzones and one warlord away or simply to far away from where they live). under "people are not willing to pay for something that they get for free." idea a "food the homeless/poor program" is just hurting the food industry. Lastly simplify the the food problem to your "economics 101" is hurtful those people situation and unproductive to the question asked. – Alen Nov 13 '12 at 15:06
show 2 more comments

2 Answers

Without food aid, farmers cannot survive a famine, and therefore any economic incentive or disincentive is a moot point. The cycle depicted in the chart is false, because it relies on a model of famine that is outdated and incomplete.

The cycle in the graphic depicts a speculative economic model based on famines caused by FAD - Food Availability Decline. Unfortunately, the FAD model does not take into account important characteristics of a famine, the most notable to this question being that agricultural workers suffer famines disproportionately. Farmers are the first to starve and the first to die of hunger. This is because famines work according to the FEE model - Failure of Entitlement Exchange, which replaced FAD as a more complete and accurate model in the early '80s. (Entitlement here being an academic term for "stuff to buy or barter.") What happens is that food and labor are both commodities - and a farmer's Endowment (an academic term meaning stuff he can use to trade or buy) is insufficient to exchange for enough food to survive. A bag of rice is worth X amount of hours of labor - but in times of famine, no amount of labor is going to be enough to exchange for food.

Non-agricultural workers - tradesmen, professionals, merchants and the political class - will usually have enough resources - endowments - to secure a share of a dwindling supply of food, or to import their own supply - entitlements. Farmers, who rely on part of their harvest as their entitlement, cannot do likewise. Similarly, once conditions improve, they need to return to farming to obtain other, non-food entitlements, such as clothing, education, phone bill, etc. - a depressed market due to food aid means poor prices initially after a famine, but that's better than, you know, dying.

This paper (in PDF) includes a good overview of the FEE model, with clear explanations for laymen, as well as various criticism of FEE and the responses to them.

share|improve this answer
+1 for "that's better than, you know, dying". – Benjol Nov 16 '12 at 14:28

The problem of food shortages in Africa is not Western food aid but the lack of distribution of the food in Africa. We can assume if there is a shortage of food in Africa, the farmers supply cannot meet the demand for food, albeit many who are starving are too poor to buy their food anyway.

From the above question posted if we assume that if food aid was stopped, there would be enough food supply is (I believe) erroneous. Some farmers may be affected, but does the number of farmers forced into poverty equal the amount of starving people in Africa? They are but a fraction of the total demographic. And feeding the poor (without Political strings or extortion from western nations) can only help these nations because instead of spending all day malnourished and seeking food the Africans can be productive in some skill needed in Africa. Once you mobilize the poor with enough food, shelter and medical care then and only then can they enter the fragile economy strengthening it with their participation and production in their various occupations.

You can find more information on this here ==>James Qulligan is an economist who was the the Brant and Nyerere commissions in the 1980's has a more in depth road map to world economic recovery involving these ideas. Look on this website regarding Aid to foreign countries.

share|improve this answer
2  
Welcome to Skeptics! Please provide some references to support your claims. – Sklivvz Nov 13 '12 at 15:31
Farmers produce cheaply thanks to economics of scale. As such, only a fraction is needed to feed many. Africa needs food. Zimbabwe was once an exporter of food. The fall of the granary of Africa "gradually explains how, a once prosperous country as Zimbabwe, could end up in the demolishing crisis it is right now." – Cees Timmerman Nov 13 '12 at 15:47
I think the actual thought is if you stop helping them the people will either die off, move, or adapt to the famines. Any of those solves the famine problem. – Chad Nov 13 '12 at 20:24
Pls. follow the link to James Quilligan. I did not make that easily recognizable to most. OOPs! ;) – JayCouture.com Nov 14 '12 at 10:06
1  
Jay, you have linked to a page of dozens of changing articles on dozens of (mostly unrelated) topics. Try supporting each one of your claims with a specific reference - ideally including a quote that directly supports the claim. – Oddthinking Nov 15 '12 at 11:58
show 2 more comments

This post does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.