THE POLITICALLY (IN)CORRECT WORD FAMINE

In a recent issue of Global Policy Forum, Mr. Alex Whiting writes about the difficulties in defining the word “famine�.

In crude sense, famine is a question of excess population over the mean of substance. This is sort of Malthusian framework, where the growth in the population outstrips that of food production.

Such an approach, with the theoretical considerations of cause as a starting point, leads to technologised responses that are only incapable of responding adequately to the politics of mass starvations. Thus the question remains is not “What causes famine and what is the appropriate response needed to avoid famine?�, but “How were acts of mass deprivation committed and by whom, and how can those responsible be brought to justice?� This is very important as donors cannot be motivated to act unless they are convinced that what is taking place is actually famine. The food shortage view was challenged by the celebrated development, Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen who argued that it did not matter what the food supply per head in any are; what is crucial is whether particular individuals or households have access to food or not. That means the starvation is not about food as a commodity, but about the relationship of the people with the commodity. The institution, the democratic or autocratic, thus, matters.