Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Since the start of the 19th century, Thomas Robert Malthus’s understanding of
famine was the reigning voice in economics on the subject matter. Malthus proposed that
starvation is the result of a lack of food, which itself is due to a faster growing population
than food production rates (MacRae 2015). However, in 1980, an Indian economist by
the name of Amartya Sen critically assessed this theory and proposed a new concept of
food entitlement.
In his book Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation, Sen
goes into depth on his theory of food entitlement, a theory for which Sen later won the
Nobel Prize in economics in 1998. Amartya Sen’s food entitlement theory looks at
starvation and famine as not being the result of a lack of food, but rather a lack of access
or entitlement to the available food. His theory states that a person’s ownership of food is
reliant upon the network of actions such as trade or production that lead to one’s
entitlement to the food (Sen 1982). In his theory, there are four primary forms of
entitlement:
1) Trade-based entitlement
2) Production-based entitlement
3) Own-labor-based entitlement
4) Inheritance entitlement
Trade-based entitlement is being entitled to the commodity for which one trades.
Money is a type of commodity with assigned value, which is often used for trade.
“Trading” the money for the desired food entitles someone to said food. Production-
based entitlement is the entitlement to what one produces. Ownership of a farm, for
example, would yield the produced crops to be entitled to the farm owner or the share-
croppers, as is often the case. Own-labor-based entitlement allows one the fruits of their
own labor. This can be the value of labor force (getting paid for the time one works) or
for the work of one’s hands outside of a job context, like making art or other
as being a method of transferring entitlements to another (Sen 1982). These four forms of
entitlement are the framework of entitlements and access to food and other commodities.
Sen’s theory looks at the relations between the different forms of entitlements to
understand how it is that people have access to food. He calls this analysis “exchange
entitlement mapping,” which traces the transfers of entitlements between people. If the
factors; employment is one. A person’s ability to retain a job provides them with own-
labor-based entitlement (money), which can then be traded for food. Employment is also
affected by wage rate and duration of employment. If wage does not increase at the same
rate as food prices, a fully employed worker can still face starvation. Likewise, if the
worker only has one more month of work, finances will be rationed heavily and
starvation will likely face them. Beyond employment, people are also entitled to their
non-labor assets. Everything an individual owns could potentially be traded for food. The
cost of taxes and other required payments is also essential to include in an assessment of
someone’s exchange entitlement. Finally, the role of social security benefits is essential
be it food stamps or other methods of payment (Sen 1982). I shall more fully articulate
Sen’s argument of a lack of entitlement being the primary cause of starvation and
famine questions the former accepted theory of the root causes of starvation, noted by
Malthusian theory as being a lack of food. By Malthusian logic, the primary method of
solving hunger was to control population growth, as it is much easier to limit than it is to
expand food production in a short amount of time (Kuriawan 2015). The target of
population control in the mid-20th century became the developing world, because the
average family size in the developing world was much larger than that of the Western
world (Rust 2010). However, Malthusian theory fails to recognize that large family size
may be the result of food insecurity and not the other way around.
actually increases in a time of famine, or when food production rates during the famine,
while decreasing, are higher than they were before the famine. One of the strongest
examples he gives of this is of the Great Bengal famine of 1943, about which he writes in
“While the food availability did go down in 1943 compared with the year
was no hint of a famine. The total availability in the famine year was around
11% higher than in 1941, and the per capita availability 9% higher. There
was nothing like a famine in 1941. And yet while these figures stood high,
FADs, short for food availability declines, is central to the Malthusian method of
explaining famine. In the case of the Great Bengal famine and several other famines that
he analyzes, Sen argues that food availability was not the issue as much as food access.
This distinction in the cause of starvation is not merely the difference between
how starvation is viewed. It holds great significance, as the operating theory determines
how the government and NGOs will address instances of starvation across the globe.
Under a Malthusian perspective, governments would provide the countries in need with
large surpluses of food to ensure that the country is not lacking food. However, this does
nothing to change the exchange entitlement of the poor who are the ones starving. They
still have little to no access to the food, no matter how much is imported. Rather, Sen
argues that the best way to help people facing starvation is to provide them with cash
relief.
Cash relief arguably has many benefits over food relief. First, it bypasses the
inefficiency of government transport of the food to the areas of need. Secondly, it hinders
the exportation of food from the famine zone (Kwon 2012). In the case of the great Irish
famines of the 1840s, for example, Ireland was still exporting food despite the starvation
that was rampant in the country (Sen 1980). While this is the result of political economic
issues rather than of food relief, the problem of exportation in a time of dire food need is
still an issue that cash relief addresses. Third, cash relief will theoretically stimulate the
economy more, thus generating income that will improve the infrastructure of the area.
Finally, cash relief is more flexible than food relief, in that it can be used for more than
just food (Kwon 2012). Cash relief provides the individual with the freedom of choice,
their own need (Sen 1988; Sen 1989). Although the issue is about not having access to
enough food, there are still development investments that can take precedence over
immediate food consumption. For instance, imagine a poor rural farmer who struggles to
pay her taxes and other dues. She needs to sell the food she produces in order to pay her
taxes and other costs, but cannot make enough to also buy enough food to survive: Cash
relief would allow her to skip the entire first step of needing to sell her food in order to
pay her dues, and she could enjoy the produce grown from her farm.
This is the reason why social security is so essential – it allows the poor to be
deprivation. The reason why more developed countries do not experience famine despite
recessions and high unemployment rates is because of the social security system that has
been established to take care of the poor. There will always be a poor class in every
country (until GINI coefficients drop significantly due to political economic changes),
but the poor do not need to die of starvation so long as a social security system is in
entitled to sufficient amounts of food. If not for a social security system, unemployment
could lead to a lack of access to food and thereafter starvation, even in wealthy countries
entitlement theory. Yet despite this achievement and the influential presence his theory
now has in food economics, his theory is not fully accepted by all; there are many
First and foremost, it should be stated that, when first publishing his theory, Sen
was aware of several of the flaws of his idea. One issue he mentions is that of starvation
by choice. Access to food does not always mean consumption of food. There are
numerous reasons why someone would choose not to eat – being too preoccupied with
extreme amounts of work, having too many dependents to care for, extreme fatigue, and
apathy, to name a few. Sen also notes that disease-driven famines are also prevalent
issues that are not addressed by his theory of food entitlement. Thirdly, there are the
entitlement that are not addressed by the lens of private ownership Sen takes in his food
entitlement theory. Finally, there is the issue of illegal possession transfers, such as theft
and looting (Devereux 2001). All of the aforementioned examples are rooted in political
economic issues, which is fundamentally the reason for famine that is not addressed by
either Malthusian or food entitlement theory. I will go more into depth on this later in this
essay.
Another strong critique of Sen’s food entitlement theory is that he denies the
reality of food shortage. Peter Bowbrick, a fellow economist with conflicting views,
agrees with the more straightforward Malthusian theory. He claims that the famines are
primarily the result of food availability declines, and he argues that Sen’s theory could
exacerbate famines by abstaining from food importation (Bowbrick 1986). Sen responds
that his argument stands, claiming that Bowbrick’s data regarding food availability in the
Great Bengal famine of 1943, the famine he uses to critique Sen, comes from less
reputable sources (Sen 1986). Bowbrick is not alone in this opinion, however – many
other economists agree. Economist Mark Tauger, for instance, suggests that a major
natural disaster in 1942 is responsible for low crop yields that led into the Great Bengal
famine of 1943 (Tauger 2003). Sen later accepts that the data he used may be biased, but
holds that the relative increase in food availability from before the famine in 1941 to
1943 is still valid, proving that food availability was not the issue (Sen 1987). The claims
from both sides of the argument are difficult to prove or disprove, as food availability in
historical famines is difficult to confirm one way or the other. However, this is an
important critique in and of itself, because increasing entitlement and therefore access to
food is only successful if there is enough food available. A perfect distribution system of
an inadequate amount of food would still lead to starvation. Consider once again the
Great Bengal famine of 1943: Sen argues that there was no lack of food availability, only
decreased access to the food for the poor. The government operated under a Malthusian
famine relief program, importing grain for distribution to the poor. Approximately three
million people died as a result of the famine, half of whom died from disease as a result
of a weakened immune system from a lack of food and nutrition (Bowbrick 1986). The
casualties of the famine were significant, and Sen’s theory may have been able to avoid
the catastrophe. Had Sen’s theory of food entitlement been able to be applied in Bengal in
1943, the government would not have focused on any food relief, but instead focused on
increased entitlement for the poor. However, if FADs were in fact a significant factor in
the famine, this would have only aggravated the widespread starvation.
From the perspective of critical medical anthropology, however, the entire issue
of starvation and famine is assessed at the root causes of the issue rather than the
immediate relief. Economists typically examine economic issues to find their immediate
remedy, rather than examine the entire structure that is causing the issue. The lack of
scope is one of the major critiques of Sen’s food entitlement theory, and it is where
and the flow of resources that makes up an economy. However, economies take place
within the broader spheres of political institutions, and as a result, economies cannot be
look at the structural issues that take place within the political sphere that affect food
availability as well as access to food. In the context of the previously stated issues that
Amartya Sen recognizes about his own theory, I mentioned that they are all rooted in
structural, political issues. For example, disease-driven famines result from a deficient
investment in health infrastructure. Contemporarily, this is most notably the result of the
bondage with developing countries, requiring them to pay much of their annual
expenditures on debt repayment and prohibiting them from investing in health and other
public services. Health has to do with much more than healthcare – equality, public
education, and other structural ideals are fundamental in improving global health (Sen
2008). These necessities, arguably human rights, are social determinants for health that
long as the amount of food available and the technology for making food production
efficient remain ahead of the global population, such injustices must be addressed by
hypothetical world without political economic injustice, there would be no lack of access
of food for anyone, because even when some become afflicted with unemployment or
health distress or other personal issues, the political system will support them until they
are back on their feet again. Therefore, the focus of critical medical anthropology should
be to address the political economic injustices that are causing poverty and food
disentitlement. Ethnography can be done in poor areas to illuminate the need, and this
research can be brought into advocacy for policy reform. Anthropology takes place in the
real world with real inequities and global problems; affecting policy change to best
address these global problems would be the aim of an anthropologist coming with a
would endorse long term policies that assure entitlements for the poor. This would best
be done through investing in the social structures such as healthcare systems and public
Bowbrick, Peter. "The Causes of Famine." Food Policy 11, no. 2 (1986): 105-24.
Kwon, Yong. "Summary of Food, Economics and Entitlements by Amartya Sen." Rice
https://nkfood.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/summary-of-food-economics-and-
entitlements-by-amartya-sen/.
MacRae, Donald Gunn. "Thomas Robert Malthus | Biography - English Economist and
Robert-Malthus.
Rust, David L. "The Ethics of Controlling Population Growth in the Developing World."
Sen, Amartya. "Chapter 1 Social Justice and the Distribution of Income." In Handbook of
Sen, Amartya. "Food and Freedom." World Development 17, no. 6 (1989): 769-81.
Sen, Amartya. "Freedom of Choice." European Economic Review 32, no. 2-3 (1988):
269-94
Sen, Amartya. "Poverty and Entitlements." In Poverty and Famines an Essay on
Sen, Amartya. "Reply: Famine and Mr. Bowbrick." Food Policy 12, no. 1 (1987): 10-14.
Sen, Amartya. "The Causes of Famine." Food Policy 11, no. 2 (1986): 125-32.
Sen, Amartya. "Why And How Is Health A Human Right?" The Lancet 372, no. 9655
(2008): 2010.
Tauger, Mark B. "Entitlement, Shortage and the 1943 Bengal Famine: Another