Fall is here, and we’re shifting focus back to general topics on globalization and political risk. Let’s start with a hypothesis about risk and hunger, the most basic of human needs.
Ending hunger is the first priority of the Millennium Development Goals. Conceptually, ending hunger should be the easiest to achieve: it is as easy as having/providing access to food. It should be easier than achieving, for example, an increase in life expectancy, which requires a host of variables to come together. It should be easier than increasing literacy or achieving gender parity or eradicating HIV/AIDS.
But ending hunger is where progress has been particularly elusive. Since 2000-2002 there has been no percentage gain in fighting hunger: 15-16% of the world’s population has remained undernourished. The actual number of undernourished people grew from 805 to 830 million by 2007. How could this have happened during a period of increasing global affluence?
No matter how you analyze it, the fundamental reason that access to food is complicated–beyond natural phenomena like drought or floods–is due to two things: (1) market dynamics (profit motive + private distribution + wage economy + loss of land) and (2) decisions about political risk.
Now I’m not a Marxist, but that doesn’t mean I exonerate capitalism from all sins. When it comes to feeding people, globalized capitalism has proven indefensible (at worst) and inequitable (at best). Case in point: lack of progress on the hunger front around the same time that global agriculture expanded rapidly into developing countries.
Since 2007, things have taken a sharp downward turn.
A spike in world food prices in 2007-8 wreaked havoc on poor populations. Globalized commercial food markets (which do have other benefits) transmitted the spike fairly rapidly. After all, if you are a commercial land user in Brazil, wouldn’t you rather be producing corn for biofuels and meat for the US, in which profit margins are higher, instead of corn for food?
Many developing countries, including the ones in South Asia that I’m most familiar with, experienced violent protests from food shortages. Demand for government subsidies and outlays increased.
Just when governments began to divert resources to feed people, the world plunged into a finance-led recession in 2008. Both aid and tax receipts declined, severely compromising the ability to fight hunger. In other words, capricious financial schemes of the very wealthy ended up pushing the very poor over the brink. The World Bank estimates that by the end of 2010, 64 million additional people will suffer extreme poverty (income<$1.25/day) as a result of the financial crisis.
Hunger, of course, is the most basic manifestation of the overall poverty situation. But government response, especially in times of crisis, is shaped foremost by the demands of groups that pose the greatest political risk. The top priority is the newly unemployed, especially in organized or unionized sectors in urban areas. The chronically malnourished in the rural areas are politically less urgent to most governments, even in signficantly rural democracies, such as India.
Now, here’s the good thing: urban populations are growing rapidly. Between now and 2050, world population will increase by 28% (from 7 to 9 billion), but urban population will increase by roughly 100%. That means greater political risk for governments, not just in times of economic crisis, but also from a general shift in the locale of hunger from rural to urban settings. Urban folk can do more damage more quickly and more visibly. Government ministers are urban creatures; government offices are predominantly urban. My consequent prediction: urbanization will force governments to deal with hunger more earnestly than they have done so far.
Of course, some have dreams of hunger being eradicated through production boosts and technological innovation (food replicator, anyone?). The Economist recently marvelled at Brazil’s record of increasing agricultural output (see here and here). If the past is any guide, technology + global markets will continue to direct agriculture in developing countries to prioritize people with pocketbooks; and local hunger will persist. In this situation, political risk from a rapidly growing urban poor will be a greater spur to do something about hunger than leaving matters in the invisible hands of the market.
“Many developing countries, including the ones in South Asia that I’m most familiar with, experienced violent protests from food shortages. Demand for government subsidies and outlays increased.”
This is the aspect of this blog post, and of the general topic of ending poverty, that I think is crucial.
I do truly believe that public protests ( non-violent demonstrations can be effective) that demand changes from governments are vital to force economic changes that will provide the public with a stronger social safety net to fill basic needs. Smart and well-meaning workers at NGOS and international organizations can help provide frameworks, goals and solutions, but in the end, the masses organize and fight for new policies. If increased urbanization will make organizing protests easier and more effective, that would be a welcome development.
But I tend to believe that national governments will only make substantive changes to policy, in the form of redistributive policies aimed at assisting the poor, if there is organized resistance to the current economic policies (which, as was noted in Tuesday’s class, are based on promoting capital investment, not on human dignity or human rights).
And in fact, I think this is one area when the UN Millennium Goals, do not seem to address. Ending hunger and poverty will require changes — in some cases radical changes — to government taxation and spending policies, such as strong Keynesian protections for the poor, more progressive taxation to reduce inequality, government-funded healthcare systems and education.
Of course, there are many obstacles to such changes. One obstacle is that international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the WTO and the IMF, through structural adjustment policies, push for less protections for labor and less government spending on the poor.
Honduras, for example, recently agreed to receive 196 million from the IMF. They released a statement, which I am pasting below. In parenthesis I offer my translation of what the words actually mean. If I am being too cynical, or misreading the IMF’s intentions, please let me know.
“[T]he authorities are committed to improve tax administration and collection; control current spending (cut services to the p…our), including the wage bill (keep the minimum wage down)l; improve the targeting of social spending to the poor (cut spending on the poor); and improve the financial position of key public enterprises and pension funds (cut the jobs and benefits of state workers). ”
I fear that as long as these policies are advocated for by such powerful institutions (the WTO, for example, controls more than 90 percent of global trade), than it will be very difficult to eradicate poverty — even with increased urbanization. This is because even if national governments are pressured to changes policies (say raise the minimum wage, or increase spending on the poor), and it is against the charter of the institutions, they can be forced to repeal the laws or lose out on 93 percent of the market.
For example, the WTO forced El Salvador’s government to reduce its minimum wage from 60 to 36 cents an hour because it considered the higher wage to be a barrier to trade (Kim Moody, “What to Know About the WTO,” Labor Notes, February 2000: p 8).
Here we see the type of “neocolonialism” mentioned in the movie, End of Poverty. Even if a nation wants a higher wage, the punishment for defying Western-dominated institutions can be worse for governments than the political consequences they face domestically when protests arise due to low wages, lack of subsidies and so on.
To acheive the admirable goals advocated by the UN — such as halving hunger — we must move away from the policies advocated by these institutions, and put emphasis on strong labor laws, well-funded social safety nets and so on. Otherwise, I fear the protests or people all over the world — even if centered primarily in urban areas — will to often be ignored by national governents who do not wish to be economically isolated.
I agree with the assertion that hunger is ultimately a political problem rather than an access to food problem. The world produces plenty of food to sustain the current global population and as the Economist points outs, most likely has the potential to sustain future population growth. I further agree that increased urbanization, in the model predicted by Marx, will put political pressure on governments to address basic issues such as poverty and hunger. However, I think the crucial question is at what pace will urbanization occur and the corollary point how long will it take for the urbanized poor to coalesce into a effective polity?
Good points John. The question also seems to be, will the urbanized poor ever coalesce into an effective polity? I know every situation is different, but I tend to take a cynical view of the so-called “power of the people”, and tend to put the emphasis on government decisions, and priorities. The urbanized masses can definitely mold government priorities, but the government priorities come with guns, and some serious thugs.
What will end hunger? Market Incentive or Political Risk?
First of all, I believe it is impossible to end hunger, but you can greatly diminish the number of those going hungry around the world. I also do not believe don’t that this is an either or question, but rather a combination of the two; when focusing on developing nations. I’m not going to focus on developed countries, because I believe the required remedies are very different.
I believe the final answer to reduce hunger in developing countries requires market incentives and market solutions. But these market solutions are more of the end game, and the poorest countries require government intervention to get there. Just one example, Egypt spends approximately $3 billion a year subsidizing food.
(http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/e21c94e2600a4f7f3550364888362452.htm)
Market solutions tend to increase the price of food, moving the ability to purchase daily food requirements out of reach for many of a particular countries poorest citizens. This is why government subsidies are required, and national governments must step up to this important domestic challenge. It is on the shoulders of national governments to implement and effectively run these programs.
But these subsidies cannot be indefinite, which seems to be the case in Egypt. When government subsidies begin, market solutions must begin to be developed at the same time. Solutions that provide incentives (subsidized at first) for people to produce their own food if possible, or the funding to purchase some food. The government can setup private markets across a particular city, create specific price ceilings for the goods being produced (subsidizing and regulating the producers and sellers). These markets can begin by targeting the “most well-off” of the poorest in the country (still very poor by most standards), and continuing on to the poorer segments of society. The idea of such programs would be based on the creation of a domestic food industry, that is self-sustaining. If domestic production cannot meet the needs of the country, it can be imported from other countries in exchange for other available domestic resources or goods.
This is a very broad and simplified idea, the final product obviously being very technical in nature. The idea is for the government to subsidize for a foreseeable period of time, with the goal of ending subsidies. But this is easier said than done, and requires government competence, a broad knowledge base, and strict regulation that roots out corruption. What seems to happen all too often is governments begin to subsidize food for citizens and due to corruption, poor planning, and a lack of political will, the subsidies continue indefinitely. A perfect example of this can be seen with the U.S. Farm Bill which was created during the depression to feed the masses with low-priced food, but has since turned into a corporate farming subsidy. Americans can pay more for their food, but a lack of political will has made this perverse subsidy continue, amazingly due to political risk.
I find increased urbanization to be a very good thing with regard to many different issue areas. Regarding hunger, increased political pressure can force governments to do what is right, but it can also have a negative effect, forcing continuous subsidies, without any plan for sustainable domestic food production because it may be the easier option at that time.
My overarching takeaways are:
– National governments are ultimately responsible for feeding their citizens.
– Government subsidies are justified initially, and possible over the long-term, as long as their is an exit plan.
– A sustainable food production program, that can feed the entire population (some imports are justified), is the most desired end result.
– A market based system can be the most effective and efficient at feeding the masses, as long as government subsidies are phased out based on a well-conceived long-term plan.
– No end result will ever be perfect, but it can be a vast improvement over the current situation.
“A perfect example of this can be seen with the U.S. Farm Bill which was created during the depression to feed the masses with low-priced food, but has since turned into a corporate farming subsidy. Americans can pay more for their food, but a lack of political will has made this perverse subsidy continue, amazingly due to political risk.”
It is quite interesting (and accurate) that you mention the political risks associated with ending farm subsidies. This does show, in some sense, the strength of corporations in Washington D.C., whose support for politicians is considered vital for election prospects.
This demonstrates that how well a democracy functions is actually an important factor for food policy and other areas related to poverty. Some sectors have a strong influence due to the role of corporate funding of elections, often trumping the power of voting. Indeed, the farm subsidies are quite popular among elite sectors of society due to the advantage it gives the U.S. in trade, as a form of protectionism.
The increased power of corporations in influencing policy diminishes the power of the individual vote. Since poor people only have the vote as a tool for influencing policy, and not the ability to donate massive funds, this dynamic will naturally make government policies aimed at helping the poor more politically risky than they would otherwise be, if money was less important in shaping politics (say, if we had publicly financed elections). Popular support, vs elite support bring with them very different amounts of political risks. This is another obstacle to national policies aimed at reducing hunger. If elite sectors do not support a policy aimed at ending hunger — assuming the country, like most, is very much influenced by corporate donors — than it will require incredibly large protests to counter this.
In the blog post two different approaches in explaining existence of hunger and its eradication are laid down. 1-The existence of hunger and the issue of fighting against it are matters of what market system you have and what market system you should adopt, so if we have a good economic system then we can eradicate hunger problem. 2-Poverty exists because of the lack of governments’ interest to the issue, so if governments can be convinced of/forced to fight against poverty then we could see some improvements.
To begin with, I think, poverty is not a result of what market (economic) system you have adapted. To my knowledge, hunger has been case throughout history. So if there had been different economic ideologies in history then we can say that none has accomplished the task of eradicating hunger (whether eradicating hunger has been an issue throughout history -except post World War 2 period- is another question to think about). If there had been only one economic ideology (private business/entrepreneurship based economic activity in different forms) throughout history, then we don’t have any alternative economic ideology that could end hunger. So we can forget to think about what economic policy we need to adopt in the fight against poverty.
Secondly, the issue is not ability of forcing governments to do something either. First of all the resources of the governments are limited, if they don’t have enough resources then forcing them to eradicate poverty would be useless. Millions of urban poor cannot get the thing that would end their plight if the country doesn’t have control over enough resources. Secondly, governments not only care about political risk and coming to power via votes of masses but also they care about political balances. Alongside the masses there are some power axises in domestic and in international politics that could be more forceful than society. An international great power or a regional medium power that is involved in politics of a developing country may pressure on the country of concern to spend more for military purposes instead of hunger, because of balancing threat of non friendly military forces. Also, for a domestic influential axis, the priority could be consolidating the power of a class rather than eradicating hunger. State also would always prioritize the consolidation of state power both inside and outside compared to ending hunger. States exist to centralize and consolidate power and improve the identity of a community as an aggregate. They don’t care much about individuals belonging to an identity, to the extent it is tolerable. That is actually what the citizens expect from the state, even if they have very individual-centred mindset personally.
So, I think, we need to find a way that will increase aggregate economic and political abilities of poor countries. An increase in the aggregate economic and political capabilities of poor countries would bring a solution to the hunger problem as well. More productivity and less dependency of poor countries are first issues to be addressed. Think of the process the developed countries underwent! If developed countries do not have hunger problem (I suppose so), it is not because developed countries applied some specific measures to overcome hunger. In fact hunger has never been a problem of developed countries, nor did developed countries develop because they wanted to overcome hunger problem. Whatever caused the aggregate economic and political development of developed countries, it has also eradicated hunger. Therefore, what is needed is more focus on improving the capabilities of poor countries and diminishing their dependency. Otherwise hunger would persist, no matter what policy you apply.
Adem,
I agree that the ability to use government spending to help with hunger and poverty is dependent on the wealth of a nation, and thus, the ability to find revenue. For poor countries, this proves difficult. In wealthy countries, however, there is plenty of room to minimize poverty through either progressive taxation, or a shift in spendign priorities (say, cutting the military budget a couple percent). I saw on the news today that something like 34 percent of African Americans are in poverty in the U.S. Yet we spend less than most countries as a percentage of GDP on welfare, and have a huge military budget and expensive military adventures. These policies are choices, and we could choose to change them.
Where I disagree is when you the ideology of an economic system does not matter. It is true hunger has always existed, but it has varied in the extent of the problem. And the data, in my analysis, indicates economic systems matter.
See the top five countries in the Human Poverty Index:
1 Sweden 6.3 6.7 7.5 1.1 6.5
2 Norway 6.8 7.9 7.9 0.5 6.4
3 Netherlands 8.1 8.3 10.5 1.8 7.3
4 Finland 8.1 9.4 10.4 1.8 5.4
5 Denmark
These countries all have strong safety nets. The U.S., however, ranks 17 of 19 of the OECD countries on the list. So I do think the economic policies matter when considering poverty. The ideological belief that governments should provide a minimum standard of living, and protections for the unemployed, poor and sick, seems to play a factor in the amount of poverty that exists in a nation.
I totally agree with your clarification Michael. Developed countries have the ability to spend more for improvement of life standards of poor people in their countries. Sophisticated (not easily be manipulated by the government) protests can definitely force governments to enforce laws favoring poor people. As far as I know unexpected and well publicized civil disorder actions (if any) are nightmare of governments. But, this may cost to lives of people.
Adem and Michael have both brought up the issue of poverty. Hunger and poverty are inextricably linked, but policies to deal with each issue are not necessarily the same. There are also different levels of poverty and different levels of food insecurity.
There is a major difference between poverty levels in different countries, and the number of people going hungry.
For the U.S., there are several levels of food security or food insecurity. Very low food insecurity means that people tend to go hungry. The definitions are found here: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/labels.htm
In 2008, 5.7% of American households were considered to have very low food insecurity. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/stats_graphs.htm
While the poverty rate in the U.S. for 2008 was 13.2%. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb10-144.html
I bring this up because government programs and support for providing food to citizens that are hungry (those having very low food security) is not the same as addressing the overall issue of poverty. Michael’s comment on poverty, taxation, and military spending broadened the range of the topic well beyond the issue of hunger, and moved it towards what type of economy a country should have, and where their spending priorities should be; very different than the issue of addressing hunger.
Once again, I understand poverty and hunger/food insecurity are linked, but the figures of those truly going hungry is not the same as those considered to be in poverty. 34% of African Americans are in poverty in the U.S. for 2009, while 25.9 % of African Americans had low or very low food insecurity for 2008 (sorry no 2009 stats available), and African Americans with very low food security (considered to go hungry) was 7% in 2007 (most recent stats I found at quick glance). http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err66/
The point is, hunger issues can be addressed without discussing entire macroeconomic models and military spending priorities taken out of context.
Just as a side note, I also think the U.S. military budget should be significantly reduced, and national taxes should be increased.
Kyle writes:
“The point is, hunger issues can be addressed without discussing entire macroeconomic models and military spending priorities taken out of context.”
They can be, but they don’t have to be. Redistribution of wealth and spending priorities of governments is a pretty obvious place to look when considering how to feed hungry people. One can choose to not look at these issues, but why? Especially since it has been established in class, that poverty is a major problem and that hunger is only one of eight goals. I see no valid reason to not discuss spending priorities and national taxation.
I recognize that poverty and hunger are not one in the same. But if you end poverty, you end hunger (and conversly, if you end hunger, you don’t end poverty, per se). So why not focus on macro-economic models or government spending? I realize some may not agree with the type of economic changes I propose — either for analytical or ideological reasons — but that doesn’t mean changing economic models should be off-limits in discussions about ending hunger, or povery. Especially given the larger context of the class discussions we are having, which has focused on global poverty, of which hunger is one aspect.
Further, my stats are not out of context. So what if the food insecurity percentages are lower than the poverty rates? That doesn’t make the proposed solution — preventing hunger by using social welfare policies to help those in need, and funding these with progressive taxation and cuts to the military budget — any less viable.
It is fair question you raise Kyle, will the poor ever coalesce into a polity? I think one answer is, and you allude to this, is never. Many of the countries in which persistent hunger occurs are oppressive regimes. In such cases the politics beyond the will of those who wield the guns is nil. Furthermore, such regimes often use food as a weapon as was the case in Somalia and Iraq where brutal dictatorships or warlords fed their supporters and starved their opponents. And so keeping that in mind I must disagree with Adem, slightly, that in such cases it is as simple as forcing governments to feed their people. However, this is a political issue, requiring a resolve which is most often absent.
I think there is too much focus on local governments. The national governments of developing countries are no better equipped to alleviate hunger than the citizens. The governments do not have the experts, resources or money to solve hunger. The problem of hunger is to an extent government corruption, however, that is a small element of a much larger picture. Hunger is directly releated to the economy. Hunger is the result of poverty, which is due to no or low income, which is caused by a bad economy. The question before us then, is what causes the bad economy. Bad economies of developing countries are the result of unequal growth opportunities attributable to bad politics and policies in the developed world.
The severity and perpetuation of hunger in the developing world is an unfortunate byproduct of politics and policies in the developed world. The economic and monetary policies of the WTO, World Bank, IMF and western governments are not necessarily the cause (or the root of all evil). The politics and policies surrounding agricultural subsidies, intellectual property rights and foreign aid in the form of food are the sources of hunger in the developing world. These variables impoverish the economies of developing countries affecting the occurrence of hunger.
Agricultural subsidy programs in developed countries are the worst offenders in opposition to hunger. The United States and European Union are opposed to abandoning agricultural subsidy programs offered to domestic farmers, which limit the ability of poorer nations to export agricultural goods. The financial incentives offered to domestic farmers in developed countries result in overproduction of ‘basic agricultural goods, which lowers prices on the world market.’ (Kaplan & Calzonetti, 2005). Developing countries are unable to compete with these subsidy programs. As a result, the demand for agricultural products exported by developing countries decreases, leading to fewer jobs, higher poverty rates and a greater prevalence of hunger.
Rigid intellectual property rights present additional obstacles for alleviating hunger irrespective of subsidy programs in developed countries. Rigid intellectual property rights prohibit developing countries from producing mass quantities of agricultural goods at low costs. The technology and manufacturing capabilities for this process are being held hostage by developed countries. Because developed countries refuse to minimize intellectual property rights on industrial design and engineering technologies, developing countries are unable to achieve economic growth and prosperity. These technologies enable economies to compete in the global market by reducing operation costs and increasing supply, which decreases the price for consumers. Without access to these types of technologies, the economies of developing countries will continue to diminish and hunger will persist.
Foreign aid in the form of food is the third variable affecting the rate of hunger in developing countries. On the surface, food aid appears to be a valuable instrument to eradicating hunger. However, the influx of cheap food to poor nations is devastating to the local economy, thus perpetuating hunger. Local farmers are unable to compete with the low priced food aid; as a result, the domestic agricultural industry is destroyed. The loss of jobs contributes to poverty which leads to hunger. The food aid program to Haiti exemplifies this sequence of events.
The style of economy is irrelevant to the source of poverty and hunger in developing countries. What is important to diminishing poverty and hunger is to provide developing countries equal opportunity to grow their economies in order to compete in the international market. However, due to the politics and policies of developed countries equal opportunities have not been forth coming. Therefore, hunger and poverty will continue to persist in poorer nations.
Agricultural subsidies in the US, Europe, and Japan are certainly big culprits, and render false any arguments out there that free trade exists. They also raise an interesting quandary. On the one hand, they depress prices and distort world markets for food, and the developing countries pay an enormous price as a result, as Tory points out. On the other hand, there is no reason to think that fully free global trade in food would end hunger. Markets are not designed to address demand in the absence of purchasing power. As many other sectors show (e.g., healthcare, education, water supply, utilities), markets will leave out significant groups. This is why we have something called “public policy,” a main goal of which — libertarians would shudder — is to address market failure.
But public policy, except for the most well-informed, proactive, and responsive governments, itself works in a curious supply-demand function: strong political demand for pro-poor policy is the only guarantee to ensure its supply.
I think one problem with reducing poverty and obtaining results of the Millennium Goals is the type of government in power in many of the nations that are subject to this program. A look at the millennium goal atlas (http://devdata.worldbank.org/atlas-mdg/) shows that Africa bears most of the burden. What makes Africa different than the rest of the world? One can discuss almost endlessly about the “cause” of the current situation in Africa, including the role of colonialism, but does an in depth conversation of the cause have any bearing on its future? At what point do the current governments of these countries take responsibility for not providing for their own people? The problems with much of Africa’s governments are the lack of governing capacity, corruption, backing by international governments and not being held accountable by other world governments to its own people. Governments such as Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, al-Bashir’s Sudan and the lawlessness of Somalia, are just examples of governments who have failed their people and their wellbeing. It is telling that those three countries are not even represented by MDG data. If success of the MDGs is dependent on a country’s government, then how successful will they be in countries whose government is not concerned with its people? How do you make a change in poverty or other aspects of the MDGs when a government is not a willing participant? Any economic programs concocted will not bring Mugabe over from the “dark side,” because the benefit to the people of Zimbabwe will not benefit him. His people’s dependency, unmet needs and fear keep them subservient to his government, which ensures his survival.
Another problem with ending poverty and the MGDs is the environment in which people live. In my experience, through travels in Mali and Burkina Faso, for example, I spent time in local villages, some better described as compounds. In one village in particular in Burkina Faso, I learned that upon a child’s marriage the husband would shoot an arrow from his parents’ boma and where it landed was his and his new bride’s home. As the family grows, so does the compound. I traveled through some villages/compounds that were populated by about 50 people, some as few as 10. They relied on the earth for their sustenance, wore basic clothing and tire-made shoes. Their animals were kept protected in their compound and they survived off of what milk and eggs were produced by them, along with whatever agricultural products they grew. The children showed signs of malnutrition, each having distended bellies. They rarely traveled outside of the compound, if only to trade products with a nearby village, they did not have paid employment, vehicles or any other means available to them. They would most definitely be the subject of several, if not all, of the concerns of the MDGs. How do you change this, and I would also argue, should it be changed? I absolutely agree that children should be properly nourished, but to say that the other aspects of these people’s lives need to be addressed, just because they live in a traditional society, means losing a culture that is being made extinct by the modern society. I have been to many remote places in Africa and I have seen cultures disappearing, from loin cloths to Mickey Mouse tee-shirts. Who are we to say that a traditional society should be modernized?
“How do you make a change in poverty or other aspects of the MDGs when a government is not a willing participant?”
This is tricky, because in one sense, it is not our job to tell other nations how to govern. However, rich nations (of which we have a say in, as citizens of a republic in the richest nation) do this all time through economic coercion. As I noted, the WTO was able to make El Salvador repeal a minimum wage increase. In theory, these same countries could decide to create standards that demand countries adhere to fair labor laws, enviromental laws, and policies aimed at helping the hungry.
Right now global institutions are quite able to punish countries for spending too much on the poor, raising the minimum wage and so on. If nations do not play ball, they are economically isolated. So there are ways to incentivize nations to implement policies; the problem is right now the incentive is to shrink the size of governments, cut public sector employment, dissuade strong labor laws and so on.
I do realize that changing this would require a sea change in thinking amongst heterdox economists and a major fight with entrenched business interests.
Sorry, I meant orthodox, not heterdox 🙂
And the related question (which the blog post discussed) is: how DO you make governments willing participants in the issue? One strategy is international pressure, which is usually a combo of carrots and public shame. But that doesn’t work with the worst offenders, e.g., Zimbabwe, Myanmar, North Korea, etc. Domestic political pressures will not work there either, since people will simply be shot.
Most sub-Saharan African countries, which are the farthest from achieving MDGs in general, are not as bad politically as those three are, but they remain primarily rural, and governments remain physically and politically farther from their rural than urban populations. Urbanization would help, but as some of the earlier comments pointed out, may not end hunger fully. The other political spur will come from democratization. Democracies at least will prevent mass hunger, as Sen’s research indicates.
My point is, the solutions to hunger will have to be, in very significant parts, political.
Great comment Kirsten! I surely agree that government is responsible for the survival of their own people and ending poverty and hunger would be difficult, if not impossible, if the government don’t care much about the people.
PS. “Upon a child’s marriage the husband would shoot an arrow from his parents’ boma and where it landed was his and his new bride’s home”. – Sounds like in russian folk tales that I was raised on. It is hard to believe that such a system still exists in some villages, which yet is another small evidence of the huge gap between developed and least developed countries.
I understand that national governments must play a significant role in the eradication of hunger in developing countries. However, what “pressures” will be placed on these governments that won’t ultimately affect the citizens. When determining what path will most likely result in government participation, we must also consider how much harm it will have on the citizens. Procuring participation from national governments through “pressures”, such as economic sanctions or foreign aid restrictions, is not alone likely to cause the government to participate in development initiatives. These “pressures” will harm the people of these countries who then may riot. Ultimately, the public reaction causes the government to participate not the sanctions. Perhaps empowering the people can elicit government participation more so than international and political pressures.
‘Conceptually, ending hunger should be the easiest to achieve: it is as easy as having/providing access to food. It should be easier than achieving, for example, an increase in life expectancy, which requires a host of variables to come together. It should be easier than increasing literacy or achieving gender parity or eradicating HIV/AIDS’.
While at the first sight it may seem so I do realize that everyone (at least within the current discussion) understands that it is not easy at all. And stalled progress of the UN development program greatly proves the statement. I am absolutely agreed with Kyle that the number of malnourished people around the world, especially in LDCs can be diminished, but not eradicated completely.
‘After all, if you are a commercial land user in Brazil, wouldn’t you rather be producing corn for biofuels and meat for the US, in which profit margins are higher, instead of corn for food?’ this is a tremendous issue that should be addressed if we want to make a progress in fighting hunger. Besides the problem of decreasing land resources versus increasing population, local farmers (who have land and are able cultivate it) in the end almost never get to consume their own products.
In addition, I am a strong believer that fighting poverty and hunger should go hand in hand with addressing other issues, especially healthcare and education. For example, rapid growth of population is one of the reasons of a doubtful success in ending hunger. I assume that if inhabitants of LDCs had access to most of the modern medications and health services, including birth-control medications and treatments, the estimates for the number of people living below poverty line would be lower, simply due to declining population growth rate.
„My consequent prediction: urbanization will force governments to deal with hunger more earnestly than they have done so far.”
A very interesting hypothesis that addresses an aspect that I have not thought about in this way before. But is also raises some questions that have partly already been addressed here.
It is absolutely necessary that national governments in developing countries do more to eradicate hunger. But I think this is only one side of the solution to the problem. As Michael and Tory pointed out, they can only go as far as powerful international institutions allow them to. The current global order is exclusive in terms of who participates in decision-making and who does not. Core global institutions such as the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF have been criticized for being dominated by the interests of business and high income countries. This finds expression in the institutional setting of these organizations. Also these institutions are strongly tied to a neoliberal ideology, which results in particular organizational cultures and certain rules of the game that narrow the range of perspectives and policies that can possibly be achieved. Due to this Institutional Power exercised by big global institutions, developing countries are to a certain extent unable to determine their own fate.
Another very important aspect raised by Kyle is whether the poor will ever coalesce into a polity. As John mentioned, many of the countries in which persistent hunger occurs are oppressive regimes which reduces the chances of this ever happening. Also it is hard to imagine people whose basic needs are unmet and who struggle in everyday life to have the energy and resources to form a polity. Riots may put pressure on national governments to change their policies, but it is questionable if they will be powerful enough to change something radically in the long term. As Jalal points out in his blog post, urbanization will force governments to deal with hunger more earnestly than they have done so far. But even with urban populations growing and a general shift of hunger from rural to more urban areas, the chronically malnourished in rural areas will possibly be unaffected by this.
“Ending hunger is the first priority of the Millennium Development Goals. Conceptually, ending hunger should be the easiest to achieve: it is as easy as having/providing access to food.”
How can we end hunger? The answer to this question is not new. it is been applied in developing countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and others. But, western countries and their agencies ( World Bank, IMF) would never take on a solution that would ultimately eradicate the dependency of developing countries from their control. In the case of hunger, there is enough surplus of food in western countries that can be transfered to poor and developing countries at a low cost , or even for free. The issue here the politic of this matter would never allow it. Powerful politicians are the least concern about eradicating poverty. For them, poverty is what keeps them powerful. So, what incentive should they have to change the status quo. None.
So, yes, it is conceptually easy to end hunger. But, the economic and political reality would never allow it to happen. The most that we could ever achieved is a false perception that the problem is been address, yet in the end no substantive result would ever materialized. So, the UN Millennium Development Goals in relation to hunger is just another broad stroke at the problem. The proponent of the plan would continue to win the heart of the masses, while at the same time the spread of hunger will continue to devastate the life of many.
“The answer to this question is not new. it is been applied in developing countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and others.”
I think this sentence is very interesting, because the two countries that have been named, which try and address the hunger issue, are two countries which completely deny or suppress to the greatest degree possible political freedoms and freedom of speech.
“But, western countries and their agencies ( World Bank, IMF) would never take on a solution that would ultimately eradicate the dependency of developing countries from their control. In the case of hunger, there is enough surplus of food in western countries that can be transfered to poor and developing countries at a low cost , or even for free.”
Also, I think placing the blame solely on the IMF, the World Bank and western countries is disingenuous at best. The transferring of surplus food production from Western countries to developing countries (which tends to have a lower price than locally produced food) increases the need for food aid by continuing to suppress local food markets and production. This is misguided and selfish policy. But, the blame can’t solely be placed on other countries, national governments are the entities that are responsible for the situation in a particular country, and national governments should be held accountable.
It is true that you cannot completely end hunger, but that is not because western countries and associated institutions have a stranglehold on developing countries.
Agree with the point above that “placing the blame solely on the IMF, the World Bank and western countries is disingenuous at best.” National governments of developing countries must be held accountable for their track record of dealing with hunger.
At the same time, for most of the past fifty years (since WW2), western food policy toward developing countries has been anything but charity. Whether you consider food trade or food aid, self-interest, both economic and political, has been the key determinant of western policy. But that fact itself should be additional incentive for developing countries to clean up their own houses. Without that done, it’s difficult to criticize solely the west.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has just stressed the individual responsibility of developing countries concerning the proper distribution of foreign aid. I think this is an important point because it is very unlikely and unrealistic to change current macroeconomic factors and institutions. The only chance for developing countries to fight hunger and to build a sustainable economy is taking part in the existing institutions. Francis Fukuyama has pointed out that foreign aid most often fails because of an ineffective and poor developed bureaucracy in developing countries. It should be the industrial countries’ duty to increase pressure on governments to build sustainable public administration in order to use foreign aid in a proper way. Contributors of foreign aid have mostly failed to make sure that provided aid was used in the intended way – so instead of just increasing the amount of money being transferred “1st world” governments have to make sure their support reaches the right people, that is in case of agriculture for example small farmers. Preventing developing countries from taking part in the world market by providing free food is not a sustainable strategy. (Neo-)Liberalism itself is not the evil, it’s the lack of proper institutions that keeps people from participating.
Great post today on the MDG on the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11375847
here’s another link to a good article
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20266544.htm
I believe that the world has the technical ability to put an end to hunger, but it simply lacks the political will to do so. World elites simply want to consolidate and augment their power. Hunger is the effect of poverty and poverty is a political issue. Usually a political issue doesn’t change unless the citizens decide to make a difference. Thus citizens need to make “malnutrition” a political priority and force it into the political agenda. We are currently facing a rapid increase in global hunger that we haven’t seen in 50 years. The weak efforts done by international organizations, national governments…allow hunger to persist.
Increasing foreign assistance, financial investment, and implementing trade policies preferential to developing countries are some recommended steps. I personally don’t believe that foreign aid works. Moreover, the main problem with international organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank is that they haven’t reached their intended goals of reducing poverty thus decreasing global hunger. They drive the agenda of the developed countries that simply want to stay in business. The World Bank and the IMF’s current objectives and institutional setup have various issues. They offer a one size fits all solution, which obviously doesn’t work for all countries. They aim to liberalize the developing world’s economy, giving low-interest loans that often come with conditions (Structural Adjustment Programs) that end up doing more harm than good. Pushing these poor countries to lower tariffs paralysis their industrial potentials.
The institutional set-up of the World Bank and the IMF is dominated by industrialized countries. The decisions are made and policies implemented by these leading countries, because they represent the largest donors without much consultation with poor and developing countries.
Removing agricultural subsidies for instance, makes a big difference in the developing world. But the developed world uses these subsidies in its favor regardless of their side-affects. US farmers with globally traded corps such as corn and wheat depress global prices and diminish the incomes of the farmers in developing countries. Infant industries can’t play the game of globalization automatically it takes time. The developed world is intentionally preventing the creation of a fair game. And they wonder why global hunger is increasing?
International organizations are not solely to blame. What about these developing countries governments? Have they pursued policies to implement successful development?
I agree that national governments are a lot to blame, because their job has become mainly to facilitate the elite’s global agenda. However, the primary responsibility for ensuring food security lies with national and local governments, whose capacity must be strengthened and accountability enhanced. It all comes down to finding a way to make the developing world more productive and less dependent on outside aid. Aid should come from within in order to be effective.
Nice catch, Kyle. NYT published an op-ed by Jeffrey Sachs commenting on the 10 year mark of the MDG a few days ago:
As for world hunger, everyone’s already said so many interesting things!
I’m simple-minded, so with a global Gordian issue like solving world hunger, I want to know who’s had success with it, and mimic what they’ve doing right. The Global Hunger Index (http://www.ifpri.org/publication/2009-global-hunger-index) notes two regions as having made the most substantial progress in reducing their aggregate regional GHI from 1990 to 2009: the Near East + North Africa, 7.7 to 5.2; and Southeast Asia, 14.5 to 8.7. Latin America and the Caribbean notably improved from 8.7 to 5.1 (quick score breakdown: <5 is low, 5-10 moderate, 10-20 serious, 20-30 alarming, 30+ very alarming). So the successful economic policy trends within these three regions bear closer examination (unfortunately, much more closely and extensively than I have time to do right now).
I'd go further to point out the Japanese "post-war economic miracle" as well as the development of the Four East Asian Tigers as models for potential emulation, or at least analysis as far as tackling world hunger goes. Obviously economic development and world hunger aren't interchangeable, but the correlation is extremely significant. Also, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea are at least 20 points away from some of the worst offenders on the GHI list, and they didn't exactly have a lot to work with when they got started in the post-war development age.
Also, I'm not sure if a vibrant domestic political culture is really essential to eradicating world hunger either. Take the Middle East for example. Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia: none of these countries can be considered democracies or even real republics. Two are monarchies, one emirate, and one a quasi-emirate theocracy. On top of that, Egyptian power succession looks like it will stay within the Mubarak family. Hereditary presidentship? Doesn't strike me as politically pluralist. Yet all of these countries have GHI scores of <5. I'm *sure* a competent, secular, technocratic, but internationally integrated authoritarian regime could address domestic hunger issues far better than some of these completely failed sub-saharan "republics."
Which leads me to my last point– government corruption. According to Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index, most of the worst offenders on the GHI have correspondingly atrocious rankings according to the CPI. Four of the countries with the highest GHI are the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Chad, and Sierra Leone. They all have GHIs of above 30, and their scores on the CPI are 1.6-1.9 (out of 10). Out of 180 countries, they rank 158 and below in terms of corruption. Is it any wonder then that the level of corruption and state rot in these countries translates to an abject failure in the basic provision of… food for their citizens? Of course not.
Consequently, the issue of corrupt government, as far as addressing hunger goes, isn't so much a moral issue as it is one of competency. A corrupt government is an incompetent government. An incompetent government cannot ensure the provision of basic human needs (such as the ones meticulously enumerated in the MDG). Failure to provide for basic needs means hungry people. The problem it seems to me here is, no one on the international stage wants the onus of healing the systemic illnesses of this deeply flawed set of failed states. This is manifested clearly in the kind of hands-off, checkbook diplomacy approach by developed nations, who conveniently demarcate aid at the line of state sovereignty.
Meaningful change would have to come at the cost of significant micromanagement in the form of political supervision (forcibly removing ineffective or corrupt officials, over and over), detached (i.e without self interest) economic guidance and unconditional material support.
No wonder world hunger has no end in sight.
Like the other MDGs, ending world hunger also requires a host of variables to come together.
Institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank often mandate trade liberalization policies such as import tariff reductions, which primarily benefit developed countries and hurt poorer countries. This, combined with oppressive debt repayment structures, have crippling impacts on poor countries long after debt is repaid or forgiven. These policies factor in to what keeps less developed countries from achieving a developed country status.
To further complicate matters, the US government provides subsidies to American producers, which often makes it cheaper for American farmers to grow food and export it to poor countries than it is for developing countries to produce their own food. This adds to the multi-dimensional problem of food security.
Food security is defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as the “Physical and economic access at all times to sufficient, safe and nutritious food…”
The three biggest threats to food security, according to the FAO are: 1. Extreme poverty, 2. Social instability 3. Natural disasters.
Most developing countries are adversely affected by these threats and without the resolution of each of these issues, hunger will continue to persist and even grow at an ever-expanding rate as the world population increases.
Finally, the environmental degradation that has occurred in most, if not all of the countries that suffer from mass hunger and malnutrition, took decades to destroy and will therefore take decades to correct. Until such time as agriculture is actually sustainable, the affected communities will have to continue the arduous and often inadequately funded task of reforestation, improvement of irrigation systems to prevent the erosion of topsoil, preservation of uninhabited land and protection of endangered species, which play a role in a well functioning ecosystem.
Extreme world hunger is not a natural phenomenon. Specific policies of developed countries and corruption in developing countries have directly led to the hunger epidemic. If there is a chance of ending hunger, it will have to begin with reversing the effects of these specific policies, or at least stopping them from digging the hole deeper, and having governments in place that care more about their people’s welfare than their own pocketbooks. Tory outlined many of these policies of developed countries in detail so I will not repeat them here, but developed countries’ subsidies to their own agricultural industry have had a huge affect on the ability of developing countries’ agriculture to compete globally or even domestically.
As for government corruption, the issue of sovereignty arises. To what degree does the international community have the right to intervene when a government is directly causing extreme hunger to its people? For those governments who do hold their people’s best interests at heart, political risk is necessary. An earlier post stated that governments should be responsible for feeding their people. I disagree; governments should be responsible for providing their people with the means to feed themselves. Either through land to farm, jobs to earn wages to buy food or protectionist trade barriers to protect that land and those jobs.
Governments should use the loan money they receive from the World Bank or other sources for rural infrastructure such as schools and housing areas to keep people on the land. Government subsidies can be given to subsidence farmers to stay on the land to grow food first for themselves and then for their community. Every civilization has begun with a food source. If a people were able to hunt or grow food in an area then that is where their society would grow. By supporting local farmers, i.e. teaching them to fish, then the society would have a place to grow anew and rebuild after the harm that has been done to them over the past few centuries.
Countries that are plagued by hunger are largely due to a lack of domestic food production being kept for domestic consumption. In order to keep food in the country, domestic governments should create trade barriers on food exports to persuade companies to sell food products within the country and dissuade future Transnational Corporations from occupying more of their land to create products solely for export.
Market forces cannot be relied on to eradicate poverty as they have allowed us to arrive where we are today. However, misdirected political decisions played the leading role. Entering the global economy prematurely was not a force of the market but a decision by political leaders. It is up to those national leaders to lead their poor and hungry back to life. Being that many of the nations suffering extreme poverty and hunger also suffer from corrupt governments, it is highly unlikely that poverty ever can be completely eradicated. However, I believe it is possible, through national policies focused on subsistence farming and agricultural production solely for domestic use until the population gets back on its feet, to dramatically reduce the number of people living in hunger.
Also, I think a positive potential outcome of the MDGs is the attention brought to the poverty levels in individual countries. Much corruption stems from leaders wanting to feel powerful, but being shown to the world as poor leaders of their people creates the opposite image. An opportunity is being given to all leaders of developing countries to earn their positions by bringing prosperity to their people.
Call me cynical but I don’t foresee the potential for progress towards the eradication of global hunger. Perhaps at one time this was possible but the developed world’s motivations hadn’t reached the point where they cared until long after Africa’s de-colonization and even after that it was never a selfless endeavor–using food aid and technology transfer as a bargaining chip. With sovereignty came voting power and methods for obtaining support on a wide range of debates from the developing nations had to become increasingly sophisticated.
What I mean is this; US foreign policy with regards to food aid and agricultural development was never intended to eradicate poverty or develop a robust agricultural industry where domestic farms, operated by locals, provided enough food in such a way that profits could be reinvested into the local agroconomy. Rather policy was designed to be extractive and overarching. Foreign firms provided the capital and expected generous returns. If they didn’t own the land outright they would use some proxy firm instead. They also controlled the technology through tightly-controlled IPR and patents. Back home in Washington, agricultural lobbyists and the political machine work together to control a substantial portion of agricultural exports to the developing world. Corn, rice, peanuts… you name it, it’s subsidized by the US taxpayers. Corn is subsidized at a higher rate than anywhere else in the world and yet our subsidies paid to rice growers are 2.5x that of corn. Then they ship this all over the world in the form of both purchasable product and food aid destroying the local economies of the developing world by coming in at a price point far below what local producers can sell for. Haiti used to produce nearly 100% of its rice needs in the 1980’s, two decades later the price of local varieties were driven up so high by unfair competition and the dumping of US rice in Haiti that now over 80% of its rice is imported from the US, which can then drive up the price point as long as it falls under what the local variety has gone up to. That said, Haitians pay far more for cheap American rice than they used to pay for their much more nutritious local variety which is now largely gone.
This is where international financial institutions step in. Using Haiti as an example again, IFIs consistently fail to help local rice growers with subsidy, loans, buy equipment, new strains of rice, or invest in badly needed infrastructure projects along the Artibonite River Valley where most of Haiti’s remaining rice crops are grown. Why? Because US rice is cheaper so why ruin a good thing. Organizations like the IDB and World Bank have fallen short on investment in the development of the rural periphery. If the UN worked with the WTO to allow developing countries to protect their markets, or as Thomas Jefferson called it–infant industries, than perhaps we could see a reduction in hunger rates? Haiti used to have a tariff on imported rice of over 30%. The US and WTO forced Haiti to reduce it to 3%, far below the CARICOM average of 25%, flooding the market with the subsidized US crops. And where is over 90% of American rice grown? Arkansas. And who was president of the US when this tariff reduction law was forced through? Yup… free-market Billy C.
So even if you throw hundreds of millions of dollars at this problem with food aid and “expertise,” you won’t resolve the problem. Without heavy investment into rural agriculture and infrastructure without expectation of profit returns or patent fee payments the hunger rate will compound upon itself. You have to enable developing countries to produce the vast majority of their food.
How else can we create balance and work towards this end-goal? Through aggressive policies targeting population reduction. Many countries with high hunger rates also have high population growth rates (i.e. Haiti). This is only achieved through education and serious dialogue with religious authorities who will endorse policies geared towards population reduction. Without the Christian and Catholic church signing on you won’t get far.
Okay, so the food riots of 2007-2008 were a result of poorly conceived policy thought up by profiteers rather than those responsible for say dealing with world hunger. Obviously using a key global food crop for anything other than edible consumption will result in market price fluctuation which most of the global poor can’t cope with. Lesson learned. One lesson the general public haven’t learned yet is that sea level rise as it relates to global warming will throw a major wrench not only into achieving this MDG, but all of the others. Sure, we see increased storm intensity and occurrence which has obvious effects on agriculture, but what people don’t realize is that places like the Greenland Ice Sheet are melting. Glaciers are melting all over the world for that matter. As you said, urban populations are projected to grow by 100% over the next several decades. Something tells me the effects of sea level rise and global warming haven’t been factored into that. Most of the world’s major urban centers are on the ocean. Crop lands will become increasingly infertile for reasons running the gambit (i.e. increased salinization, increased desertification, decreased biodiversity, overused soil, etc.) I can’t believe that New York, Hong Kong, Cairo, or Dhaka would be able to sustain a doubled population. That said, you will see mass exodus out of urban centers and into the rural periphery. Weak, urban-centered governments will undoubtedly fail and yes, as you said, the urban poor will demand food and water. But will there be enough to give everyone is the question?
Perhaps only some Orwellian population control policy coupled with aggressive multilateral environmental protections can save the MDGs? Like I said before, perhaps at one time this goal would have been achievable, but with the increased power of Capitalist business mechanisms, a seemingly exponential population growth rate, and the predicted end of the epoch of plenty the goal of global hunger eradication is unrealistic. Reforms of the deepest nature seem to be the only savior of this noble goal.
“… I think placing the blame solely on the IMF, the World Bank and western countries is disingenuous at best.”
“…Agree with the point above that “placing the blame solely on the IMF, the World Bank and western countries is disingenuous at best.” National governments of developing countries must be held accountable for their track record of dealing with hunger…”
Woa …these are very interesting comments. It seems that some of us have forgotten the raison d’etre of these western institutions (IMF and World Bank). After WWII, these institutions were created for the sole purpose to keep a tight grip on the the economy of global market in using the monetary policies ( Free Trade and Globalization) to achieve this aim. There is nothing benevolent of these institutions. Just to think that they are lending money to developing countries to eradicate hunger or poverty is absurd. Only take a look at the annals of history of the lending practices of these institutions. It is nothing but highway robbery. Poor nations have been deceived to think by borrowing money from the IMF that they are helping their economy. This had never happended yet. The opposite is more of the reality. These developing countries when they borrow money , they are worst off.
Yes, we can agree that colonization is over. There is no more foreign dictatorship of one country over another country. But, the reality is that colonization has only taking a different name and has changed masters from then Europe to now the United States. The Empirial dominance of the US in the forms of its politics and economy is no different to what it was with the Europe. It is now things have gotten more complex and people are easier to deceive than in the past. In the traditional era, the masters and the slave relation was clearly define. Now, with the modern era things have gotten more sophisticaticated and the lines are blurry in this relationship.
A master nation like the US can or will never allow its holding ( developing countries) that it oversees to be at part or become independent from it. This is just what it is in the real world of international relation. Either you play to be the dominant player or you will get shewed up. Yet, as true this economic and political reality is, it is a hard sale. Institution like the IMF and others had to be created to fool most developing countries. They have bought this story for their own detriment.
The beautiful thing about this new era for the realist masters is that they are winning. Their Machiavellian tactics like fighting world hunger or poverty through the UN are been sold and bought even by their opponent liberals. Our leading academic, Jeffrey Sacks, had actually believed that the west would be able to deliver on this issue of hunger. Unfortunately, him and many of us are already and the rest will be so disappointed on the promises of the MDG.
http://www.unicef.org/oPt/overview_5629.html
Click to access enmdg06.pdf
“Conceptually, ending hunger should be the easiest to achieve: it is as easy as having/providing access to food.”
I decided to begin my response by taking a brief look at some of the factual information that was available. Having glanced at most of the responses, albeit briefly, and referring back to the initial post I am concerned because I find there is something missing: What consideration is being given not to developed countries, developing countries, or even failed states but instead anomalies like the West Bank and Gaza (WBG) in the Occupied Palestinian Territories?
This is not a case of the rurally malnourished as it is in India because what we have in Palestine and Israel is a case of millions of people living very close to one another posing constant and immediate risk.
This is of particular interest to me because as it is likely apparent one of my ongoing interests is the capacity in which a truly viable Palestinian state can be built. As the post says, and I agree, ending hunger should be the easiest MDG to achieve. Of course we see progress as being stagnant, minimal, or going in the opposite direction and we are immediately alarmed because for the most part it occurs in countries that have functioning and effective national governments that should be capable of dealing with it.
While the WBG has its own government(s) so to speak it is more than obvious that they are in no shape to work towards achieving the MDG’s. Even humanitarian groups such as the one responsible for the Gaza Flotilla at the end of may met with political might from Israel that outright prevented food from getting to the impoverished people of Gaza. Israel’s reasoning for restricting humanitarian aide or even aiding in development stem almost entirely from political motives out of fear that a stronger more robust Palestinian population will threaten their security. I would argue that if it is Israel’s right as a result of sovereignty whether legal or illegal that the failure on the part of the Palestinians to make progress towards the MDGs is a direct result of Israel’s involvement and at the very least should reflect dependently on Israel’s progress towards implementing the MDG’s.
Basically what it comes down to for me is this, the failure of entities like the WBG/OPT or whatever you would like to call them is not based on international trends similar to those we see in other areas instead it is based on artificial prevention by a larger entity such as Israel. The only way to begin making progress towards the MDGs for the Palestinians is to directly address the situation with Israel. For the time being a hungry and impoverished Palestine will remain increasingly hostile over the lack of concern for them, while Israel fears that showing concern for them could strengthen their capacity to demonstrate hostility.
“What we have in Palestine and Israel is a case of millions of people living very close to one another posing constant and immediate risk. ”
I am sorry here. The reality is far worst. The mighty state of Israel is committing ethnic cleaning against the Palestinians both in Gaza and the West Bank. If the Palestinians dare to fight back or protest, Israel escalate the pace of the cleansing. The fighters are later labeled terrorist by both the US and Israel. On television, it will be broadcast that Israel was acting in self defense and they the right to do so.
The notion of ending hunger in the West Bank and Gaza is only a nice slogan to make reasonable people to feel a bit relief about the policies of the US and Western states towards the wretched Palestinians.
It is unfortunate that there will never be a Palestinian state. As much as, it would make sense for the Palestinians to have their homeland back and make it into a viable and sovereign state, this will never come to fruition. What is more likely to happen is that Israel will continue its ethnic cleansing plan which is supported by the US and other powerful Western states and cause the Palestinians to give up any right and hope of a homeland called Palestine. If you read the latest news coming out from that region, they are already talking about it. They are calling it the one state solution plan.
The lack of food and water for the Palestinians are only the beginning phase to the complete extermination of these people. Unfortunately, the UN and their brethren Arabs states, few caring people like Rachel Corrie and others can’t do nothing to stop this plan.
Alas…! we hope at least that their lives end in peace.
I realize this is getting a bit off-topic, but in response to Chelbe and Cameron on Israel, Palestine and so on:
Chelbe, I don’t think you will find Cameron to be one to fail to recognize the horrendous plight of the Palestineans, who are indeed suffering horribly due to Israeli attrocities. Not to speak for Cam– I am sure he will chime in here–but I think he is simply recognizing the relationship between hunger and his primary research interest, not waxing apologetics for Israel’s brutal occupation.
While I do agree mostly with your outlook, in that Israel has made a viable two-state solution close to an impossibility and the latest peace talks are a total farce, which fail to include the democratically-elected body of Palestine and instead rely on the collaborationist PA.
It is attrocious. But the “one-state solution,” as I understand the regular usage of the term, does not seem to imply the status quo of Israel gradually destroying any hope for a viable Palestinian state. But, Israel’s goal is not a one-state solution–such an arrangement would lead to Arab majorities, and thus the eventual end of Israel in name and culture. In fact, proponents of a one-state solution often tend to be the most tireless advocates of the Palestinian cause — including UMB’s own Leila Farsakh, Ali Abunima of Electronic Intifada (who wrote a book proposing a one-state solution) and others.
It is also a very popular solution amongst Palestinians. Of course, the political realities make it seem difficult, and it may well be just as hard or harder than the two-state solution under the framework of 242, which is supported by all but 7 state in the UN, and has been supported by the International Criminal Court. Even the likes of Chomsky and Finkelstein support a two-state over a one-state, for these reasons.
Anyway, I see your point: the “one state’ you refer to is Israel, while Palestinians are increasingly imprisoned between walls and settlements in ever-smaller confines with no food, infrastructure and so on. But I would hesitate to use the same terminology in discussing the status quo of increasing colonization of Palestine, vs. the one-state solution supported by many well-meaning activists and scholars.
http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/07/interview-with-leila-farsakh-two-state.html
you can always buy cheap foods on any supermarket these days because food production is mechanized already `’:
It seems to that global agro-business also plays a large role in determining who deserves what. With the modernization of the global trade of food (enabled by technological advances like refrigeration), the entire system of food production and consumption has changed. Whereas pre-globalization, farming and agriculture was meant to sustain its own population (for the most part), it has been commodified like any other consumer good. To create this new and extensive market, business interests have overshadowed populations needs. Firms lobby governments for favorable treatment at the expense of citizens. Certainly the modernization of the global food economy has had many benefits, however, it seems those involved in the industry also share responsibility in combating hunger.
I’ve considered this question as I sit in one of the less developed countries where more than 1/3 of the population is under the poverty line. Tanzania is not expected to reach most of the MDGs in 2015. There is a sense of real disconnect here though. I met with the local government official who had never heard of the MDGs, when I asked about the poverty rate and HIV/AIDs rate, he said they were exceptionally small in relation to other African countries. While much of Tanzania’s land can be used for agricultural purposes, they only use about 6% of it. When I asked why, they just looked at me like they had never thought of an answer. I was told school was mandatory, but yet there are hundreds of children running around selling eggs and begging during the day. Our organization has placements in ‘schools’ but they look to it as more of a day care system, with little education. The people here, though, do not see that they are worse off. In fact, they feel that they are in much a better position than all of Africa. It makes me wonder that if the people do not fight for the better conditions the MDGs hope to achieve, or even recognize that they are out there, the governments of these countries will not act to change those conditions. I think that for most of these governments to act, the pressure needs to come from its people, and the international community, not just the international community itself.
[…] past articles, I have touched on the risk of urban unrest (e.g., here). Over the last two years I’ve seen that risk increasing around the world, even though global […]