A Billion Hungry People

• The link between hunger and poverty. A poor person is usually defined as someone who does not have enough to eat. Poverty lines in most countries are set to report the level of poverty based on hunger. Because of this well-renowned link, governments have tried to deal with poverty by addressing hunger through food subsidies despite of logistical difficulty.
• Nutrition-based poverty trap. The nutrition-based poverty trap is based on the idea that the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer because of what they eat. The poor cannot afford to eat enough and this makes them less fit for work, which in return keeps them poor. On the other hand, as people get richer, they can buy more food, which will strengthen them and make them more productive.
• Poor food choices. Most people who live with less than 99 cents a day do not seem to be starving. The poor seem to have many choices, and they do not choose to spend most of their income on nutritious food. Instead, they elect to spend extra income on better-tasting, more expensive food.

o   In China, families who received price subsidies on rice and wheat consumed less of those items. Most of them chose to buy meat and shrimp with their extra money instead of more grains. Because of this, their caloric intake did not increase even if their purchasing power has increased.

o   In India, there has been a sustained decline in per capita calorie consumption even if the country experienced economic growth. At all levels of income, the proportion of income devoted to food has declined because the same amount of money is now being spent on more expensive food.

• Food scarcity misconception. Data in the Philippines suggest that locals can survive with only 21 cents a day at PPP by buying eggs and banana. Few people opt to eat eggs and bananas every day; they prefer variety and better taste. Hence, there really is no absolute food scarcity. Starvation exists as a result of the way people choose and share food.
• The trap examined. It was observed that large gains in income are obtained at low levels of food consumption. There is no steep jump in income once people start eating enough, suggesting that the very poor benefit more than the less poor when they eat extra calories.
• Why people eat less. It is possible that people are eating less because improvements in water and sanitation have already reduced their sick days, better transportation has lessened the need to travel on foot, and technology has cut down manual labor. There are also many other pressures and desires other than staple food that people want to purchase.
• Eating well vs. eating enough. The problem really is not the quantity of food, but the quality. People can easily eat as much as they need to be physically productive. Investment in nutrition is not that expensive. But given the extra income, families prefer to consume better-tasting, more expensive items over nutritious ones.
• Unfamiliar benefits. Some families miss the opportunity of getting higher earnings because they are not aware of the fact that eating healthy would help them be more productive. On the other hand, for those who do have access to vitamin-enriched food, it may be the case that people forego consuming them because they are too skeptical as the benefits of eating healthy seem to be too farfetched.
• More important than food. The poor and unemployed sometimes tend to focus on the here and now; they prioritize things that would make them happy. This is because life is not all about existence; humans long to have a pleasant life as well. This explains why some poor families would sometimes rather spend their money on “indulgences” like weddings, feasts, and appliances – like television and DVD players – than buy more nutritious food.
• Implication on food policy. Since the problem is not the quantity, but the quality of food, subsidized grains do little to encourage poor families to eat better. Cash transfers may also fail lead to better nutrition. Observations (especially in India) suggest that poor people do not eat more or better when their income goes up. Since the returns in investing in children and mothers yield higher social returns, it would be better if governments will focus on giving fortified foods and nutritional supplements instead. This is already done in countries like Kenya, Columbia, and Mexico. In addition, new food technology that would develop nutritious but tasty food must also be prioritized.

Source:

Banerjee, Abhijit and Esther Duflo, “A Billion Hungry People?” Poor Economics (New York: Public Affairs, 2011).