Lack of food is rarely the reason that people go hungry. The world today produces enough food to feed everyone. The problem is that more and more people simply cannot afford to buy the food they need. Even before the recent food-price increases, 1 billion people were suffering from chronic hunger, while another 2 billion were experiencing malnutrition, bringing the total number of food-insecure people to around 3 billion, or almost half the world’s population.
Global food prices are at the highest level since the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) started monitoring them in 1990. The World Bank estimates that recent food-price increases have driven an additional 44 million people in developing countries into poverty.
The rapid rise in world prices for all basic food crops — corn, wheat, soybeans and rice — along with other foods like cooking oils, has been devastating for poor households all over the world. However, almost everybody’s standard of living has been reduced. Middle-class people are increasingly careful about their food purchases; the near-poor are losing headway and falling below, rather than staying above, the poverty line; and the poor and vulnerable, not surprisingly, are suffering even more.
Food production increased greatly with the quest for food security and the Green Revolution from the 1960s to the 1980s, owing to considerable government and international not-for-profit support. However, agricultural experts have warned of the risks of flagging efforts to boost food output since the 1980s.
As food-supply growth has slowed, demand has continued to rise, owing not only to population increases, but also for reasons such as the growing use of food crops to sustain livestock. The problem is exacerbated by the significant drop in official development assistance for agricultural development in developing countries. Aid for agriculture fell by more than half in the quarter-century after 1980, as the World Bank cut agricultural lending from US$7.7 billion in 1980 to US$2 billion in 2004.
With cuts continuing, agricultural research and development — needed to improve crop productivity — has fallen for all crops in all developing countries. Meanwhile, in the private sector, agribusinesses spend much more on research than all public agricultural research institutes together.
Developing-country governments also stopped subsidizing farmers or being involved in food marketing, storage, transportation or credit provision. Meanwhile, rich countries continue to subsidize and protect their farmers, thereby undermining food production in developing countries.
The World Bank and the WTO still insist that further agricultural trade liberalization is the best medium-term solution.
Since the 1980s, governments have been pressed to promote exports to earn foreign exchange and import food. As a result, many poor countries have turned to the world market to buy cheap rice and wheat, instead of growing their own. Some countries and regions that were previously self-sufficient in food now import large quantities of it. This drives up food prices, causing even more anguish for the world’s poorest people.
Other factors have contributed to the food crisis. Climate change resulting from greenhouse-gas emissions exacerbate water-supply problems, accelerate desertification and water stress, and worsen the unpredictability and severity of weather events, all of which adversely affect agriculture in much of the world. Deforestation, growing population pressure, urbanization, soil erosion, over-fishing and the impact of foreign control of marketing, inputs, processing and even farming also play a role.
Increased oil prices are also affecting the price of food. Commercial agriculture uses petroleum, oil and gas to operate machinery, transport goods and produce agro-chemicals needed for fertilizers and pesticides.
Moreover, food crops are being grown to produce biofuels, reducing their availability for human consumption. Rich countries have provided generous subsidies and other incentives for increased biofuel production, while poorer countries encouraging bio-fuel production have provided far fewer market-distorting incentives to farmers.
Certainly, some biofuels are far more cost-effective and energy-efficient than others, while different bio-fuel stocks have very different opportunity costs (for example, sugar has not experienced any significant price increase). Hence, the debate over bio-fuels needs to be far more nuanced.
Speculation and hoarding have also been contributing to food-price spikes. More securitization, easier online trading and other financial-market developments in recent years have facilitated greater speculative investments, especially in commodity futures and options markets.
As the financial crisis deepened and spread from late 2007, speculators began investing in commodities and the US dollar’s decline relative to other currencies has also spurred such investments. Indeed, this may explain recent food-price surges better than the factors underlying longer-term gradual upward price trends.
In that case, the problem that many people around the world are facing today is one of food security, not a lack of food. Of course, if you are hungry or undernourished today as a result of food-price increases, that is a distinction without a difference.
Jomo Kwame Sundaram is UN assistant secretary-general for economic development.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers