Why do famines persist?

Theory and practice

Jose Maria Cisneros Gallegos
London, May 2015
Introduction
The underlying contradiction of possessing instruments to prevent famines
despite the fact that they are still recurrent is a complex question. Moreover,
conceptualising famines as entitlement failures misdirects both the
understanding of the concept and the practicalities of how to end them. This
essay will advocate for an alternative approach to the comprehension of famines
whilst recognizing the inherent complexity of their contextual issues. The
analytical framework proposed is based upon main propositions on how to
understand famines which will be singularly assessed with evidence from African
countries from the last several decades.
The essay presents a discussion of the conception of famines as entitlement
failures (Sen, 1981), followed by outlining an evaluation of the four main
propositions derived from the analytical framework, drawing on examples of past
experiences of famines in African countries over the last decades. Finally,
conclusions will be drawn from these critiques and analyses.
Understanding famine as an entitlement failure
The conceptualization of famine determines the way the phenomenon is
understood, but it also delineates possible ways to approach the problem in
practice. Theoretical foundations therefore dictate the design and the
implementation of policies and programmes to end famine (Edkins, 2002).
The Household Economy Approach (HEA) was developed to assess livelihood
strategies at the household level in order to identify vulnerabilities and predict
how households will react in times of crisis. Quantifications of livelihood impacts
are useful when designing development interventions as they provide valuable
information about the range of available livelihood sources of income and food,
as well as the household members nutritional status (Seaman et al., 2014). This
is one of many methodologies to measure poverty and household deprivation
(SPII, 2007), some of which even rely on historical data to simulate the response
to future disasters (Seaman, 2000). However all share a common theoretical
background, which is the sustainable livelihoods and entitlement theorisation of
poverty.
Livelihood sustainability is defined as the possibility of recovering from impacts,
based on improving the asset base, and preserving natural resources, which can
only be achieved if the household owns or has access to certain capabilities,
assets, and activities (Scoones, 1998). This broad-ranging conceptualisation
provides a set of distinctive criteria to identify sustainable livelihoods, which are
founded on the entitlement approach (Sen, 1981). According to Sen (1981),
famines appear as the result of changes in the exercising of rights and
entitlements over various resources. Deprived households endure a shift in their
rights over the means for a decent standard of living, hence their vulnerability to
famines can only be a product of the modification in their entitlements.
1

2
Moreover, the constraints of ownership and access to various basic goods and
services restrict in the households capabilities for development, which is also a
limitation on their freedom (Sen, 1984).
While entitlement failures are useful explanation, Sen chooses to define
deprivation in purely economic terms. Whilst acknowledging the legitimacy of
changes in the structure of rights that create vulnerability, he fails to provide any
interpretation of the political causes of these shifts (Sen, 1984). This is why the
entitlement theory of famines has been subject to numerous criticism over the
years. Undoubtedly, aggregate levels of food supply were not related to the
apparition of famines in the developing world during the twentieth century (Sen,
1977). However, many authors emphasize a lack of political understanding when
conceptualising famines as entitlement failures.
The focus on entitlements can therefore be seen as theoretically erroneous;
moreover, the emphasis on failure leads to practical mistakes. In fact, when
identified as failures, famines appear as a technical or managerial problem,
deprived from contextual specificity and inherent complexity (Edkins, 2002).
Some authors highlight that the solutions to famine should not be exclusively
economic in nature, but inherently social and political (Rangasami, 1985). Others
emphasize the lack of consideration for the wider political and economic picture,
where the distribution of rights is intrinsic to the issue of class struggle (Watts,
1991). Perspectives of famine as an induced phenomenon highlight the power
relations enforced by those who deny access to food to less powerful or
subjugated groups (Edkins, 2002). These criticisms have clear practical
implications: if not addressed, political factors will perpetuate the existence of
famines.
Paradoxically, consensus over the failure of entitlement theory has not led to the
construction of a single common definition of famine. This has caused the reappearance of some misinterpretations, such as the tendency to identify famine
as shortages in food supply (Swift, 2006). Furthermore, famines tend to be
identified as an exclusively rural phenomenon, while evidence of famine has
been also found in urban areas (Oldewage-Theron et al., 2006). The prevalence
of AIDS among poor households has led to the identification of variants of famine
(de Waal & Whiteside, 2003), however the discussion about these results
highlight that famines are complex processes and further studies are necessary
to address the inequalities among the people who suffer from the famine (Gibbs,
2008).
The purpose of this paper is not to create a concept or theory of famine, rather
to set out an analytical framework of the limitations of understanding famine as
an entitlement failure. This framework draws on a range of sources which work
together to increase our understanding of why famines persist (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Why do famines persist? Analytical framework. Authors own working of Sen (1981),
Seaman et al. (2014).

In the above framework, the hourglass indicates that Sens theory (1981) and the
HEA (Seaman et al., 2014) both assume a theoretical narrowing which also
manifests in the practical limitations when designing famine intervention. Among
the theoretical elements unconsidered by these two approaches are politics, the
economy, livelihood strategies, and climate change. Some of the practical
problems unaddressed by them are decision-making, the purposefulness of
famines, survival strategies, and climatic anomalies. In order to better explain
this framework, four proposals will be assessed and contrasted with evidence
from famine episodes in Africa over the last few decades.
Decision-making and appropriate responses
The first proposal put forward to understand why famines persist are the political
factors within the decision-making processes to tackle food insecurity. Indeed,
the preferences of policy makers are of vital importance when deciding when and
how to act (Buchanan-Smith et al., 1994). While Early Warning Systems (EWS) to
detect famine may be efficiently put in place, the information judged valid to
trigger action, the critical thresholds for crisis indicators, and the timing judged
appropriate to intervene are different according to the understanding of the
decision-maker.
The information failure generated after abysmal gaps of knowledge between
EWS managers and decision-makers is a recurrent feature in African famines
(Devereux, 2009). The 2011 famine in Somalia revealed how important these
gaps are in reality (Al Jazeera, 2011), with mass migration flows from the
southern region of the country towards the north and refugee camps in Kenya
were identified as initial signs of livelihood stress and political violence. As local
aid organisations reached out to international donors, no preventive action was
taken as no evidence of real famine was presented. Decision-makers often

4
prefer to wait until there is a veritable humanitarian crisis in areas of stress,
which makes any form of EWS and HEA diagnoses redundant.
Moreover, the efficiency of the response is often limited due to inappropriate
administrative procedures on the part of both donor and recipient countries
(Buchanan-Smith et al., 1994). Again in the case of the 2011 famine in Somalia,
inefficient bureaucratic structures were also revealed (Al Jazeera, 2011). Firstly,
an unsurmountable hierarchy in the chain of international aid supply impeded
the claims of local aid organisations, leading to early signs of crisis being
ignored. Secondly, time consuming administration also affected the swiftness of
the delivery to the most affected areas in southern Somalia. These
administrative measures include a meticulously weighing the amount of grain to
be delivered as well as the collection, the counting, the checking, and individual
destruction of the empty baby food sachets at the distribution sites (Al Jazeera,
2011). Though politically necessary, these procedures were costly since they
prevented resources from being better allocated to tackling famine in affected
zones.
Gaps in understanding between development practitioners and decision-makers
as well as inefficient procedures impede appropriate responses, hence
contributing to the perpetuation of famines.
International relations and conflict
The second proposal to be evaluated is that famines persist because of political
factors related to international affairs and civil conflicts. Aid provided by donor
countries is generally subject to certain conditions and expected outcomes,
nonetheless recipient governments also construct expectations about the donor
countries. These mutual expectations crucially shape the relationship between
donor and recipient countries, which is a critical determinant of aid provision
(Buchanan-Smith & Davies, 1995). Indeed, many cases of humanitarian
assistance by western countries have been conditioned to the political situation
in the recipient country (Dunning, 2004).
The 2000 famine in Ethiopia occurred in conjunction to this countrys war with
Eritrea. International aid flows were interrupted because of the apprehension
that food aid was misdirected to other purposes than helping the affected
population. This uneasiness was further amplified as such possible misdirection
of aid could be perceived as financing a war (Maxwell, 2002). Furthermore, the
rising fear of terrorism affected aid responses to some areas in the 2011 crisis in
Somalia. The bombing of UN installations by an extremist organisation in
Mogadishu in 1993 was followed by the progressive retraction of international
aid, particularly by the United States, who had been the biggest donor. The
situation worsened after the 2010 sanctions imposed by the Office for Foreign
Assets Control (OFAC), causing a 90% decline in famine aid received in southern
Somalia (Al Jazeera, 2011).
Famines are also used as weapons against civilians in context of conflict and war,
thus making further investigation of the causes of famine in such situations
irrelevant (Edkins, 2002). In fact, lack of action in such cases reveals the true
intentions of those in power. The 2005 Nigerian famine did not trigger any
humanitarian intervention from the newly democratically elected government,
inaction which was denounced by an international NGO to the donor community
(Rubin, 2009). Furthermore, the 1985-1989 Sudanese food crisis revealed the

5
political purposes of famine as a means of maintaining power, as no government
action was taken and aid was often blocked. The impediment of aid contributed
to the aggravation of livelihood disruption and famine. Years later, political and
commercial elites as well as international donors were identified as being
amongst some of the beneficiaries of famine (Keen, 1994).
Absence of conflict is usually a sine qua non for international aid flows, yet
several food crises in Africa in recent years reveal the importance of donorrecipient expectations and the utility of famines for political goals.
Neoliberalism and the magnitude of the economic problem
The third proposal assessed relies on the assumption that famines persist
because of a misapprehension of the dimensions of the economic problem.
Important factors excluded from Sens theory of famines (1981, 1984) are not
only political but also social and economic. Arguably most importantly, the
entitlement exchange approach excludes a crucial factor in African economic
history: neoliberalism (Devereux, 2001).
The famine in Malawi in 2001-2002 was induced by economic structures such as
the dismantlement of public programmes, agricultural subsidies, credit
associations, and grain reserves. The latter was as emergency food stockpile to
be accessed in cases of food insecurity within the country. However, financial
impositions by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forced a change in rationale
of the grain reserves: they were to be converted into an economic asset, thus
allowing the recovery of the costs of aid provision, just as in any other neoliberal
public service, leading to large commercial loans being given to finance the
necessary expansion of capacity. These neoliberal policies ultimately failed as
they triggered a severe economic crisis during the famine intervention. Some
effects of the crisis included speculation on grain prices, the control of grain
supply by a few families, and a lack of assistance for more vulnerable
households. The famine death toll was estimated at 47,000 to 85,000 people
(Devereux & Tiba, 2006). Moreover, the establishment of the Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS) failed to strengthen the response
systems of the member states. Conversely, it has further enhanced the
neoliberalisation of African economies as it produced a lack of basic economic
regulation to stabilize prices and distribute food adequately and failed to support
the implementation of social protection systems, factors which played a role in
the onset of the 2005 famine in Niger (Mousseau & Mittal, 2006).
Famines occur in the context of collapsed social and economic networks, which
are not encompassed in the entitlement failure approach (Rangasami, 1985).
Recent studies in east Ethiopia have shown the importance of social networks in
food security. Many factors contributing to rural livelihoods depend on social
connections and relationships that the household can mobilize for their survival.
One of these factors is the provision of seeds, which relies mainly in the
households informal social capital system and social relationship and support.
These are neither mercantile nor political relations, rather inherently social and
yet vital for rural livelihoods (McGuire, 2008). The combination of high
agricultural prices and low harvest resulted in the 2005 famine in Sudan. Low
yields triggered livelihood disruption which was accentuated by a rapid increase
in cereal prices (200%-300%). Households were forced to adopt deleterious
coping strategies such as selling land and livestock, which further increased food
insecurity and malnutrition in vulnerable areas. Despite that markets were still

6
functioning, the terms of trade were tremendously deteriorated to the point that
vulnerable people were dispossessed (Devereux, 2009).
Disregarding neoliberal features of African economies and the magnitude of the
ensuing economic difficulties results in inappropriate interpretations and
interventions. When understanding famines, the incomplete portrayal of
economic problems leads to the adoption of technical and managerial solutions
that tackle only minor aspects of complex economic problems (Edkins, 2002).
Human and ecological breakdown
The fourth proposal to be evaluated is that famines persist because of a
misunderstanding of the dimension of the human and ecological breakdown. In
fact, famines are complex episodes which engender ecological destruction and
human distress (Adger, 2000).
The expansion of arid areas and progressive desertification are important issues
to consider when understanding and addressing famines. By 1984 it was
estimated that 87% of the rural population in Sudan living in the Sahel region
were affected by water and vegetation scarcity (Mortimore, 1989). This is key to
understanding that human life in these areas is often enabled by survival
strategies rather than livelihood systems. Furthermore, climate change is a
catalyst for the expansion of arid zones, yet famine theorisation does not
consider this phenomenon. During the 2004 Darfur famine in Sudan, patterns of
response could be identified according to the ecology and the livelihood system
of particular areas. Various coping strategies are put in place according to the
environmental and the social systems. However, ecological and human fragility
was palpable in the deadliness of this particular episode (de Waal, 2004). In
contexts of such environmental adversity, human response is delimited to a
psychological struggle for survival. Despite the systemic breakdown that
represents famine, a study of survivors of the Ethiopian famine in 1984-1985
revealed some elements of resilience, adaptation and bounce back. Some of
these factors were faith and hope, the presence of a living relative, and
reconnecting with memories of ones past and roots, showing that enhanced
exposure and multiple deaths in the family have long term effects on
psychological resilience (Lothe & Hegen, 2003).
Moreover, the intensity and the extension of recent climate change-driven
phenomena render superficial any consideration of famines as exclusively
economic disruptions. In fact, climate change is driving a series of anomalies in
the rainy seasons in Africa. It was found that the 2005 drought in the Equatorial
East African region was due to extraordinarily high pressures in the west,
generating circular patterns of air circulation and a consequent dry season
(Hastenrath & Polzin, 2007). The 2011 East Africa drought was also fuelled by an
abnormally extended lack of rain which was induced by climate change. The
seasonality of La Nia traditionally allowed local populations to anticipate dry
seasons, however, the atypical drought in 2010 could not be foreseen (Lott et al.,
2013). The abnormalities caused by climate change are also extreme variations
of temperature that lead to disruptions in the production of biomass in arid and
semiarid lands of the East and South African coast (Anyamba et al., 2002).
Famines can therefore be disaggregated into intricate processes of ecological
fragility, livelihood disruption and psychological disturbance. The effects of

7
climate change are translated into atypical episodes of extreme weather
conditions.
Conclusion
The starting point of this argument was that conceptualisations of famine
determine the practice of famine reduction. Sens understanding of famines as
entitlement failures is flawed in that it does not tacitly address the political
implications of the changes in rights that result in deprivation. This in turn drives
an incomplete practice when addressing famines, which can be characterised as
purely technical interventions. The lack of consensus on how to define famines
and how to efficiently tackle them means that recurrence of the famine is
difficult to impede.
This essay has proposed an alternative framework for understanding the
theoretical and practical elements that could be considered beyond the
entitlement failures. By doing so, some arguments of the critics of Sen were
considered and expanded. Evidence of famines in Africa over the past decades
was used to evaluate the validity of each proposal. By exploring the political
aspects left out of Sens theory of famines, practical considerations beyond
politics became visible.
When deciding how and when to provide famine relief, a schism between
practitioners and decision-makers becomes apparent. Differences of interests
between donor and recipient countries may translate to an inadequate
intervention to address famine. A historical summary of neoliberal adjustments in
Africa reveals deep-seated economic difficulties, an absent regulatory entity, and
no safety nets. Enhanced ecological fragility is brought about by climate change,
which poses greater challenges when addressing livelihood disruption in the
context of famine.

References
Adger, N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in
Human Geography, 24(3), 347-364.
Al Jazeera. (2011, November 28). Fault Lines - Horn of Africa Crisis: Somalia's
Famine. Retrieved May 3, 2015, from Al Jazeera Youtube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRZPMd1H7Z0
Anyamba, A., Tucker, C., & Mahoney, R. (2002). From El Nio to La Nia:
Vegetation Response Patterns over East and Southern Africa during the
19972000 Period. Journal of Climate, 15(21), 3096-3103.
Buchanan-Smith, M., & Davies, S. (1995). Famine Early Warning Systems and
Response: the Missing Link. ITDG Publishing.
Buchanan-Smith, M., Davies, S., & Petty, C. (1994). Food Security: Let Them Eat
Information. IDS Bulletin, 25(2).
de Waal, A. (2004). Famine that Kills: Darfur, Sudan. Oxford: University Press.
de Waal, A., & Whiteside, A. (2003). New variant famine: AIDS and food crisis in
southern Africa. The Lancet, 362(9391), 1234-1237.
Devereux, S. (2001). Sen's Entitlement Approach: Critiques and Countercritiques. Oxford Development Studies, 29(3), 245-263.
Devereux, S. (2009). Why does famine persist in Africa? Food Security, 1(1), 2535.

8
Devereux, S., & Tiba, Z. (2006). Malawi's First Famine, 2001-2002. In S.
Devereux, The New Famines: Why Famines Persist in an Era of
Globalization. London: Routedge.
Dunning, T. (2004). Conditioning the Effects of Aid: Cold War Politics, Donor
Credibility, and Democracy in Africa. International Organization, 58(2),
409-423.
Edkins, J. (2002). Mass Starvations and the Limitations of Famine Theorising. IDS
Bulletin, 33(4), 12-18.
Gibbs, A. (2008). Gender, famine and HIV/AIDS: rethinking new variant famine in
Malawi. African Journal of AIDS Research, 7(1), 9-17.
Hastenrath, S., & Polzin, D. (2007). Diagnosing the 2005 Drought in Equatorial
East Africa. Journal of Climate, 20(18), 4628-4637.
Keen, D. (1994). The benefits of famine: a political economy of famine and relief
in southwestern Sudan, 1983-1989. Princeton: University Press.
Lothe, E., & Hegen, K. (2003). A Study of Resilience in oung Ethiopian Famine
Survivors. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 14(4), 313-320.
Lott, F., Christidis, N., & Stott, P. (2013). Can the 2011 East African drought be
attributed to human-induced climate change? Geophysical Research
Letters, 40(6), 1177-1181.
Maxwell, D. (2002). Why do Famines Persist? A Brief Review of Ethiopia 19992000. IDS Bulletin, 33(4), 48-54.
McGuire, S. (2008). Securing Access to Seed: Social Relations and Sorghum Seed
Exchange in Eastern Ethiopia. Human Ecology, 36, 217-229.
Mortimore, M. (1989). Adapting to Drought: Farmers, Famines, and
Desertification in West Africa. Cambridge: University Press.
Mousseau, F., & Mittal, A. (2006). Sahel: A prisoner of starvation? A case study of
the 2005 food crisis in Niger. Oakland: The Oakland Institute.
Oldewage-Theron, W., Dicks, E., & Napier, C. (2006). Poverty, household food
insecurity and nutrition: coping strategies in an informal settlement in the
Vaal Triangle, South Africa. Public Health, 120(9), 795-804.
Rangasami, A. (1985). Failure of Exchange Entitlements' Theory of Famine: A
Response. Economic and Political Weekly, 20(41), 1747-1752.
Rubin, O. (2009). The Niger Famine A Collapse of Entitlements and Democratic
Responsiveness. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 44(3), 279-298.
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods A Framework for Analysis. IDS
Working Paper 72. Brighton: IDS.
Seaman, J. (2000). Making Exchange Entitlements Operational: The Food
Economy Approach to Famine Prediction and the RiskMap Computer
Program. Disasters, 24(2), 133-152.
Seaman, J., Sawdon, G., Acidri, J., & Petty, C. (2014). The Household Economy
Approach. Managing the impact of climate change on poverty and food
security in developing countries. Climate Risk Management.
Sen, A. (1977). Starvation and exchange entitlements: a general approach and
its application to the great Bengal famine. Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 1, 33-59.
Sen, A. (1981). Ingredients of famine analysis: availability and entitlements. The
quarterly hournal of economics, 433-464.
Sen, A. (1984). Rights and capabilities. In A. Sen, Resources, values and
development (pp. 307-324). Oxford: Blackwell.
SPII. (2007). The Measurement of Poverty in South Africa Project: Key issues.
Johannesburg: Studies in Poverty and Inequality Institute.
Swift, J. (2006). Why are rural people vulnerable to famine? IDS Bulletin, 37(4),
41-49.

9
Watts, M. (1991). Entitlements or empowerment? Famine and starvation in Africa.
Review of African Political Economy, 18(51), 9-26.