An economist's questions on food ...

Concern has been expressed that “the world is now consuming more food than it produces” and the question asked “can man’s ingenuity continue to feed us all?”

An economist regards such a proposition and question with some uneasiness.

What does the proposition actually mean? That there is simply not enough in aggregate to go round, to physically sustain everyone in the world?

That is certainly the case in respect of some - almost all would agree too many - individuals.

In a large number of cases this circumstance can be attributed to natural disasters which have meant that even the best efforts of those seeking to help have been inadequate to ensure that the physical needs of many affected can be met.

Almost as obvious are reasons that can broadly be categorised as “political”.

These may combine with the former factor. The situation in Myanmar is a case in point where, almost unbelievably to many observers, those wielding political power have prevented food being delivered to those rendered in need of it.

And the plight of many on the African continent could be eased considerably if a larger percentage of the population spent less of their time fighting each other and more in agricultural pursuits.

In a similar, if slightly less dramatic, way the people of North Korea - many of whom are reported to have suffered from malnutrition, and even death from starvation - would almost certainly have fared better if the Dear Leader and his associates had permitted free interaction with the rest of the world.

Here, “economic” questions become entangled with the “political” as indeed they inevitably do, more or less subtly, when the question of the adequacy of the world’s food supply is discussed.

And so to a grand proposition. It may be challenged and tested in a variety of ways, and exceptions effectively argued. But until it’s refuted in a comprehensive way let’s run with it.

Here it is: barring the essentially short-term effects of natural disasters (which for some people these are undeniably catastrophic and no attempt is made here to in any sense dismiss them) there would be no problem of food inadequacy if political and economic barriers to the free interchange of goods - indeed the geographic movement of people themselves - were eliminated.

This isn’t meant to imply that all national boundaries and all the actions of governments pursuing national ends should be eliminated.

But there many policies, enacted in the pursuit of national “political” or “economic” ends - and the two are often inextricably intertwined - that result in large numbers of people being unable to secure sufficient food even to meet their bodily needs. We should spend more time focusing on these.

In some cases the cause and effect of policies are fairly obvious. In others - particularly where economic consequences are involved - they are less so, especially where the effect of policies has been on the price of food, so putting the ability to obtain food in sufficient quantity effectively beyond the reach of large numbers of people.

One - now widely-appreciated - example is that of the perverse effects of mandating the use of bio-fuels in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This has led to an increase in the demand for products which would otherwise have been available as food, thus increasing the price of these products and putting them (at least in the quantities formerly consumed) beyond the reach of many and causing people to adjust their budgets. This adjustment is in turn reflected in the demand for and price of other food products. (The policy has also led, perversely, to more rapid deforestation - and thus the destruction of trees that can absorb greenhouse gases - in order to clear land to grow products from which bio-fuels can be made.)

Less obvious - though equally disastrous for many - are the effects of many countries (typically high-income countries) seeking to ensure that a proportion of their own population can continue to remain as agricultural producers, and by so doing be guaranteed an income compatible with that of other citizens, even if the costs of production for these producers exceeds the price of the commodity they produce that is set in the international market.

Such policies serve simply to bar agricultural producers in many countries from supplying the needs of consumers in countries which seek to “protect” their own agricultural producers, thus denying large numbers the ability to earn income which they could use in purchasing food.

Thus, if “man’s ingenuity” is needed to ensure that everyone in the world can be fed, it is ingenuity in understanding and addressing the political and economic factors behind the inability of some people to obtain sufficient food to sustain themselves. In other words we must look beyond factors of a “technological” nature (important though these are).

And when we move beyond the “crisis” stage of ensuring that everyone has at least a certain minimum amount of food needed to sustain themselves, it is these factors that are also critical in understanding what is an equally important question: the justness of the outcome in terms of who gets what, and what they have to pay for it.