More Than 1 Billion People Are Hungry in the World

But what if the experts are wrong?

BY ABHIJIT BANERJEE, ESTHER DUFLO | MAY/JUNE 2011

So it shouldn't surprise us that the poor choose their foods not mainly for their cheap prices and nutritional value, but for how good they taste. George Orwell, in his masterful description of the life of poor British workers in The Road to Wigan Pier, observes:

The basis of their diet, therefore, is white bread and margarine, corned beef, sugared tea and potatoes -- an appalling diet. Would it not be better if they spent more money on wholesome things like oranges and wholemeal bread or if they even, like the writer of the letter to the New Statesman, saved on fuel and ate their carrots raw? Yes, it would, but the point is that no ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing. The ordinary human being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots. And the peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have, the less inclined you feel to spend it on wholesome food. A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an unemployed man doesn't.… When you are unemployed … you don't want to eat dull wholesome food. You want something a little bit "tasty." There is always some cheaply pleasant thing to tempt you.

The poor often resist the wonderful plans we think up for them because they do not share our faith that those plans work, or work as well as we claim. We shouldn't forget, too, that other things may be more important in their lives than food. Poor people in the developing world spend large amounts on weddings, dowries, and christenings. Part of the reason is probably that they don't want to lose face, when the social custom is to spend a lot on those occasions. In South Africa, poor families often spend so lavishly on funerals that they skimp on food for months afterward.

And don't underestimate the power of factors like boredom. Life can be quite dull in a village. There is no movie theater, no concert hall. And not a lot of work, either. In rural Morocco, Oucha Mbarbk and his two neighbors told us they had worked about 70 days in agriculture and about 30 days in construction that year. Otherwise, they took care of their cattle and waited for jobs to materialize. All three men lived in small houses without water or sanitation. They struggled to find enough money to give their children a good education. But they each had a television, a parabolic antenna, a DVD player, and a cell phone.

This is something that Orwell captured as well, when he described how poor families survived the Depression:

Instead of raging against their destiny they have made things tolerable by reducing their standards.

But they don't necessarily lower their standards by cutting out luxuries and concentrating on necessities; more often it is the other way around -- the more natural way, if you come to think of it. Hence the fact that in a decade of unparalleled depression, the consumption of all cheap luxuries has increased.

These "indulgences" are not the impulsive purchases of people who are not thinking hard about what they are doing. Oucha Mbarbk did not buy his TV on credit -- he saved up over many months to scrape enough money together, just as the mother in India starts saving for her young daughter's wedding by buying a small piece of jewelry here and a stainless-steel bucket there.

We often see the world of the poor as a land of missed opportunities and wonder why they don't invest in what would really make their lives better. But the poor may well be more skeptical about supposed opportunities and the possibility of any radical change in their lives. They often behave as if they think that any change that is significant enough to be worth sacrificing for will simply take too long. This could explain why they focus on the here and now, on living their lives as pleasantly as possible and celebrating when occasion demands it.

We asked Oucha Mbarbk what he would do if he had more money. He said he would buy more food. Then we asked him what he would do if he had even more money. He said he would buy better-tasting food. We were starting to feel very bad for him and his family, when we noticed the TV and other high-tech gadgets. Why had he bought all these things if he felt the family did not have enough to eat? He laughed, and said, "Oh, but television is more important than food!"

Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: FOOD/AGRICULTURE
 

Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo direct the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and are authors of Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty, from which this excerpt is adapted.

BLOGAS

11:09 AM ET

April 25, 2011

i agree.

i agree.

 

AGFORCHANGE

1:14 PM ET

May 22, 2011

Masters of the obvious

Congratulations, you have finally figured out the culture, customs and tasty food are important to people. I'm not sure which is more surprising, that you spent lots of money and time to research the "economic lives of the poor" and present this earth shattering realization to both the academic and lay public, or that there is a sect of economic thinkers that do not take this into account.

What is shocking here is not that poor people around the world do not maximize caloric intake at the expense of entertainment, but that development organizations and research institutions spend enormous amounts of money to state the obvious: people are not machines, they require some minimum of joy (or at least distraction) in their lives, and they are willing to sacrifice to get it.

Somebody please, show me something that these two authors have done to promote a potential solution to hunger and malnutrition, other than a superficial argument over whether the poor are really too poor to eat enough. Please, is there anything anyone can show me to prove that reality occasionally shines through the positive economics bubble?

 

PM861207

1:23 AM ET

April 26, 2011

Child Labour

Documentary - "Stolen Lives" reveals about child labor and beggary in Pakistan, following the lives of children under the legal working age (14) working on the streets to sell flowers and tissue rolls, at auto workshops and restaurants, or cleaning cars, etc. This practice is considered exploitative by many countries and international organizations. Having been forced to kill their aspirations and dreams, these many children are pressed to earn a living for themselves and for their families. Many poor parents see children as an economic investment so as to be supplied with additional labor power. The findings are that 3.8 out of 40 million children aged five to 14 years are working in Pakistan. Fifty percent of these economically active children are between the ages of five and nine years old. This practice is increasing day by day.

To watch please visit - http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/2974

 

THINKER65

11:14 AM ET

April 26, 2011

It can get worse..

Sad but true. But we must understand that the problem with hunger is only getting worse, becouse people can't get jobs so they can't provide food for there families...lets hope economy and hunger will see a brighter day..let's hope.

 

HOWY

8:02 PM ET

April 28, 2011

It can't get worse

As long as people think that economy and hunger are related...it cannot get any worse. You see, it's not the economy crisis that causes world's hunger, it's the very existence of economy. Economy revolves around money and its only interest is money. If there weren't money, economy would not exist. If there weren't money, there wouldn't be hunger. There is a never-ending abundance of natural food in the world, but it's not getting distributed to poor countries for free. Why? Because it's not how money is made. Money is made by selling food, by selling something that our life depends on. How pervert is that! It is not their fault that they live in a country with few natural resources. It is our duty as human beings to help these people. While half the food in our country goes down the drain and while the rich eat $200 stakes, the money can feed an entire African village for a week, the rich are still only feeling sorry for these poor people and they do nothing to help them. God help us all!

 

VERMICIOUS KNID

5:20 PM ET

May 19, 2011

I disagree

Early medieval Europe existed on localized barter economies, but there still were terrible famines on a periodic basis.

 

ALANNEWMAN

11:42 PM ET

May 23, 2011

The root of cause......

Poverty...Hunger...Poor education system...Racism like the Malaysian government...My friend who works in a local women shoe lifts company suggests that the ultimate root of cause is corruption.

 

FP_READER

1:09 PM ET

April 26, 2011

Nothing to see here

This article pretty much gives confirmation of what I intuitively knew already from the news. The 'starving' population idea is a myth.

The problem is not food production or distribution. It is the cold, plain, hard fact that people are stupid.

They purchase appliances, cigarettes, alcohol and drugs over nutrition. They do not know better.

The answer is education. Always has been.

Teach nutrition, sanitation, and for heavens sakes, get rid of religious dogma. Thats more harmful than any one other single cause.

 

THE GLOBALIZER

5:05 PM ET

April 27, 2011

Stupid?

I'm not sure I understand your assumption that these people are acting stupidly.

Human beings are not machines crafted solely for the purpose of living healthily. We have safened our world to the point that the stimulation of survival and interdependency in the wild is lessened. Without replacing that stimulation with surrogates (TV, cell phones, social networking and cultural inputs), some of the core psychological aspects of a human being break down.

If you want to see an unproductive poor person, take away their unhealthy food and their TV and give them a bunch of bland healthy food to eat.

 

MARHABA

10:33 AM ET

April 28, 2011

They hate their

They hate their poverty-striken lives. They want it to change. They can. They don't know how. They are ignorant and in need of education. QED.

 

BDMNTN

3:17 PM ET

April 28, 2011

the article specifically

the article specifically quotes amartya sen saying that distribution is a major factor.

keep blaming the poor. if only everyone worked as hard as you did to be born in to a rational and wealthy culture, there'd be no more poor people!

 

BRIANFLORES

3:24 PM ET

April 28, 2011

Take out "poverty stricken"...

...and you've probably described most of the working class in the industrialized world.

 

BDMNTN

8:53 AM ET

May 3, 2011

I SMART THESE PEOPLE

I SMART

THESE PEOPLE STUPID

HOW DARE THESE PEOPLE BUY TV OR HAVE WEDDING FOR CHILDREN

THEY SHOULD SHUT UP, EAT SAME FOOD EVERY DAY, WORK HARD WHEN THEY CAN

STUPID SWEATSHOP WORKERS, SHUT UP! WORK HARD DON'T HAVE FUN WORK UNTIL YOU DIE MAKE ME ELECTRONICS SO I CAN HAVE FUN!

STUPID GARMENT WORKERS, SHUT UP! WORK AS LONG AS YOU CAN DONT YOU DARE WATCH TV WHEN OFF WORK MAKE ME CLOTHES FOR CHEAP SO I CAN IMPRESS PEOPLE!

STUPID MINERS, SHUT UP! HOW DARE YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT NOT BEING FED WHEN YOU SAVE MONTHS TO BUY TV! YOU SHOULD WORK ONLY I GET TO WATCH TV!

IF YOU NO SAVE TO BUY TV, THEN YOU CAN EAT 2 GRAINS OF RICE MORE A DAY! SO SHUT UP, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS POVERTY!

 

DANOSTROWSKI

1:22 PM ET

April 26, 2011

Ugh...

What an overtly regressive article.

The article works to paint the picture of resources spent on aid being mismanaged by irrational poor people, using skewed statistics and selected anecdotes. Reading the work as a whole, it dances between the poor of the world and the poor of specific places like India (even parts of India) and poor conclusions.

"With the availability of drinking water in villages, women do not need to carry heavy loads for long distances; " -- Perhaps in places in India, but there are huge areas of poverty stricken sub-Saharan Africa in which women still spend tons of man hours walking for water.

The article focuses on making the case that we've come up for health remedies and better supplements that improve the condition of the poor, but the poor are simply too short sighted to take advantage of them. The implication being: You're wasting your money. What a terrible tone they've taken here. Why not point out the huge gains made in improving health by, for instance, the Gates foundation and the positive effects it's had?

Furthermore, this emphasis on how "irrational" the poor are is in similar bad taste. It's hard to get rich Westerners to eat right or behave rationally, but there's no parallels drawn. In this article, there's only generous Westerners being mislead into giving irrational poor people, not slightly inefficient humans with lots of money giving to slightly inefficient humans with almost no money. Not the intent of the article? Write it better.

And what solutions are presented? Other than some implications about better health (and no praise for NGO's doing work to improve help in developing countries) there's nothing but an implication that if aid doesn't work only the "invisible hand of the market" can solve their woes (without mention of the recent micro-finance options cropping up).

Yet the implementation of this utopic free market isn't mentioned, instead they spend time they point out how irrational it is to buy a TV rather than getting sanitation and clean drinking water in a home. But buying a T.V. is something that a single person can aspire to. Americans often buy expensive T.V.s instead of putting money away for their kids' college in the same manner. Putting in a sewage system or a clean water system takes know-how and resources that people aren't clamoring to sell them. (Which, again, would be a great place to point out the lovely work charity : water is doing...)

 

MITHUNJJ

1:59 AM ET

April 27, 2011

Sad but true

The root problem lies with the way the Poverty elimination schemes are dispersed. The schemes are often choked with high-end corruption scams.

Toronto Web Development

 

TOWNLEY89

6:10 AM ET

April 27, 2011

Man cannot live on bread alone

So maybe the fact that they have a TV doesn't mean they're not hungry. They value a TV more because it makes staying alive bearable, as opposed to simply "possible." There are different levels of hunger, and just because someone has a little chicken in their bowls doesn't mean the World Food Program should pop the champagne and pack up shop.

 

ASHTONKAYE

8:55 AM ET

April 27, 2011

So Sad How Different We live

Even the poor in the west should be grateful. It`s funny how in the western world (especially the US and Canada) the poorest of our population are usually the fattest, because of all the widely available cheap portable junk food available. Yet 1/6th of the worlds population wont even go to bed tonight with a bowl of simple rice and water which would cost a fraction of a penny over here.

Charity and and fundraising awareness events like the 30 hour famine help to a certain extent, however it's going about the problem in a wrong way. You simply can't throw money at a problem like this. There has to be effective measures in place within every government to ensure that none of their citizens goes hungry.

 

LUA_WILKINSON

10:17 AM ET

April 27, 2011

More than one billion people actually MAY BE hungry in the world

The relationship between food, eating, and poverty is incredibly complex and one that cannot be reduced to "choosing between a television set and a healthy dinner". We so often turn the "right food choice" into a moral one, especially among the poor. It is just fine for a wealthy person to choose freely what they purchase, but poor people are judged by the scientific and NGO community for putting entertainment needs above hunger.

Food "choice" is often defined more by the government we live under, traditional or religious beliefs we may subscribe to, resources we have access to, technologies that are available to us; gender, social class, ethnicity, nationality, affordability, even global supply patterns. We far too often think of "food choices" as being individually based rather than thrust upon us by outward forces. This is why so many public health campaigns have failed miserably; they focus on "food choices", "lifestyle changes", and "consumption" as a fix-all for nutrition problems (including deficiencies, obesity AND hunger).

Food choices should not be reduced to moral judgment calls; instead, public health, hunger and nutrition should be shaped by sound nutrition policy that deals with all issues surrounding hunger, including control of food supply, micronutrient fortification programs, economic development AND food enjoyment.

Food enjoyment shouldn't be a luxury item, and hunger alleviation should not center around consumption; rather on nutrition policy, economic development and food supply.

www.NutritionandDevelopmentinChina.com

 

MATLUD

10:28 AM ET

April 27, 2011

Read and respond to the article on its own terms

I'd like to welcome this article and work that underpins it. Whatever the policy choice, it is better to make that decision on the basis of the fullest information possible. I would say that the authors are sceptical of a nutrition-based poverty trap, but not other forms of poverty trap. Also, there were plenty of examples given where a big aid push of some sort would appear to be the only viable solution currently available.

I'd also commend the article's style, in particular the reference to Orwell and the implication that the global poor are not 'others' but, in fact, are very similar to ourselves.

It made me think of an analogy from political science and the notion of 'deviant voters' - I'm from the UK where it is related to the Conservative-voting working class. It seems the global poor could be classed as 'deviant eaters' (at least by those technocratic experts who believe they know best).

 

THE GLOBALIZER

5:09 PM ET

April 27, 2011

Agree

Too often, the people who say that groups of people are acting against their self-interest are simply misunderstanding what that group's interest actually is.

I'd say that more than thriving, poor people want to live with dignity. If you can't reasonably aspire to be a commodities trader or a neuroscientist (or even just work an office job), you might just say to yourself, "You know, I'd like to have a TV to watch at the end of a hard day" and you might just give up a meal here and there in order to have one.

 

DR. SARDONICUS

8:35 PM ET

April 27, 2011

Our Boob Tube is not necessarily theirs

Of course, in the U.S.A, television is the ultimate Boob Tube. Its North Star is raw greed; its Southern Cross is sexualized violence. Doing good for its own sake is anathema. Any social service superior to that found in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is raving socialism, forbidden by an "Invisible Hand" of Nonsense Adam Smith never even hinted at. The rich are benevolent geniuses entitled to rip off any wealth they may pry loose from anyone lesser or the natural world. Any rich idiot can get in front of a TV camera and lie, cheat and steal shamelessly, without repudiation, without confrontation, without any consequence beyond gobs more free publicity. Birther burps 24/7. Flat Earth "scepticism." In short, an intellectual cloacae. Look it up, you American TV watchers.

So any American who sacrificed basic necessities (of any kind) to procure a TV set would be an obvious idiot. His idiocy and that of his children deepening and blackening like the PB Oil Spill, with every empty hour they wasted watching TV justify more evil and/or ignore its unhindered growth. Our national window into Hell.

Now in most poor countries, TV and radio are the cheapest means for the government to transmit public health and other social service announcements. The history of the country is covered in homegrown broadcasts, as are its regional arts, crafts, cultures and religions. Current events, both local and worldwide, are reviewed daily, in much more in depth than with brainless American infotainment.

For a thoughtful person authorized less than six years of organized education, and for his poor children, TV can be a welcome source of supplementary education and training, including training in crafts, agriculture and health. Training he could get nowhere else. His picture window into the rest of the world.

So a poor farmer who sacrificed basic necessities to procure a TV set or a radio would be an obvious community leader, inviting his less lucky neighbors to share his new treasure. Their ignorance and misery somewhat dispelled by the public service programming they watched, in addition to sports, soap opera and propaganda filler.

Get a clue, you overinsulated, overstuffed, systematically misinformed American TV watchers!

 

ANHALT-ZERBST

10:21 PM ET

April 27, 2011

Cloaca. Singular. Sneer

Cloaca. Singular. Sneer again, Dr. S.

 

FRED_J9

8:39 PM ET

April 27, 2011

clap your hands up !

since when does the usa manage to reveal this stats, since, irak war ? how many billion have they wast on wars ?? aren't they billions ? - but, i knew one thing is that israel is taken over usa !!

maroc
meknes

 

RAGHUVANSH1

6:08 AM ET

April 28, 2011

Most poverty is psychlogical

Most poor people are ignorant so they remain poor.In India poverty is psych logical.. Only education can erase the poverty of India.Religion is governing very forcefully on Indian people. They are tremendously afraid to break the religious rituals, spend thousand of rupees on religious ceremonials and afraid if they disobey the rule of religion Break this kind of dogma only education is useful.Government of India neglecting primary education from last sixty year.Only Keral state of India doing well because 99p.c. literacy is there

 

ASUNNER

11:21 AM ET

April 28, 2011

Information is Consistent

I believe that this article supports basic human nature. Immediate gratification, such as better tasting food, TV. cell phones or DVD players, is far more important than future gratification, which you may not even be able to see or believe will occur. There is hunger in this world, real hunger, of that I am certain. But what this article and study support is that we want not just to live, but to have enjoyment out of life. And the cost, whether it be a lack of nutrition to the possible loss of life (through crime or drugs) is a future, uncertain cost, many times unknown or not able to be quantified. We all seek ways to make our personal lives of value to ourself - rational or irrational as it may be to those around us.

 

FSILBER

1:27 PM ET

April 28, 2011

Many rich people suffer from hunger

Why do articles about hunger always ignore the problems faced by middle-class and even rich people? Many people just cannot seem to lose weight without frequently suffering hunger, and being able to afford yet more food is no help to them.

 

AVOROBIEV

3:22 PM ET

April 28, 2011

And hunger for status?

Or, could it also be that the poor buy better-tasting food because of its status-raising properties? Even in the eyes of his children, and infinitely more in the eyes of his friends and neighbors, a delicacy-eating man grows taller… That was the idea when I was growing up - and I was not growing up in poverty. Our inherent status anxiety (see the book or youtube/PBS documentary by the same title) seems far more ubiquitous than hunger.

…Which sort of brings us back to the Amartya Sen’s argument – bad governance, which results in higher inequality, both real and perceived, and hence elevated status anxiety…

I wish the authors gave us a few good suggestions on how they think the world poverty can be alleviated. But they challenged us enough to look at poverty and hunger from a different angle. I’d like to thank them for that.

Andrei Vorobiev
CorruptionManagement.com

 

DR. SARDONICUS

7:44 PM ET

April 28, 2011

Potato, Potahtoes

Cloaca = 1 TV channel (say, C-Span, brought to you by Heritage, Cato and the KKK on one of its good days).

Cloacae = TV in general (brought to you by WAR, Inc., the only growth industry left. “Better living through dead brown bodies, dead brown vegetation, dead brown waterways. Go Oil/Coal/Nukes! Now, Gertrude, let’s go pick the next war-of-the-week off the World Map dartboard!) A network of interdependent sewage channels. An intellectual cloacae.

I’m too busy herding sleepwalkers out of a burning house (and doing so in my spare time, before my next five o’clock wakeup and twelve hour workday) to sneer. Maybe you’ve got the spare time to do so for (and at) me?

Subversive Un-Americanism #16:
The trivial (< is less important than) the significant

But thanks for playing, anyway.

 

CYBERMUM101

9:43 PM ET

April 28, 2011

So Many People Are Hungry - But We Waste So Much Food

With so many people hungry why do we continue to waste so much food, when was the last time you cleaned your fridge or cupboards of out dated products, threw away your take away food that the kids did not finish. Supermarkets, local bread shops and so make other places just throw it all away. We have to stand up for all the food waste that we contribute to the world, there is enough food for all, but without cash you become the the person that's hungry. Next time you see someone begging give them a dollar, you will probably only waste it on something you are just going to throw away anyway.

cybermum101
informativeblogger.com

 

SHOXII

8:57 AM ET

April 29, 2011

A Disaster that People hungry!

It really is a disaster that so many people around the world are hungry.
But it can be slightly modified.
If everyone would save food all could benefit from it.
All countries which had enough food could help poorer countries with food.
Private Krankenversicherung Vergleich
It only works if everyone helps everyone!!!

 

DR. SARDONICUS

9:25 AM ET

April 29, 2011

Why aren't more people sneering?

TV: the greatest mass-education tool ever devised by mankind, reduced to pimping for commercial trivia and/or military/empirial aggression.

Sneer, I dare ya.

 

METABOLIC

11:37 AM ET

April 29, 2011

Drinking coffee and

Drinking coffee and reading the newspaper ( or might i say reading from your computer) is certainly not doing to help this. People like Brad Pitt are doing their bit. Action is needed.

 

MENCTI

2:04 PM ET

April 29, 2011

conscience

We are thinking all day in get a new car or new house while a lot of people don't have a plate of meal...

 

MDELL27

12:58 AM ET

May 8, 2011

TV lowers the amount of calories needed

The whole article is based on flawed assumptions. That hungry people must spend every cent on food and nothing else. Things like television and cell phones actually help them save money on food.

If a family didn't have television they would entertain themselves by being active outside, running around, playing informal sports. Need for food is increased.

Cell phones reduce the necessity for visiting your neighbors and friends, which would require walking or bicycling, thus increasing the amount of calories required.

 

RUNPTNOW

6:30 PM ET

May 8, 2011

On the poor and starvation

Why won't the governments of those Third World Countries subsidize electro-domestic products instead?

 

ALEXANDER JAMES

9:50 PM ET

May 8, 2011

People Buy What they want

I would suspect the number of people who go to bed with some level of hunger is higher than 1 billion worldwide. I know here locally in Rocky Creek Austin I see many bums standing on street corners begging for food. Hunger is a world problem not just 3rd world. The authors make an excellent point about decisions.

People buy what they want not always what they need. The same people who are hungry sometimes pay the cable bill or buy cigarettes instead of the food their bodies so desperately need.

 

KHIR

4:27 AM ET

May 12, 2011

Educate them

All people must be well educated. they must get a better job to feed their family, live a better life and get out from poverty. So who should take action to educate people? The government must find the initiatives to give people education and offer jobs.

hoover floormate

 

SMYTH OSBORN

10:39 AM ET

May 15, 2011

How sad it is....

How sad it is that while statistics shows that more than 1 billion people in the are hungry, I am pretty sure that morethan 1 billion too eat almost nothing even if they have money to achieve flatter tummy be doing some best abs diet. That most of the time involves eating almost nothing aside from doing some cardio exercise.

On the other hand, I would argue that "poor countries are poor because they are hot, infertile, malaria-infested, and often landlocked". In my own opinion that is unacceptable, I believe that each country has it's own wealth, and I believe that the the only solution to one's problem is education, and when I say education, I mean continues education.

 

CHANGXIA2

6:21 PM ET

May 21, 2011

Educate

Argue that poor countires will lead to more deaths? Wrong, if more people are educated more people will survive. Even though people are dieing due to lack of food. Why not create more schools and teach.

karmaloop