It’s not just about the harvest
Studies of major famines revealed the same pattern again and again: at the height of a famine, food was taken out of affected regions, while prices rose faster than incomes. Food was there, but not everyone could afford it.
This led to a now-famous observation: mass famine is almost never seen where there is a free press and governments can be replaced. Not because there is more food there, but because problems become known in time and cannot be silenced.
Famine is more often a consequence of who has rights to what than of a poor harvest. That makes it largely a political phenomenon.
What it changed
The last point is based on a well-documented case: a famine winter in an occupied country where detailed medical records survived. These records made it possible to follow an entire generation and identify differences in adulthood.
The second point explains why aid systems appeared at all. Grain stores, supply rules, and records of people in need were introduced not out of charity, but in response to specific catastrophes and their political consequences.
There is also a social legacy. In societies that have experienced famine, attitudes toward food and supplies change for a long time: the habit of not throwing food away, keeping a long-term supply at home, and feeling anxious when a shelf is empty is passed down to children and grandchildren.
What is the most common cause of mass famine?
Where is mass famine almost never found?
Sources
- The approach that explains famine not as an absolute lack of food, but as people's unequal rights to obtain it, was formulated in economic research
- long-term effects on offspring were traced through medical records from the famine winter of 1944-45
Next in the “Famine” series
2 articles in full on the site, 2 more in the app
