Re: The Political Economy of Famine

[Apologies for multiple postings]

While some on these lists are more concerned with matters of rectitude in
the present conflict in the Horn of Africa, I would urge that list members
not lose sight of the more basic issue raised in the Sameh Naguib article.
Note the following paragraphs.

>    The logic of the world food market is particularly conducive to 
>starvation. Advanced countries in Europe and North America, as well as 
>Japan, produce over three-quarters of the world's exports of foodstuffs. 
>These countries maintain schemes to protect their agricultural production. 
>In general, people in these countries pay vastly inflated prices so that 
>high and stable prices can be guaranteed to the farm and food processing 
>sectors. One of the first results of this system is a decline in imports, 
>which translates as a loss to Third World countries that export foodstuffs.
>
>To keep the prices up, governments create massive stocks of foodstuffs, 
>which are then taken off the market. World grain stocks exceed 200 million 
>tonnes, while the shortfall of grain in the Horn of Africa will not exceed 
>10 million tonnes. The cost of storing food in Europe alone runs in tens 
>of 
>billions of dollars, but the massive cost of storing vast quantities of 
>food 
>leads governments to the "logical" conclusion
>that they must either process it into something else or simply dump it.
>
>The fragile integration into the world market means that any serious fall 
>in 
>the demand for Third World exports leads inevitably to hunger. Without 
>export earnings, it is virtually impossible for governments to subsidise 
>food for the poor. Moreover, the peasant farmers can ill afford to buy the 
>fertilisers, pesticides, oil and machinery to keep up their own 
>subsistence 
>farming practices, let alone producing cash crops.
>
>


I find this argument plausible, although it would be worthwhile to check
into the degree to which agricultural commodity producers in the developing
world are competing in the same product markets as developed country
producers.  In many cases, the two groups of producers clearly produce
different products.  In any event, if we take the argument seriously, we
can see a very direct way in which those of us, like yours truly, who
benefit from U.S. farm income are arguably better off because of policies
that make developing countries worse off.  This is a point that should
tweak the consciences of the middle-class agrarians of Europe, Japan, and
North America.

I mention this not only to nudge consciences, but also because Naguib's
argument relies upon economics that even the most uncompromising classical
liberal could not dispute.  It indicates the degree to which a powerful
critique of the existing world economic order can be developed without
departing seriously from mainstream social science.

Radical critics of the existing world order should bear this in mind when
relying upon dubious Marxist notions like the law of value or the
diminishing rate of profit when making their case.





--
Jeffrey L. Beatty
Doctoral Student
Department of Political Science
The Ohio State University
2140 Derby Hall
154 North Oval Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210

(o) 614/292-2880
(h) 614/688-0567

Email:  Beatty.4@osu.edu
______________________________________________________   
'_Sapere aude_'--'have courage to use your own reason'
--this is the motto of Enlightenment--Immanuel Kant,
"What Is Enlightenment?"