The Scarcity Falacy

More people in the world are hungry today than were hungry ten years ago. In 2009, nearly 15% of the world’s population was hungry. At the same time we are producing more food than ever. In “The Scarcity Fallacy”, Scanian, Jenkins, and Peterson argue that poverty, inequality, conflict, and corruption, but not scarcity, are the causes of world hunger. With over 2800 calories available per persons per day, higher than at any other point in human history, its clear that there is enough food out there to feed everyone, it just is not being evenly distributed. This uneven distribution of food is partially because most of the surpluses of the developed world will never make it to the developing world where 95% of the hungry live. For example, international food aid, a US program to remove excess grain from domestic markets, is sent to countries of geopolitical value to the US that do not really need the food. Another problem that prevents food from getting to those in need is the increasing corruption in emergency food delivery programs.

The first thing that needs to be done, according to the article, is a worldwide recognition of food as a human right. Second, inefficiency and corruption must be removed from existing programs to ensure that food aid gets to those in need. Third, direct cash aid should be used more often as a substitute to dumping cheap food into the market. This prevents local farmers from making money and can actually decrease the availability of food. Third, sustainable agriculture should be promoted through education and assistance. Fourth, gender inequalities should be combated. The article argues that, “providing women with control over childbearing, giving them access to education, allowing them the right to own land and businesses, and facilitating the economic activities with micro-credit and other innovations will significantly reduce hunger.”

I was shocked to hear that world hunger was getting worse. This highlights my main point. Hunger needs to be made a bigger issue. Increasing awareness of the problem will not only increase the amount of aid, but will also help improve the aid. It is clear that the system is inefficient, and more people studying it and suggesting solutions will make a difference.

Discussion Questions:

How can we increase awareness of hunger and make it an issue that gets more attention?

Whose responsibility is it to fight world hunger?

"Who Eats Emergency Food?"

Everyday millions of people of differing backgrounds venture to their neighborhood kitchen or food pantry because they have found themselves in a variety of circumstances. Janet Poppendieck, in the “Who Eats Emergency Food?” chapter of Sweet Charity, identifies the types of people most likely to eat emergency food and describes some of the most common reasons people are forced to use emergency food. She shows that the statistics makeup of those living under the poverty line (that is in terms of gender, race, age, ext.) nearly matches the makeup of those who visit pantries and kitchens. This makes sense because the original poverty line was calculated based on food. Any household “that could not afford to purchase a nutritionally adequate diet by allocating a third of is income to food purchase” was considered poor (51). Recent studies, however, find that many pantry clients actually have income around 150% higher than the poverty line. While Poppendieck acknowledges that people above and below the poverty line use emergency food for many reasons, she argues that there are four leading causes.

Out of these three, employment related issues are the most common. The chronically unemployed and those who have recently lost their jobs head to pantries because their lack of income leaves them unable to afford food. She also identifies the rise of part-time employment as a cause because these workers are only able to find one job with too few hours to have enough money for food. The second major reason Poppendieck describes is high shelter costs. The rise in housing and energy costs, especially in urban areas, means that people are paying a larger percentage of their income on shelter and less on food. Also, many choose to use pantries during temporary hard times because they do not want to move to lower cost housing. In addition, many chose to heat their homes rather than pay for food because they know that they can get food for free. Inadequate public assistance is the third reason. Because the government does not provide the chronically ill, injured, and elderly with enough money, medical and other necessary expense take precedent over food, which they can get for free. Programs like GA, SSI and TANF simply do not accurately assess the needs of the poor. Because food stamps do not keep people from using emergency food, Poppendieck contends that they are the fourth major cause. Because one can turn a food stamp into cash by buying then returning food, people use their food stamps to pay for other expenses. In this way government aid that is designed to minimize the need for emergency food actually contributes to it. So should the government take action to prevent this stamp to cash exchange?

In my opinion, Poppendieck fails to recognize the two-sided nature of her high shelter costs example. The availability of emergency food would actually contribute to the increase in the cost of housing. Emergency food allows people to allocate more of their income towards housing, which increases the demand for housing. If emergency food were not available, people would be unable to keep their homes, the demand for housing would decrease, and housing prices would drop. I bring up this issue merely as discussion, not to recommend it as a solution.

Discussion questions:

Does Poppendieck oversimplify a not so simple situation?

Does her analysis suggest anything that can be done to help minimize the need for emergency food?

"Who Eats Emergency Food?"

Everyday millions of people of differing backgrounds venture to their neighborhood kitchen or food pantry because they have found themselves in a variety of circumstances. Janet Poppendieck, in the “Who Eats Emergency Food?” chapter of Sweet Charity, identifies the types of people most likely to eat emergency food and describes some of the most common reasons people are forced to use emergency food. She shows that the statistics makeup of those living under the poverty line (that is in terms of gender, race, age, ext.) nearly matches the makeup of those who visit pantries and kitchens. This makes sense because the original poverty line was calculated based on food. Any household “that could not afford to purchase a nutritionally adequate diet by allocating a third of is income to food purchase” was considered poor (51). Recent studies, however, find that many pantry clients actually have income around 150% higher than the poverty line. While Poppendieck acknowledges that people above and below the poverty line use emergency food for many reasons, she argues that there are four leading causes.

Out of these three, employment related issues are the most common. The chronically unemployed and those who have recently lost their jobs head to pantries because their lack of income leaves them unable to afford food. She also identifies the rise of part-time employment as a cause because these workers are only able to find one job with too few hours to have enough money for food. The second major reason Poppendieck describes is high shelter costs. The rise in housing and energy costs, especially in urban areas, means that people are paying a larger percentage of their income on shelter and less on food. Also, many choose to use pantries during temporary hard times because they do not want to move to lower cost housing. In addition, many chose to heat their homes rather than pay for food because they know that they can get food for free. Inadequate public assistance is the third reason. Because the government does not provide the chronically ill, injured, and elderly with enough money, medical and other necessary expense take precedent over food, which they can get for free. Programs like GA, SSI and TANF simply do not accurately assess the needs of the poor. Because food stamps do not keep people from using emergency food, Poppendieck contends that they are the fourth major cause. Because one can turn a food stamp into cash by buying then returning food, people use their food stamps to pay for other expenses. In this way government aid that is designed to minimize the need for emergency food actually contributes to it. So should the government take action to prevent this stamp to cash exchange?

In my opinion, Poppendieck fails to recognize the two-sided nature of her high shelter costs example. The availability of emergency food would actually contribute to the increase in the cost of housing. Emergency food allows people to allocate more of their income towards housing, which increases the demand for housing. If emergency food were not available, people would be unable to keep their homes, the demand for housing would decrease, and housing prices would drop. I bring up this issue merely as discussion, not to recommend it as a solution.

Discussion questions:

Does Poppendieck oversimplify a not so simple situation?

Does her analysis suggest anything that can be done to help minimize the need for emergency food?

Ritzer's Rationalization

In “The McDonaldization of Society”, George Ritzer examines how rationalization is affecting our society. He defines a rational society as “one which emphasizes efficiency, predictability, calculability, substitution of nonhuman for human technology” (372). Rationality is changing every corner of our society from theme parks to surgery to the way we eat. For example, the way we eat and obtain food has changed drastically as a result of rationality. In an effort to increase efficiency, people have gone from home cooked meals to fast food, takeout and TV dinners. This saves them valuable time and money, but at the expense of their health. This is because fast-food restaurants, like McDonald’s (hence McDonaldinization), use the cheapest possible ingredients prepared in the least amount of time resulting in food of the lowest quality. Because of the rationalization of our food industry, many have lost sight of the most basic goal of eating: to obtain nourishment. The focus is instead placed on obtaining the highest quantity of food for the least money.

Rationalization also brings predictability at the expense of variety and creativity. Fast food restaurants and food producers work very hard to maintain consistency in all of their products. Individuals learn to like one specific food, packaged and prepared with such predictability that they will reject other possibilities. Ritzer even claims that theme parks and campgrounds that used to be “highly unpredictable affairs” have become predictable (374).

One way to ensure predictability and increase efficiency is to replace human labor with nonhuman technology. Skilled workers that practiced their individual techniques and knowledge on every meal once prepared food. McDonald’s now employs workers who use procedures where every move they make is planned out and every piece of food receives the exact same treatment. By standardizing every step and minimizing customer interaction with workers, McDonald’s maintains control over its employees and customers.

While rationality may be a good business model, it often has very negative effects on customers as well as the laborers within the system. Rationalization takes away the individuality that makes us human. It also pushes important issues, such as nutrition, to the side in favor of more marketable, but less important, issues, such as size. Because of this, “rational systems are not reasonable systems” (378). Can we really blame this rationalization or is rationalization really the result of some other force that actually causes the problems? Furthermore, can Ritzer really claim that rationalization has an overall negative effect? In his examples he tends to ignore possible benefits, such as feeding people on low budgets. I do agree with Ritzer, however, when he claims that rationalization makes our society uninteresting.

Is rationalization the result of people’s preferences or the economic advantages that make it successful?