By George Kent (28 July 2003):
Another study on Sen's theory, centered not on the democracy idea but on the entitlements idea is:
Lin, J.Y. and D.T. Yang. 2000. "Food Availability, Entitlements and the Chinese Famine of 1959-61". Economic Journal, vol. 110, no. 460 (January), pp. 136-158.
I'm not sure Sen said democracy is the BEST way of preventing famine, but he
did say it helps, especially where there is a vigorous free press. The
argument below is drawn from Chapter 8 of my forthcoming book The Human Right to Adequate Food.
Sen observed there are far fewer famines in democracies:
"...the working of democracy and of political rights can even help to
prevent famines and other economic disasters. Authoritarian rulers, who are
themselves rarely affected by famines (or other such economic calamities),
tend to lack the incentive to take timely preventive measures. Democratic
governments, in contrast, have to win elections and face public criticism,
and have strong incentives to undertake measures to avert famines and other
such catastrophes. It is not surprising that no famine has ever taken place
in the history of the world in a functioning democracy--be it economically
rich (as in contemporary Western Europe or North America) or relatively poor
(as in postindependence India, or Botswana, or Zimbabwe).
...no substantial famine has ever occurred in a democratic country--no
matter how poor. This is because famines are extremely easy to prevent if
the government tries to prevent them, and a government in a multiparty
democracy with elections and free media has strong political incentives to
undertake famine prevention."
In democracies, the people hold the government accountable, not only through
the press but also through their voting powers and, more generally, through
their sustained and vigorous participation in public life. The observation
apparently correlates with the democratic peace hypothesis, that democracies
do not make war on one another, and are much less violent internally than
undemocratic nations.
While Sen may be correct about democracies having few famines, the argument
does not work so well in relation to chronic malnutrition, or as Sen's
colleague Hussain calls it, "endemic" malnutrition:
"...even an active press, as in India, can be less than effective in
moving governments to act decisively against endemic undernutrition and
deprivation--as opposed to dramatically visible famines. The quiet
persistence of 'regular hunger' kills millions in a slow and non-dramatic
way, and this phenomenon has not been much affected, it appears, by media
critiques. There is need for an analysis here of what explains the
difference."
Many factors account for the tendency of the media to emphasize episodic
famines rather than chronic malnutrition, including, for example, their
tendency to emphasize sudden-onset events over continuing phenomena.
However, the major factor undoubtedly is that democracies are not as
democratic as we sometimes assume. Sen has come to acknowledge that there is
chronic malnutrition in democracies, but it seems he does not associate that
with any possible defects in the qualities of their democracy.
Societies can be democratic but at the same time highly unequal. Democratic
governments are responsive to their people, but they are most responsive to
the most powerful of them. These are the constituencies that keep their
leaders in power. This pattern is clearly visible in major democracies such
as the United States and India. Thus, while Sen is correct in observing that
acute famines are virtually nonexistent in democracies, he overlooks the
fact that they continue to have extensive chronic malnutrition among their
poor.
Democratic states may tend to be more equitable in the sense of having less
extreme divisions between top and bottom, but all states have substantial
inequalities in fact. Drèze and Sen speak of "the importance of public
accountability in making it hard for a government to allow a famine to
develop". The unfortunate fact is that in all societies, including
democracies, governments tend to be more "accountable"--more responsive--to
those who are more powerful. Those who are politically weak tend to be
ignored, except when those who are relatively powerful speak out in their
behalf.
Democracies such as the United States and India do not have famines, but
they do have widespread chronic undernutrition. We can explain this, and
still save Sen’s concept, by acknowledging that these democracies-as-lived
are imperfect. They are not fully egalitarian, but are more responsive to
those of their people who are richer and more powerful. There is government
accountability to the people, but not uniformly. Democracies have the same
flaw as other political systems: they tend to be more responsive to those
who are powerful than to those who are needy. We see this in their economic
systems, their social systems, their educational systems—indeed, in every
quarter of society. Even programs designed for the poor tend to favor the
more capable among the poor. This pattern of democracy-as-lived may be
described as elite democracy, to distinguish it from truly egalitarian ideal
democracy.
Thus we come to an explanation for chronic malnutrition. We can understand
the persistent and widespread chronic malnutrition in the world, within
countries and internationally, as a concrete manifestation of the persistent
and widespread disparities in power in the world. Weaker people have weaker
entitlements, and thus will always have a disproportionately small share of
the earth’s abundant produce. Some individuals will enjoy meals costing
hundreds of dollars, and thus command the labor of many others, and at the
same time other individuals will squat before nearly empty rice bowls.
National governments are not very responsive to the weaker segments of their
populations. In much the same way, the international community is skewed
against the weaker nations of the world. Explicitly stated human rights,
affirmed in the law, accompanied by distinct mechanisms of implementation
and of accountability, contribute to counterbalancing this bias in social
systems. Thus, a well-developed human rights system is not an add-on luxury;
it is an integral part of any social system that aspires to be truly
egalitarian. It is essential to good governance.
On related issues, also by George Kent, see "Blaming the Victim, Globally" (14 kb in RTF).