I guess we can talk about asymmetries in knowledge production. What do the UN entities you quote confess about their own subjectivities in determining research methodologies and the 'true' results for the research projects you cite? What do the same entities say about the crisis of governance, including the UN which forms part of global governance? Do the UN entities then link the current economic crisis (in its various manifestations in the US, Europe and the rest of the industrialized world) to governance at the national and global levels?

I would work with this premise in order to establish the 'truth': To the extent that food turns up at our tables after going through economic mechanisms that are also politically determined at both national and global levels, such food is subject to the vagaries affecting such economic and political processes. These vagaries may be related to labor, wages, transport, storage, retail trade, taxes, profit, legislation, political ideology and the environment to mention only a few. The studies you quote suggest that political and economic governance has improved over the period you mention. This however needs more regional studies to get a better picture of where poverty has increased and where it has declined.

Is there an economic and political crisis in the world today? Of course there is! It is only in the country of the proverbial ostriches which burry their heads in the sand that this crisis does not exist. In fact the global food crisis (2007) preceded the global financial crisis (2008). Then politicians across the world made maneuvers to save not the ordinary food consumers but the powerful shareholders in the national economies whose collapse would immediately affect government systems. Despite the isolated on-and-off breathers, this crisis has not yet been resolved. My point is that if there is a governance/economic crisis, then there is a food crisis. But this crisis seems to be a result of a prolonged accummulated political and economic problems since WWII, it has been long coming.

Outbreaks of economic and political crises, such as the 2007-8 ones, immediately create 'shocks' in human security. Regarding food, it was estimated that for every 1% increase in food prices in 2007, about 16 million people joined the already existing ranks of people categorized as hungry worldwide. 'Stresses' on the other hand are caused by the gradual factors that are constantly at play over a long time. Unemployment and annual inflation are examples. The problem now is that in case of a prolonged crisis over a large part of the globe (like that happening in Europe currently) also prolongs shocks. TIt is like being under aerial bombardment for that long only the difference is, like in proxy wars, the impact may be felt elsewhere.

That's how Africa experiences the current global crisis. Coporations from the Western world have been cited as being increasingly involved in land acquisition for biofuels, foods for export and forests across the continent. All this is being done with the help of African governments. This has displaced small farmers whose major occupation has up to now been to produce food for their own consumption. This follows the usual stresses of increasing input prices, government quarantines imposed on food and animal movement to lower the prices of farm products, rural urban migration which sucks the productive youth away from the farm, environmental hazards and other factors.

It is only fair not to discount the contribution of technology, population control etc towards a healthier and wealthier society. Yet my argument above shows that there is reason to question research findings even if they are 'true'. Shocks and stresses may have affected different parts of the world differently over the period since 1960. Regional studies will possibly yield different results showing whether poverty has reduced or increased in a given region but the current politico-economic crisis is likely to be prolonged and so will the suffering of many peoples of the world.

As for 'accounting for climate change', human capacity remains limited to understand its dynamics. How many experts predicted the Tsunami in 2006!

Richard,

thanks for your answer. It touches on many points, so I would comment briefly on only some.

1. "The studies you quote suggest that political and economic governance has improved over the period you mention. This however needs more regional studies to get a better picture of where poverty has increased and where it has declined. "

You are probably right. But on the other hand, please notice that the figures I cited do not explicitly suggest anything about governance: they are based on outcomes, not causes. Disentangling positive and negative factors for each would be a different (and quite difficult) endeavour.

The figures I reported were global; there are also figures per country and region, of course, easily consulted in each case. These are not exactly "studies": they are regular statistics.

My post regarded long term trends, spanning at least one or more decades, not short term "vagaries" which can go either way.

In this regard, over the latest 2-4 decades, practically ALL countries have progressed, albeit at different rates. Only some very exceptional cases go the other way, such as North Korea (where undernourishment increased enormously along recent decades, and malnutrition does not seem to progress); another similar example (though the figures are not very precise) is Somalia, where the State collapsed and the territory is ravaged by armed bands. A few other countries in Africa have also experienced this sort of collapse although in a more moderate way (some form of State survives). Some parts of some countries, or entire countries, are in the midst of extended and widespread violent conflict (Darfur in Sudan; Syria now; Libya last year, Southern Afghanistan, Eastern DRC, and a few more).

2. UN organizations assemble and report data based on national statistics. For instance, FAO data on hunger are based on national data on agricultural production, international food trade, and indicators of inequality in dietary energy intake across households inside each country; these estimates are available since about 1970 (some of them since earlier, such as production and trade). WHO data on child malnutrition are based on national health and nutrition surveys, carried out in most developing countries on a regular basis during the latest three decades. Poverty rates (as measured by income relative to poverty lines) come mostly from household surveys, and are available for most countries since the 1980s; surveys are generally used to measure the relative distribution of income; as regards the amount of income, some series of estimates are based on income reported by people during the same surveys (normally underestimating actual income), and sometimes reported income is corrected to better reflect national income as estimated in national accounts (which are in turn based on level of production). The latter approach normally gives a lower estimate of poverty (because more income is captured in the figures), but the trend over time are the same.

HI Hector,

Thanks for this question! I think one reason why people think things are getting worse is because of the massively increased communication networks and consumption of news. Most news is negative and our experience of the world is usually mediated by negative reports of disasters, conflict, uprisings, droughts, food crises, etc. These are all far more interesting than 'all is well here and getting better all the time', which may be the reality. Thus when we hear about Tajikistan, for example, it is in a negative, not positive context.

I also think that since things are changing so rapidly, it is extremely hard to keep in perspective how today compares to the past. Most researchers have a world view informed by the past, and are mired in a crisis narrative. The fact that outcomes are more positive now than last century is often missed in our efforts to motivate our research in one that urges yet more change. What questions are we asking now that actually address change in a way that makes sense? Where should we focus our attention so that things continue to improve?

I have done research on the global food system (Funk and Brown 2009) that describes a declining per capita food production in Africa and other regions with high population growth. This analysis shows increasing integration of the global food system and reliance on imported food to meet the needs of these communities. As the population rises, agriculture fails to keep up, reducing access to food by the poorest whose income fails to keep pace with the number of people needing to be fed.

Measuring outcomes in regions with these countries with the lowest purchasing power (and greatest exposure to global price variability and increases) was difficult in the past and is still difficult, but broadly nutrition outcomes are better now than in the middle of the 1900s. We had little information then and have more now, thus it is hard to compare the past to the present in a clear, rigorous way. It may be that food security outcomes will continue to improve as subsistence economies shift away from providing most food themselves, but the transition is usually very difficult. We hear more about these 'remote' locations now, and thus are more likely to think they are worse off now than in the past, when in fact the opposite is true. When cell phones are commonplace, then even the most remote places are now only a twitter or blog post from our attention.

Molly

Molly,

thanks for your thoughtful answer. I concur on most of your points.

I have not read your work with Funk (2009), but I know it is true that per capita food production in Africa (by some measures) declined during some years in the past, especially in the 1960s and 1970s, and it may still be declining in some countries, but overall African food production growth has rapidly accelerated whilst African population growth is decelerating, resulting in an increase of per capita production of food in recent years. A reduction in poverty also allowed for increased access to food.

According to new and revised figures on undernourishment from FAO (SOFI 2012), undernourishment in SubSaharan Africa declined from 32.8% in 1990-92 to 30.0% in 1999-2001 to 26.8% in 2010-2012 (http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3027e/i3027e.pdf).

These figures reflect the proportion of people habitually accessing less than the minimum acceptable amount of calories for their age, sex and height.

Regarding per capita food production, measured at constant prices and converted into a common currency at Purchasing Power Parity, Africa decreased its per capita food production in the 1960s and 1970s, recovered to about 0.66% in the 1980s and 1990s, and accelerated to 1.11% per year in the 2000s (see table below from FAOSTAT).

Years

62-72 72-82 82-92 92-02 02-09

Africa

-0.02% -1.04% 0.67% 0.65% 1.11%.

(Annual growth rates computed between 3-year averages, e.g. 62-72 means annual growth from the average of 1961-63 to the average of 1971-73, and 02-09 means 2001-03 to 2008-10. This reduces the effect of any atypical year.)

Agricultural productivity in Africa is also increasing. Net value of food production per hectare of agricultural land increased at a yearly 2.65% from 1991-93 to 2007-09 (above the world average of 2.18%), for a total increase of 52% in that period. Output per agricultural worker increased by 25% from 1990 to 2010 (also FAOSTAT data). Regarding apparent consumption of dietary energy (kilocalories per person per day) Africa increased from about 2000 in 1961-63 to 2278 in 1990 to 2560 in 2009.

Of course, all this is not enough. Africa has a long way to go, in spite of the positive turnaround in economic and social growth rates of the latest two decades or so. And even that turnaround was uneven, as some countries are still going backwards due to war, corruption and other chronic ills. Things, overall, are improving, but much more remains to be achieved.

My point, however, was not that things are getting better. That is already known and well documented. My point was about people's attitudes. If I comment to a group of educated (but not food-specialized) people that the prevalence of hunger is increasing in the world, few if any would dispute my words, but I would meet a more incredulous response if I make the contrary announcement that the prevalence of hunger is diminishing. They are likely to remain incredulous even after learning about the reliable, abundant and coincident data pointing to that conclusion. People seem attuned to the idea that things are universally going worse, and finding otherwise seems somewhat politically incorrect. Why may that be so?

So you believe the statistics, Hector? I have heard many arguments that the FAOSTAT figures are not very accurate. For example, FEWS NET has recently done an assessment using very high resolution data to improve the production statistics of Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Niger and Haiti because of the huge error (30% in many cases) in the annual production statistics produced by these governments (and reported to FAOSTATS). I don't have as much faith in the numbers reported as you do. This does not reduce the fact that overall, things are getting better.

However, I think your question is focused on the broader populace, not only researchers. Don't you think that some of the skepticism has to do with a post-modern attitude towards government assessments? Many people view the ability of the United Nations or the United States government to properly assess diverse, far away and potentially politically difficult systems and processes quite negatively. Your facts and my opinions have equal value, in the eyes of many. Thus mere facts are unlikely to dissuade many in their opinions.

Perhaps a better question is - how does science view progress? What questions are being asked and problems researched now that will really enable improved outcomes in the next century?

Molly

Molly,

I do not "believe" in statistics. I use the ones I think are better. Of course some very special countries like the ones you mention have exceedingly poor statistics (Haiti, Zimbabwe, Niger and Ethiopia are indeed among the worst, but one may add a few more). However my points where not about levels but about trends, and were based not only on FAOSTAT (or FEWSNET for that matter) but on a variety of other sources. Health and nutrition surveys, for instance, are far better than national agricultural statistics, and are usually conducted directly by UNICEF, USAID and other international cooperation agencies. Moreover, most of the errors detected in production statistics are errors of underestimation (because subsistence production is hard to measure, especially some products such as manioc, and thus its amount is likely to go under-reported). In other words, food production in the poorest countries is likely to be higher than reported.

Your remarks about the prevalence of the postmodernist malady in today's culture are unfortunately accurate. I am grateful to have been spared so far, but you can never be too vigilant to avoid being the next victim.

I agree with Molly, and can we relate here the materialistic approach of most of the people? In developing countries, salaried persons, laborers and even the business men all claim that things are getting worse and there are no jobs, no business etc. But in the contrary, all such people are enjoying all latest technologies and living better lives than their pasts.

Excellent answer dear prof Molly!, and also Dr Ahmad Khan ; The reality in my country and some other countries shows that ;There are millions of people in the world have next to no income, no help, no government support for people and the worst issue: NO HOPE!, We have struggled all the way through...., Do not like to be pessimistic and know that it is transition state to get the better future ,bright future....but now we are paying the costs!!!!

Terrible distribution of resources.