WP 2012-009: February 2012

A Human Development and Capability Approach to Food Security: Conceptual Framework and Informational Basis
Francesco Burchi and as!uale De "uro#

Francesco Burchi, Roma Tre University, Via Valco di San Paolo, 19, 00146 Roma, taly! Pas"uale #e $uro, Roma Tre University, Via Valco di San Paolo, 19, 00146, Roma, taly! This %a%er is %art o& a series o& recent research commissioned &or the '&rican (uman #evelo%ment Re%ort! The authors include leadin) academics and %ractitioners &rom '&rica and around the *orld, as *ell as U+#P researchers! The &indin)s, inter%retations and conclusions are strictly those o& the authors and do not necessarily re%resent the vie*s o& U+#P or United +ations $em,er States! $oreover, the data may not ,e consistent *ith that %resented in the '&rican (uman #evelo%ment Re%ort!

Abstract: $his paper has a twofold ob%ective: &a' to make a comprehensive review of different approaches to food security( &b' to develop a human development and capability approach to food security followin) the pioneerin) works of Amartya Sen and *ean Dr+,e- $o our best knowled)e. no paper has yet provided a systematic survey of the ma%or approaches to food securityStartin) from the analysis of food production. we hi)hli)ht the value added provided by the capability approach and the human development paradi)m- $hen. we propose a methodolo)y of analysis of food security throu)h this approach. entailin) three basic steps: &#' analysis of food entitlements( &/' analysis of basic nutritional capabilities( &0' analysis of the capability to be food secure- $his way. it is possible to move beyond income1. entitlement1. or livelihoods1related frameworks. and to identify the root causes of food insecurity: food insecurity can be the result of lack of education. health or other basic capabilities that constitute people2s wellbein)- $herefore. it allows to situate the study within the broader topic of wellbein). a)ency and freedomFinally. we briefly discuss the role of food security for human developmentKeywords: Food security, capability approach, entitlements, human de elopment !"# $lassi%ication: &1', $(1, )1(, *1+, ,1'

1- ,ntroduction Accordin) to the latest estimates by FA3 &/4#4'. there are nearly 5/6 million food insecure people in the world- $he number is above that of /447 as a conse!uence of the food price rise and the overall economic crisis- $herefore. food security is a crucial topic within the broader fields of development economics and development studies$he present paper en)a)es in the debate on the theory and policy of food security- $he way food security is theori,ed. measured. and finally analy,ed affects the typolo)y of policies that will be adopted- $he paper has a twofold ob%ective- $he first one is to review critically different approaches to food security proposed either within the academic world or by international or)ani,ations- Accordin) to our best knowled)e until now there has not been a systemic attempt to compare &most of' the e8istin) approaches$he second aim of the paper is to develop the capability approach primarily elaborated by the economist Amartya Sen durin) the early #594s. in order to use it for the analysis of food securityAccordin) to us. the literature has often missed to identify the linka)es e8istin) between Sen2s entitlement approach used in the specific fields of hun)er and famine. his capability approach employed to analy,e development and wellbein). and the human development paradi)m elaborated by :;D - A strict connection e8ists and a direct reference to the book of Dre,e and Sen &#595' and to the :;D HD< on human security &#55=' is needed to understand it- By combinin) these three approaches. we can arrive to a more comprehensive theoretical approach to food securityAs a conse!uence. the paper is structured in five sections- $he second section reviews the approaches to food security. outlinin) the basic differences( the third one discusses how to analy,e food 1

security based on the capability approach( the fourth one briefly points out the effect of food security on human development( the fifth section concludes and identifies the policy implications of usin) the capability framework2- .ain approaches to %ood security At the be)innin) of a paper discussin) different approaches to food security. one would e8pect to have a clear definition of food security- $his is not the case for this paper for two reasons: #' thou)h a commonly accepted definition e8ists. in the food security practice and actions the dimensions>factors stressed are often so diverse to hi)hli)ht different views on the meanin) of the ?food security@ term( /' we intend to proceed by focusin) on the different approaches. which have drawn attention to different components of food security. and. in turn. have contributed to modify and e8tend the definition- $hus. the section presents five approaches to food security: #- Food availability( /- Income1based( 0- Basic needs( =- Antitlement( 6- Sustainable livelihoods- Be will try to keep as much as possible a chronolo)ical and lo)ical order movin) from the oldest and narrower vision of food security to the most recent and advanced ones2.1 Food availability approach $he first approach to food security that we present is the ?food availability@ approach. because it is certainly the oldest one and still the most influential- Althou)h the core ideas of this approach could be traced back to the Cenetian thinker Diovanni Botero &#699'. it was $homas "althus &#795' that populari,ed it. and. in fact. it also known as the "althusian approach$he approach is focused on the &dis'e!uilibrium between population and food: in order to maintain this e!uilibrium the rate of )rowth of food availability should be not lower than the rate of )rowth of population- Conse!uently. in this view food security is 2

merely a matter of a))re)ate &per capita' food availability- In a closed economy. this depends mainly on food production and stocks. while in an open economy also food trade can play a relevant role-/ :ntil the early #574s. this was the reference approach for the international community. both at political and academic level$his is well reflected in the definition of food security )iven at the Borld Food Conference of #57=: ?Availability at all times of adequate world food supplies of basic foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset fluctuations in production and prices &:; #57='. $he policy implications of this approach are twofold: 3n the ?demand side@. the need to reduce the rate of )rowth of populationEnamely the fertility rateEthrou)h appropriate policies(0

.urrently, the tool utili/ed to assess &ood availa,ility is the 0&ood ,alance sheet1 2F'3 -0014! 5' &ood ,alance sheet %resents a com%rehensive %icture o& the %attern o& a country6s &ood su%%ly durin) a s%eci&ied re&erence %eriod! The &ood ,alance sheet sho*s &or each &ood item i!e! each %rimary commodity availa,ility &or human consum%tion *hich corres%onds to the sources o& su%%ly and its utilisation! The total "uantity o& &oodstu&&s %roduced in a country added to the total "uantity im%orted and ad7usted to any chan)e in stoc8s that may have occurred since the ,e)innin) o& the re&erence %eriod )ives the su%%ly availa,le durin) that %eriod! 3n the utilisation side a distinction is made ,et*een the "uantities e9%orted, &ed to livestoc8 : used &or seed, losses durin) stora)e and trans%ortation, and &ood su%%lies availa,le &or human consum%tion! The %er ca%ita su%%ly o& each such &ood item availa,le &or human consum%tion is then o,tained ,y dividin) the res%ective "uantity ,y the related data on the %o%ulation actually %arta8in) in it! #ata on %er ca%ita &ood su%%lies are e9%ressed in terms o& "uantity and ,y a%%lyin) a%%ro%riate &ood com%osition &actors &or all %rimary and %rocessed %roducts also in terms o& dietary ener)y value, %rotein and &at content; 2F'3ST'T -0114! < Sen 21999= ch! 94 revie*s critically various a%%roaches and %olicies aimed at reducin) the &ertility rate!

 3n the ?supply side@. the need to boost &per capita' food productionEnamely a)ricultural production- For such purpose. the foremost policy that is )enerally prescribed and implemented is to increase a)ricultural productivityAlthou)h in #55F the Borld Food Summit adopted. with a lar)e consensus. a much broader and advanced definition of food security. that includes. besides availability. other fundamental dimensions of food security E such as access to and utili,ation of food E a narrow sectoral focus on a)ricultural supply. productivity and technolo)y still dominates the international food security discourse and practiceBhereas this is not the place to discuss the reasons why this narrow view persists in spite of its evident flaws and failures. it is interestin) to notice that after the #574s the "althusian )hosts of scarcity have been reinvi)orated by the increasin) ecolo)ical concerns. and related concepts such as ?carryin) capacity@ and ?ecolo)ical footprint-@ Before movin) to the ne8t approaches. it is important to emphasi,e a methodolo)ical aspect that is useful for our analysis3ne main characteristic of any approach to food security is its ?units of analysis-@ Denerally speakin). the unit of analysis can ran)e from the world. to a country. a re)ion. down to a community. a household. or a sin)le individual- Furthermore. from the economic point of view. the approach can focus on a sin)le sector. on a cluster of sectors &e-)- the ?food system@ or ?chain@' or can be economy1wideConsiderin) these characteristics. the units of analysis )enerally used in the food availability approach are the country &and its food balance sheet' or the world. and the a)ricultural sector &its production and productivity'-

2.2 Income-based approach $he lon)1lastin) view of food security as a problem of food availability has been partly re1visited within a more macro1 economic approach- $he focus on food sector E initially only a)ricultural production. and also food trade later on E has been critici,ed by economists for bein) too concentrated on one sin)le economic sector- <eco)ni,in) that the economy is composed of many interdependent sectors. food security cannot be viewed as an e8clusive problem of the a)ricultural>food sector- $hat is why the first attempt to broaden the discipline was actually an attempt to shift the analysis towards national economies as a whole- $his meant brin)in) in the analysis variables such as Dross Domestic roduct &DD '. economic )rowth. eventually. but not necessarily. hi)hly dependent on food production- In a market1 economy. a stron)er economic system can allow the import of )oods such as food- $his macro1economic framework was also more consistent with old and very influential economic theories such as <icardo2s comparative advanta)es. accordin) to which each country has to speciali,e in the sector in which it has an advanta)e )iven by the abundance of a specific productive asset or by lower costs of production- $his whole approach mi)ht be considered as a way to include within the food security framework the national ?means@ to increase a))re)ate food availabilityHowever. the most important shift was from food availability at macro1level to income at micro1level &<eutlin)er and Selowsky #57F( Ha! #57F( Driffin and Ghan #577'- $he approach is very similar to the one traditionally used to assess poverty- Bhile poverty was conceived as a lack of enou)h income necessary to buy a bundle of )oods to )uarantee the survival &or minimum standard of livin)' of a person. food insecurity is implicitly assumed as a sub1cate)ory of poverty &often referred to as ?food poverty@'. i-e- lack of enou)h income necessary to buy at the )iven conditions the amount of food re!uired &Sibrian et al- /447( Sibrian /449'- In particular. the different foods are converted into 5

calories &characteristics of the food': if people2s calorie availability is lower than a threshold identified by international nutritionists. they are considered food insecure$hrou)h household surveys providin) information on income. it is theoretically possible to estimate the amount of food consumed. under the assumption that poorer households use a lar)er proportion of their income to buy food-= Food is. then. converted in calories: if household calorie availability is lower than the ?re!uired@ minimum one. some or all the members are food insecure- $he specific problem related to this method consists in the assumption of a )iven income1calorie elasticity- $akin). for e8ample. an elasticity measured in the same country in previous studies re!uires makin) very stron) hypotheses-6 "ore useful are the household e8penditures surveys. from which it is possible to sort out the amount of e8penditures on a &limited' number of food items- "any applied economists have estimated the calorie contents of each food item and then a))re)ate them in order to have the total amount of calories available for household members$he main shortcomin)s of both these procedures are the several assumptions made to move from income to food security: #' from income>e8penditure to food thou)h price per unit information( /' from food to calorie throu)h e!uivalence tables( 0' from calorie availability to food security>insecurity dependin) on the threshold- Bith respect to the unit of analysis. potentially income could be estimated for individuals- However. there are problems related to children. whose food security depends also on adults2 income- Furthermore. all the surveys mentioned above are
4

's ar)ued ,y Sved,er) 2-00-= ch! >4, there seems to ,e relevant em%irical evidence to su%%ort this hy%othesis! ? Furthermore, most o& the studies on &ood demand have many ,iases due to the &act that they consider calories as any other )ood, *ithout considerin) the actual e&&ect that nutrition and calories have on %roductivity and income! For a detailed discussion on this issue, see Sved,er) 2-00-= ch! 44!

conducted at household level- For all these reasons. we mi)ht reasonably state that the household is the unit of analysis within this approach- $his implies assumin) a certain distribution 1 usually e!ual distribution or distribution accordin) to biolo)ical needs 1 amon) the membersFinally. this method could better suit an ideal market economy in which nobody works in subsistence a)riculture- Diven the fact that these measurements are often reali,ed in rural areas of low1 income countries. where the dominant part of the population is in subsistence a)riculture. the method is not hi)hly reliable- As also ar)ued by Frankenber)er &#55/: 5F' ?e8penditure surveys tend to underestimate e8penditures on food because the value of food produced at home or )athered locally is often not recorded@2.3 Basic needs approach In the second half of #574s. the International Habour 3r)ani,ation &IH3' has proposed a new model of development. the basic needs approach. with the intention of incorporatin) also non1economic dimensions of development &IH3 #57F'- $he problems of poverty. unemployment. and under1employment. re)istered in periods of risin) economic )rowth. were the primary causes of the policy shift- Hater on. two economists: Streeten &#59#' and Stewart &#596' contributed to re1launch this approach$he advocates of the basic needs approach viewed development as a process aimin) to ensure to all the people the satisfaction of their basic needs- $he fulfillment of basic needs was a precondition for a ?full1life@. composed of material and non1 material elements &Stewart #596'- Diven the practical nature of this approach. it was necessary to )ive a minimal interpretation to the full life. i-e- to make a small list of basic needs that )overnments and development a)encies could ensure- Althou)h the list presented by different authors is sli)htly different. in most of the cases it included food. to)ether with shelter and clothin) &see Denton #554'- As ar)ued by "a)rabi et al- &#55#: F6'. ?Food 7

is a basic need E probably the most basic need of all@- Similar conclusions were drawn by authors in different disciplines such as "aslow &#5=0' in psycholo)y. and by authors in the human ri)hts literature- In particular. the definition of ?basic ri)hts@ as those necessary for the en%oyment of all other ri)hts )iven by Henry Shue &#55F' has led many authors to include primarily the ?human ri)ht to ade!uate food@ &Gent /446'$his discourse in development literature. accordin) to us. has heavily affected the debate on food security. )ivin) birth to the so1called food first view &"a8well and Smith #55/( "a8well #55F'-F $his approach focuses directly on whether people eat enough food. and contributed to make a further step in shiftin) the analysis from the macro level to the micro level- Food is seen as the priority &and probably the only' element of food security$his is the main approach behind the view of food security as ?Consumption of less than 94I of BH3 avera)e re!uired daily caloric intake@ &<eardon and "atlon #595' and as ?$he ability J to satisfy ade!uately food consumption needs for a normal healthy life at all times@ &Sarris #595'$here are different ways to assess food security coherently with this framework- $he first one is the food fre!uency assessment. which can be reali,ed by simply askin) people the number of meals eaten per day or even the fre!uency of consumption of different food items- $hese surveys are easy to conduct( however. focusin) on the fre!uency and not on the !uantity consumed makes more comple8 to derive the calorie e!uivalent$he second method is based on the direct observation of food consumption- All the household members are observed durin) meals in order to have a direct information on all food consumed$he final calorie availability is obtained by wei)htin) the food
6

To our ,est 8no*led)e, none has e9%licitly stressed the lin8a)e ,et*een the ,asic needs a%%roach and the &ood &irst a%%roach to &ood security!

items accordin) to their nutritional contents. and a))re)atin) them-7 "ore recently. some indicators based on the !uality and diversification of the diet have been elaborated. which can be in line with the food first approach &Hoddinott and Kohannes /44/'An e8ample is the ?dietary diversity score@ indicatin) the number of food )roups that have been consumed re)ularly &usually /= hours or # week'- $his was an important step to move away from the e8clusive focus on the !uantity of food consumption$he individual unit of analysis is perfectly compatible with the food first approach- However. food fre!uency assessments are usually conducted at household level. while direct observation and assessments lookin) at the diet are often reali,ed at individual level &also for children'- $herefore. in the last two cases. it is not necessary to assume a function of food distribution within the household- $his is particularly important because by observin) directly the conditions of women we do not assume that they receive the same amount of food received by men- $his problem usually referred to as ?)ender bias@ in the development and food security literature has been found in many developin) countries &e-)-. Chen et al- #59#( Das Dupta #597( Harriss #556'$he main advanta)e of the food first approach as compared to the &micro' income1based approach to assess food security consists in the possibility to focus directly on the commodity we are interested in &food'. rather than on the income necessary to buy it- $his way we do not need information on current price per unit and. at the same time. we do not have to look at whether the person has physical or social problems in purchasin) food- Finally. by concentratin) on what is actually eaten. the food first approach implicitly reco)ni,es &and does not underestimate' the food )rown at home rather than purchased in the market-

>

@iven the sco%e o& this revie* *e do not en)a)e in the several de,ates concernin) measurement %ro,lems, such as the chan)in) ,ehaviors o& %eo%le ,ein) o,served ,y stran)ers!

As a conclusion of this brief review. this approach draws attention to short1term food security: it tells us whether households have enou)h food to feed all its members in a )iven time. or. eventually. in the past- It does not provide much information on potential food deprivations in the future2.4 Entitlement approach For lon) time the debate on hun)er and famine has been heavily affected by food availability approach rooted in "althus2 thou)ht3nly at the be)innin) of #594s Amartya Sen2s entitlement approach contributed to challen)e this perspective and shifted the focus from national food availability to people2s access to food?$he entitlement approach concentrates on each person2s entitlements to commodity bundles includin) food. and views starvation as resultin) from a failure to be entitled to any bundle with enou)h food@ &Sen #59#: =0='- Antitlements depend on two elements: #' the personal endowments. which are the resources a person le)ally owns such as house. livestock. land. and non1 tan)ible )oods &3smani #556'( /' the set of commodities the person can have access to throu)h trade and production. i-e- the ?e8chan)e entitlement mappin)@ &Sen #59#: =06'- Startin) from a situation in which an individual has %ust enou)h means of subsistence. a decline of endowments can obviously lead the person to starvation- However. with the same endowments. a person can still fall into the hun)er trap because of a decline in the e8chan)e entitlement mappin)( for instance. a sharp reduction of the price of the commodity that the individual produces. due to e8ternal causes. reduces its capacity to buy food"oreover. the entitlement failure may take different forms- Diven an economy in which each )roup. for simplicity. produces one commodity &includin) labor'. and )iven a food e8chan)e rate &commodity price>food price'. any )roup risks to starve due to an entitlement failure either because of a reduction of food production for personal consumption or because of a fall in the 10

food e8chan)e rate &Sen #59#'- In the first case. there is a Ldirect entitlement failure2. in the second case a Ltrade entitlement failure2- $his distinction is particularly relevant to e8amine which )roup is at risk of starvation if somethin) chan)es- $he Ldirect entitlement failure2 occurs for food1producers as a result of decline in their production( the Ltrade entitlement failure2 occurs for the )roups that produce other than food when their terms of chan)e fall or when the total availability of food declinesFurthermore. those )roups livin) upon both consumption of the produced )ood &e-)-. meat' and its sale to obtain other food. risk sufferin) from both direct and tradin) entitlement failures$his approach has been primarily proposed and tested for famine analysis. but the same rationale works for re)ular hun)er and endemic undernourishment- :sin) the words of Dre,e and Sen: If people )o hun)ry on a re)ular basis all the time. or seasonally. the e8planations of that have to be sou)ht in the way the entitlement system in operation fails to )ive the persons involved ade!uate means of securin) enou)h food- Seein) hun)er as entitlement failure points to possible remedies as well as helpin) us to understand the forces that )enerate hun)er and sustain it&Dre,e and Sen #595: /='$he entitlement approach contributed to re1address the problem of hun)er and famine by diminishin) the role of a))re)ate food supply and )ivin) more relevance to the socio1economic conditions of people- ?Starvation is a matter of some people not having enou)h food to eat and not a matter of there being not enou)h food to eat@ &Sen #59#: =0='- $herefore. it has si)nificantly affected the notion of food security. by addin) the access dimension- $he influence of Amartya Sen2s work is visible in two important food security definitions: ?All people at all times have both physical and economic access to the basic food they need@

11

&FA3 #590'. and ?Access by all people at all times to enou)h food for an active. healthy life@ &Borld Bank #59F'-9 Havin) enou)h food per capita at national level is a necessary but not sufficient condition for food security- $herefore. in order to make a food security assessment we need to e8tend the informational basis- Cariables related to people2s endowments such as productive and non1productive assets. with particular emphasis on employment and non1tan)ible resources such as education or membership of an association.5 as well as information on wa)e. and other prices of food and non1food items should be ade!uately taken into accountFurthermore. in the book ?Hun)er and ublic Action@ &#595'. Dre,e and Sen e8tend the analysis from food entitlements. i-e-. the set alternative bundles of food items over which a person can have command. to broader entitlements. i-e-. the set alternative bundles of commodities such as drinkable water or services such as sanitation and health care over which the person can have command- $his more recent contribution outlines the need to consider access not only to food. but also to these other )oods and services. which directly influence hun)er and food securityBith respect to the unit of analysis. this approach refers to individuals as well as families-#4 However. as in the case of the income1based approach. in order to analy,e the means to access food and other food1security related commodities by children. we
The Borld Ban8 de&inition is almost the same o& that )iven ,y Reutlin)er 219A64! 9 3smani 2199?4 has e9tended the entitlement a%%roach ,y reco)ni/in) the im%ortance o& nonCtan)i,le resources as endo*ments! n %articular, he dra*s the e9am%le o& em%loyment ,ene&its &or citi/ens o& a country! Bein) citi/ens o& that country 2to)ether *ith the status o& unem%loyed4 entitle %eo%le to access money throu)h *hich they can ,uy &ood, or access directly &ood 2throu)h &oodC stam%Cty%e %ro)rams4! 10 For an e9%lanation o& the conce%t o& 0&amily entitlements1, see Sen 21999= 16-4!
A

12

need to consider the household as a whole- In the specific application of the entitlement approach to famine. the analysis has focused on more ?macro@ aspects. drawin) attention to occupational )roupsDiven all the considerations above. employin) this approach rather than the previous ones improves the assessment from many points of view- $he comparison with the food availability approach has been already made. and there is plenty of evidence of the presence of lar)e food insecurity and undernutrition in countries with sufficient food per capita- $he distance from the income1based approach is lower. bein) income an important means to )ain access to food- As ar)ued by Sen &#590: 76F'. ?In dealin) with starvation and hun)er. the focus on incomes E thou)h defective E is not entirely disastrous- And of course it is a )ood deal better than the focus on total food output and population si,e- $he wei)htin) system of real income and cost1of1 livin) pays sufficient attention to food in a poor community to make real income a moderately )ood Lpro8y2 for entitlement to food in most cases@- However. )iven that income is not the only. and not necessarily the most important instrument to access food and )iven that income is hardly measured in rural areas of developin) countries. a focus on entitlements is preferable"oreover. income reflects the short term economic status of an individual>household. while the full set of assets provides more information on a lon)1run wealth and vulnerability to food insecurityAs compared to the food first approach. the entitlement approach permits to predict future food deprivations: a lower amount of assets. for e8ample. means that the person mi)ht have more problems in the future to access enou)h food- $hen. by e8aminin) a lar)e entitlement set. we reco)ni,e that issue such as drinkable water and health care are as important as food for food security$herefore. we radically move away from a food first perspective

13

to stress the comple8 and multidimensional nature of food securityFinally. a clarification is needed concernin) the terminolo)y- In his papers and books. Sen does not use the words ?food security@. but rather prefers terminolo)ies such as hun)er. undernutrition or. finally. nutritional deprivations- $hat is because the terminolo)y ?food security@ directly recalls the ?food first@ framework- Since we believe that. especially in a debate that does not involve only academics but also international or)ani,ations. there is a need of coherence across time without always chan)in) titles and names. we prefer talkin) about food security also in the remainin) parts of the paper2.5 Sustainable livelihoods approach $he Sustainable Hivelihoods &SH' framework is not %ust an approach to food security. but is a more )eneral approach to development and poverty- $hou)h the concept was certainly used previously. the ?emphasis on livelihood@ was )iven in the #594s by Chambers &#590' who. in his seminal book. introduced the basic elements of this approach. with a focus on rural development and poverty- Subse!uently. the approach has been elaborated and e8panded by Chambers himself and other scholars &Chambers #597( Chambers and Conway #55/( Chambers #556( Allis /444( Scoones /446'$he SH framework has been more successful amon) development or)ani,ations than in the academic world- In fact. thanks also to its fle8ible. holistic and pra)matic nature. it has been adopted by ;D3s &e-)-. CA<A. 38fam'. )overnmental a)encies &e-)- DFID. IISD. SDC. ;MA ' and :; a)encies &e-)-. FA3. IFAD. BF . :;D '- Some of those or)ani,ations have developed their own version of the SH approach. therefore now there is a variety of SH frameworks- Development or)ani,ations have also created a number of handbooks and )uidelines to apply the SH framework 14

in practice. and this has contributed to the popularity of the approach amon) practitioners$he SH framework has many communalities with the basic needs approach and the entitlement approach- Hike the former. it focuses on ?)ainin) a livin)@ &Chambers and Conway #55/: 6'. that is ?the necessities of life@. rather than on human development in a broader sense E i-e- human flourishin)- Bith the entitlement approach it shares the focus on the ?means@ of securin) a livin): in fact. the SH framework is mainly concerned with the &tan)ible and intan)ible' assets commanded by a household. which are very similar to the concept of ?endowments@ in the entitlement approach- $he assets are classified in five cate)ories: natural capital. physical capital. human capital. financial capital. social capital- Althou)h the approach is presented as people1centered. the so1called ?penta)on of assets@ is actually the core concept of the SH framework$he SH framework has been applied to a variety of development issues. includin) food security &BF #559( Koun) et al- /44#( Devereu8 et al- /44=( Hussein /44/'- $here are two distinctive features of the )eneral SH framework that )ive to it some advanta)es in the analysis of food security over previous approaches- $he first is its lon)1term perspective( the second is the attention to the conte8t &political. economic. physical. social. cultural. etc-'. althou)h the latter is often confined to the a)ricultural activities and the rural areas. and seldom it considers macroeconomic or economy1wide issues- $he combination of these two analytical features with the study of the household assets brin)s into food security analysis three interrelated concepts that are peculiar to the SH framework and ne)lected in previous approaches: #- Considerin) e8plicitly risks and shocks. adverse trends and seasonality leads to the concept of vulnerability. that accordin) 15

to Chambers &#556: #76' ?means not lack or want but e8posure and defenselessness- It has two sides: the e8ternal side of e8posure to shocks. stress and risk( and the internal side of defenselessness. meanin) a lack of means to cope without dama)in) loss@( /- $he idea of sustainability. stron)ly related to vulnerability and resilience. is one of the core principles of the SH framework: ?a livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future@ &DFID #555'( 0- Coping strategies. that ?represent a set of activities that are undertaken. in a particular se!uence. by a household in response to e8o)enous shocks that lead to declinin) food availability@ &Curtis #550: 0. based on Davies #550'- Copin) strate)ies are included in the more )eneral livelihood strategies. which are the combination of activities that people choose to undertake in order to achieve their livelihood )oals$he SH concepts have been also widely used for food security measurement. especially in humanitarian emer)encies &"a8well #556( "a8well et al- #555. /440' and famines &Howe and Devereu8 /44=';otwithstandin) this approach is more comprehensive that previous approaches. and is also policy and pro%ect1oriented. it has some shortcomin)s in the analysis of food security- Althou)h the term ?capabilities@ is cited. the actual startin) point of the framework is the household2s ?penta)on of assets@ and related livelihood strate)ies. and not ?what life we lead and what we can or cannot do. can or cannot be@ &Sen #597: #F'- Conse!uently. &#' the SH approach. like the entitlement approach. is more suitable for analy,in) food crises and emer)encies. famines. or e8treme food poverty. rather than more )eneral food security and 16

development issue( &/' freedom and a)ency issues are in fact overlooked. while we will see in the ne8t section that they play an important role in food security analysis( &0' also the variable relationship between people and food E what use we can respectively make of a )iven basket of food &Sen #596: ch- IC' E is not thorou)hly analy,ed. and therefore the ?utili,ation@ dimension of food security is ne)lected( &=' finally. as the unit of analysis of this approach is the household or the community but not the person. intra1household ine!ualities in the distribution and access to food E that often hit women and children E could be overlooked+- A human de elopment and capability approach to %ood %ecurity 3.1 he conceptual !rame"or# $he capability approach to food security was primarily elaborated in #595 by *ean DrN,e and Amartya Sen in the pioneerin) book Hunger and Public Action- Althou)h the authors do not make any reference to the concept of food security. they develop a )eneral analytical framework. based both on the capability approach of Sen &#596. #555' and his entitlement approach. for studyin) hun)er Echronic or transitoryE and all related aspects: undernourishment. malnutrition. famines. etc- A pu,,lin) !uestion about this book and the proposed framework is that. notwithstandin) it is much broader and far reachin) than the entitlement approach. it is much less known. discussed and utili,ed. both by scholars and practitioners- For e8ample. almost all those studies and reports produced after #595 on food security that make some reference to Sen cite only the Poverty and Famine book and the entitlement approach but not Hunger and Public Action- $he )reat popularity and success of the former book shadow the latter- $his circumstance is as odd as bafflin)-

17

In the be)innin) of the book. the authors e8plain why the entitlement approach is not sufficient for a )eneral approach to hun)er issues and therefore why we need to move beyond food entitlements toward nutritional capabilities: ?$he focus on entitlements. which is concerned with the command over commodities. has to be seen as only instrumentally important. and the concentration has to be. ultimately. on basic human capabilities@ &DrN,e and Sen #595: #0'- $his chan)e of perspective derives from the crucial distinction between means and ends of development emphasi,ed by Sen. that applies also to the study of hun)er: ?A more reasoned )oal would be to make it possible to have the capability to avoid undernourishment and escape deprivations associated with hun)er@ &DrN,e and Sen #595: #0'. i-e- the capability to be free from hun)er- By switchin) the focus from ?command over food@ to ?nutritional capabilities.@ this approach )oes beyond the ?access@ dimension of food security E that is the main concern of the basic needs. entitlement and SH approachesE and includes also the ?utili,ation@ dimension- $his is one of the most important innovations of the capability approach to food securityDrN,e and Sen e8plain why access is not sufficient and utili,ation is crucial: $he ob%ect. in this view. is not so much to provide a particular amount of food for each- Indeed. the relationship between food intake and nutritional achievement can vary )reatly dependin) not only on features such as a)e. se8. pre)nancy. metabolic rates. climatic conditions. and activities. but also access to complementary inputs &DrN,e and Sen. #595. p- #0'In the book they cite a number of fundamental complementary inputs: health care and medical facilities( clean drinkin) water( sanitation( eradication of infection epidemics( basic educationHowever. this is not &and it could not be' an e8haustive list18

$he variable relationship between food intake and nutritional achievement is a case of )eneral theoretical issue thorou)hly analy,ed by Sen &#596': the conversion factors and rates. i-e- the fact that the conversion of personal income. resources and commodities into well1bein) and freedom ?depends crucially on a number of contin)ent circumstances. both personal and social@ &Sen #555: 74'. such as: personal hetero)eneities. environmental diversities. variation in social climate. differences in relational perspectives. distribution within the family- araphrasin) Sen &#555: 7#'. these different sources of variation in the relation between resources and well1bein) make income. entitlements or livelihoods a limited )uide to food security- $his problem is particularly relevant when we deal with the food security of disadvanta)ed people or of socioeconomic )roups in unfavorable circumstances or conditions$he above mentioned features of the capability approach to hun)er make it the one that better comprehend three dimensions E availability. access. utili,ationE of food security as defined in the Borld Food Summit of #55F$here are two recent developments that allow e8pandin) and complementin) the framework proposed by DrN,e and Sen in #595- $he first is about the role of another component of the capability approach. ?a)ency@. i-e- a person2s ability to pursue and reali,e her )oals- In Hunger and Public Action the role of a)ency is not e8plicitly analy,ed. as the book is more concerned with public action for social security- As we will discuss in the ne8t section. a full and coherent application of the capability approach to food security should also focus on the role of people2s a)ency. as su))ested by Crocker &/449'- In the SH approach. the analysis is confined to ?livelihood strate)ies@. while in the capability approach a)ency )oes beyond the standard of livin) and personal well1bein) and includes other valuable )oals-

19

$he second development is about security- $he capability approach to food security should also include the fourth dimension of food security as defined by the BFS. which is stability Ethat is much more than %ust food prices stability- $his dimension is e8plicitly considered in the SH framework. especially throu)h the concept of vulnerability- Althou)h vulnerability issues are carefully analy,ed also in the book by DrN,e and Sen. the capability approach to food security could be enhanced by inte)ratin) the ?human security@ concept. firstly proposed by :;D in the Human Development <eport of #55=- As food security. accordin) to :;D . is one of the seven areas of human security. introducin) human security into the capability approach allows us to advance from the ?capability to avoid undernourishment.@ that does not consider e8plicitly the time dimension. to the ?capability to be food secure.@ that has a lon) term perspective and thus include the stability dimension3ne of the main reasons why the capability approach to food security has not been commonly utili,ed after #595 in the food security studies and policies by researchers and policy1makers consists probably in lack of si)nificant efforts to develop )uidelines to operationali,e it- $he ambitious and risky ob%ective of the ne8t section is to start sketchin) such )uidelines3.2 $naly%in& !ood security $he aim of this section is to provide useful preliminary insi)hts in order to carry out an in1depth analysis of food security at the household>individual level. followin) the capability approach- In other words. it intends to )ive broad )uidelines to policy makers and pro%ects>pro)rams desi)ners on how to operationali,e the capability approach$able I presents the different informational bases. data to collect and. finally. the food security dimensions we take into account in the analysis- It entails three phases: #' analysis of food 20

entitlements( /' analysis of basic capabilities for food security( 0' analysis of the capability to be food secure- In the ne8t para)raphs we e8plain each of them. keepin) in mind that each phase implies adding a new informational basis. new variables. and new dimensionsIn the first phase 1 analysis of food entitlements E it is necessary to collect information on the three key components of entitlements: endowments. e8chan)e conditions. and production possibilities"ore in detail. we ideally should have data on variables such as employment status. type of employment. assets. savin)s. and possible claims on the state or other local institutes for cash1 transfer or food assistance- For the other two elements of the entitlements. we should collect information on the prices of the hi)hest possible number of )oods and services. and on the skills and professional knowled)e of the individual or household members- $hrou)h all these data we can e8amine whether people have currently. and probably in the near future. access to enou)h food for survivalhase #. accordin) to us. should encompass also an analysis of the variations of endowments and e8chan)e conditions in the recent period- $he former could be obtained by askin) directly people whether they have bou)ht or sold some important assets. while the second one throu)h other official or non1official statistics$his is %ust an e8ample of a broader study of ?copin)@ and ?adaptin)@ strate)ies to understand the set of strate)ies people employ durin) crises and ?normal@ periods as su))ested by the SH framework- $hrou)h this comple8 analysis we can incorporate not only what people have but also what people do as a)ents of their future- $his provides information on another food security dimension. that is. stability- If people have a seasonal %ob. the prices of the commodity they offer have lar)e fluctuations. or if they reported to sell some key productive assets. we would estimate that the person>household is lar)ely vulnerable to food

21

insecurity. thou)h maybe havin) enou)h calorie intakes at the time of survey$he second phase consists in the analysis of some basic capabilities- First of all. we need to take into account other factors beyond food entitlements that affect the capability to be free from hun)er. intended as the capability to have enough food>calories-## $hese are the institutional and environmental conversion factors. which are. to a hi)h e8tent. beyond the person2s control- Institutional conversion factors are the set of rules. norms. and customs that allow. for instance. to convert a certain amount of income into an ade!uate amount of food- If. for e8ample. a woman is not ?allowed@ to leave the house and )o to the market alone. she will not be able to spend her income to purchase food- Anvironmental conversions factors are those affectin). for e8ample. the conversion of food production for food )rowers into actual food &in the case of subsistence a)riculture' or income &in the case of food sold in the market' )iven the productive possibilities and the e8chan)e conditions- ;atural disasters and climate fall in this cate)ory"oreover. access to food is not enou)h to understand food security. thus we further need to move to a broader analysis of basic capabilities such as bein) in a )ood health. bein) educated. and bein) able to take part in household decision makin) and community life- $o carry out this analysis. it is necessary to collect or find already e8istin) data on: #' school enrolments. educational achievements. literacy. participation to adult literacy courses and other non1formal education pro)rammes( /' access to health services. sanitation. morbidity to main diseases. self1reported health status( and 0' the capability to take a shared or autonomous decision within the household on sub%ects such as bud)et and food allocation &empowerment1type !uestionnaires'. and participation in community lifeThis ca%a,ility is lin8ed to the conce%t o& 0undernutrition1 used ,y F'3 and BFP!
11

22

Finally. the capability to be food secure is a more comple8 capability. which depends on the interaction amon) the ?basic capabilities@- In this case. for ?basic@ and ?more comple8@ capabilities we mean that the former are foundational to the latter-#/ 3ur interpretation of the ?capability to be food secure@ is close to what Dre,e and Sen &#595' define ?capability to be ade!uately nourished-@ Accordin) to us. this is coherent with the /44# FA3 definition of food security. which is the most advanced one as well as the one that mostly reco)ni,e the close relationship between food security and nutritionAn%oyin) all the basic capabilities is necessary but not sufficient to be able to be food secure- Further data on the utili ation of food should be collected- $hese data should provide information on the nutrition knowled)e of the person.#0 on the !uality and variety of the diet. and possibly on her hy)ienic and cookin) practices- As an e8ample. havin) enough calories. but obtained from one sin)le type of food cooked in such a way not to derive the ri)ht nutritional contents from it are likely to lead the person to be food insecure- $herefore. in this phase it is necessary to enlar)e the informational basis- $he !uestionnaire should incorporate a set of !uestions on knowled)e about the benefits of micronutrients and other nutrition1related aspects.#= usually whether the person has participated to nutrition pro)rammes. specific information on

See, &or e9am%le, Ter/i 2-00>4! n the ca%a,ility literature, the terminolo)y 0,asic1 has ,een seen also in di&&erent *ays= see, amon) others, 'l8ire 2-00-4, +uss,aum 2-00<4, and Sen 2-0044! 1< n the case o& children, the researcher should clearly analy/e the nutrition 8no*led)e o& the %arents or those *ho ta8e care o& the child! 14 See, &or e9am%le, the "uestions as8ed to intervie*ees in ndonesia ,y the +)o (elen Deller nternational, used ,y Be,, and Bloc8 2-0044! 'lternatively, see the study o& Burchi 2-0104, *ho a))re)ated the relevant in&ormation availa,le in the #(S surveys to construct one indicator o& nutrition and health 8no*led)e!

1-

23

different food items or food )roups in order to construct an indicator of diet diversification-#6 Finally. a person mi)ht have enou)h food and of the ri)ht !uality. but not bein) able to eat it because of cultural or reli)ious reasons. or because she does not like the taste. or she is simply not used to eat that food-#F Drawin) from Crocker &/449': For e8ample. the taste of an available )rain may be too different from that to which they are accustomed- Avidence e8ists that people who receive e8tra cash for food sometimes fail to improve their nutritional status. apparently because they choose to consume nutritionally deficient foods- If food is to make a difference in people2s nutritional and wider well1bein). it must be food that the individuals in !uestion are )enerally willin) and able to convert into nutritional functionin)- $his is not to say that food habits cannot be chan)ed- <ather. it underscores the importance of nutrition education and social criticism of certain food consumption patterns- If people find food distasteful or unacceptable for other reasons. even nutritious food to which people are entitled will not by itself protect or restore nutritional well1bein)&Crocker /449: ch- 9' $hat is why information on reli)ious believes and cultural attitudes especially with reference to foods and on local food habits should be collected- "ost of this information can be collected at community level. employin) !ualitative techni!ues such as focus )roups-

1? 16

See= (oddinott and Eohannes 2-00-4F Ruel 2-00-4F 'rimond and Ruel 2-0044! This is incor%orated in the &ollo*in) %art o& the F'3 de&inition o& &ood security, 0social G access to su&&icient, sa&e and nutritious &ood1 2F'3 -001, em%hasis added4!

24

/able ,- &perationali0ation o% the capability approach to %ood security

1teps What is measured Food security dimension ,n%ormational basis "ndowments: labour force. productive assets. wealth &non1 productive assets. savin)s.--'. non1 tan)ible resources &e-)-. memberships' 2ariable Amployment status. type of employment. lar)e set of assets &mainly livestock. land and house1 related assets'. ri)ht>le)al claim to public provision of food or income transfer from the stateFor the stability dimension: variation of endowments and strate)ies &copin) strate)ies. adaptation' Ba)es from primary and secondary income )eneratin) activity. price of different food items>)roups and prices of other )oods and servicesrofessional skills Ouantity of food. food )roups. calorie intake Se8. a)eHaw. rules. norms

Food "ntitlements

Access to %ood 3 1tability "4chan5e conditions: prices of food items. wa)es. and prices of other non1food )oods and services Production possibilities: skills and technolo)y6ein5 %ree %rom hun5er &meanin). followin) Sen. havin) enough calories for survival'- $his depends on another set of variables:

6asic $apabilities

Access to %ood and other %ood security-related items 3 1tability

25

personal con ersion %actors &a)e. se8. metabolism.--'. ,nstitutional con ersion %actors. and "n ironmental con ersion %actors6ein5 educated &basic education. which depends on availability and accessibility of formal and non1 formal trainin)' 6ein5 in a 5ood health &depends amon) other thin)s on health care'

Climate. fre!uency of natural disasters-

$apability /o 6e Food 1ecure

Access to %ood and other %ood security-related items 3 1tability 3 8tili0ation

6ein5 able to ta7e part in household decision ma7in5 and community li%e It is )iven by the interaction between the capability ?bein) free from hun)er@ with the capabilities ?bein) in a )ood health@ and ?bein) educated@- In addition. it depends on food utili ation and cultural!social acceptability

School enrolments. educational achievements. literacy. participation to adult literacy courses and other non1formal education pro)rammesAccess to health services. sanitation. morbidity to main diseases. self1reported health statusarticipation in household decision makin). participation in community life &!uestionnaire'Diet !uality. diet diversification. nutrition knowled)e &throu)h !uestionnaire focusin) on micronutrients.-'. hy)ienic practices$estes. cultural and reli)ious beliefs with respect to food products-

26

$he analysis of food security throu)h the capability approach allows a more comprehensive e8amination of the phenomenon- Bhile the income1based approach would take income as focal variable. the entitlement>capability approach provides information on how income is used to ultimately reach the capability to be food secure dependin) on personal and e8ternal conversion factors. food choices and behaviors- :nlike the food1first approach. the capability approach takes into account the !uality. utili,ation and social acceptability of food. and the interaction with other basic capabilities such as health and education- $he capability approach also differs from the ?mechanical@ view of food insecurity as a lack of micronutrients or other food properties )enerally advocated by nutritionists- By analy,in) the phenomenon throu)h the three steps described in $able I. it aims at identifyin) the root causes of food insecurity. situatin) the study within the broader topic of wellbein)Food insecurity. within the framework. can be the result of lack of education. health or other basic capabilities that constitute people2s wellbein)-#7 :sin) the words of David Crocker &/449: ch- 9'. ?Instead of identifyin) hun)ry people simply by a lack of food intake and mechanically monitorin) individuals or dispensin) food to them accordin) to nutritional re!uirements. the focus should be on nutritional functionin) and those ?nutrition1related capabilities that are crucial to human well1bein)-@@ Another element that is implicitly incorporated in all the steps of the capability framework for food security is ?a)ency@. i-e- ?the ability of people to help themselves and also to influence the world@ &Sen #555: #91#5'- eople are clearly constrained by the institutional and environmental factors. which are to a hi)h e8tent outside their control- However. their actions can affect their life and their likelihood to escape poverty and food insecurity- A person mi)ht choose to ?help herself@ by. for e8ample. diversifyin) her income1 )eneratin) activities or adoptin) copin) strate)ies for their lon)1
1>

See, &or instance, the study o& Burchi and #e $uro 2-00>4, *hich reco)ni/es the relevance o& ,asic education &or enhancin) &ood security in the rural areas o& develo%in) countries!

27

run food security- $o the opposite. a person could choose to ?influence the wellbein) of others@ like their children. at the e8pense of her own wellbein)- Finally. she could act %ust to ?influence the world@. by takin) decisions. which could also reduce her wellbein)-#9 ?As individual and collective a)ents we decide how to respond to inner ur)es. e8ternal forces. and constrainin) circumstances. and whether or not to enhance or sacrifice our well1 bein) to some hi)her cause@ &Crocker /449: ch- 9'$he discussion on a)ency leads us to e8amine a last point. which has not been previously stressed- $able I outlines the linka)es between different capabilities( however. we mi)ht be finally interested in knowin) whether a person or a household is actually food secure. i-e- whether her functioning ?bein) food secure@ is activated- Bhether or not the capability moves into the functionin) depends e8clusively on people2s choice- Althou)h bein) food secure is such a basic capability that the lar)est proportion of the people havin) such capability would decide to activate the related functionin). there mi)ht be cases in which people would choose not to be food secure- It can be the case of an anhoressic person ?decidin)@ to fast or. as already outlined in previous para)raphs. a person makin) inter1temporal choices in order to ensure lon)1run food security- $his situation can be properly captured only by e8aminin) simultaneously capabilities and functionin)s &Sen #597'-#5 However. for evident reasons the attention of policy1 makers should be ideally )iven to people havin) a low capability to be food secure &in the short and lon) run'. without a further need to analy,e the functionin)s- By followin) the three steps procedure described in $able I it is possible to sort out those people that result as undernourished althou)h not havin) constraints to access food and food1related items-

For an inCde%th discussion on the relationshi% ,et*een a)ency and *ell,ein), see Sen 2199?4! 19 Sen 219A>4 used the term 0re&ined &unctionin)s1 to mean &unctionin)s ad7usted accordin) to the ca%a,ilities set!

1A

28

As a conclusion of section 0. the capability1based analysis of food security re!uires a lar)er informational basis than any other previous approach- However. in the previous para)raphs we have considered only the ?ideal@ number of variables to be used durin) the three phases of the study- In the field. pro)ram and pro%ect desi)ners from international or)ani,ations or ;)os always have to face constraints in timin) and costs- It is always possible to use a lower informational basis to make still a reliable analysis of food security built on the capability framework- It is only important to keep the most relevant elements. and maybe reducin) the number of variables for each factor./4 or the comple8ity of data collection$he key point is not how many variables we should focus on. but which variables: in this sense. the capability approach provides new important insi)hts9- /he e%%ect o% %ood security on human de elopment $he aim of this section is to e8amine the comple8 relationship between food security and human development- In Fi)ure # we display the relationship between the human development inde8 &as pro8y for human development' and the FA3 undernourishment &as pro8y for food insecurity' for African countries- For both the indicators the values refer to the avera)e between /440 and /447- It is possible to notice that a very stron) ne)ative relationship e8ists. meanin) that countries with lower &hi)her' food insecurity e8perience hi)her &lower' human development and vice versa- $he earson2s rho coefficient of correlation is %ust below 4-9-

's an e9am%le, it is %ossi,le to analy/e the %rices o& very &e* &oods and nonC &ood items, *hich are characteristic o& the area or the o*nershi% o& &e* assets really indicatin) the *ealth status in the area!

-0

29

Fi5ure 1- $orrelation between :uman *e elopment and Food ,nsecurity

"ource# :;D Human Development Statistics and :; FA3 Statistics Division-

30

It is more difficult to understand the side of the relationship: is it more human development affectin) food security or more food security enhancin) human development levelsP $he relationship is clearly bilateral- In accordance with the human development and capability approach. hun)er and food insecurity can be considered as a &probably the worst' capability deprivation. thus food security can be viewed as one dimension of a multidimensional idea of development- In this sense. food security affects human development$he ob%ective of Section =. instead. is to concentrate on the opposite direction of the association: how &if any' can food security affect human developmentP In Fi)ure / we provide a synthetic framework which shows the main mechanisms throu)h which food &in'security can influence different dimensions of human development. namely. education. health. nutrition. participation. and security-

Fi5ure 2- From Food 1ecurity to :uman *e elopment

Food Security 'de"uate Nutrition @ood Health Gender Relations (( .are .hildrenJs BellC,ein)

Dno*led)e Education Hearnin)

Employment Productivity

Partici%ation Im%o*erment Agency

Human Security Peace 2.on&lict Reduction4

ncome 'ssets

Food insecurity is a )reat impediment for $nowledge and education in all the three crucial steps in the educative process: early childhood &children 416 years old'. school a)e &boys and )irls F to #7 31

years old'. and adulthood &#9 years old and above'- Durin) early childhood. food insecurity and undernourishment are serious obstacles to the basic learnin) capacities of a child in addition to limitin) the stimulation she>he should receive at this a)e- $he main ne)ative effects of food insecurity at this sta)e are visible durin) the school1a)e phase &BF /44F'As confirmed by many empirical studies. in school1a)e children. food insecurity lowers school enrolment and attendance. and reduces children2s ability to concentrate in school and obtain hi)her scores in the final tests- Since schoolin) is seen as an essential opportunity for learnin). these are lar)e impediments to child mental development- "oreover. in poor and food insecure households children have often some type of %ob. which contributes to the total household income- $hus. these families have hi)her opportunity costs in sendin) them to school- arents2 incentives to let them attend school are even lower in countries where there are school fees and other relevant costs such as uniforms and booksFinally. adults could widen their knowled)e. abilities and skills throu)h specific pro)rammes such as literacy trainin) and a)ricultural e8tension pro)rammes- $hou)h ?By adulthood. an individual2s co)nitive capacity to learn is already lar)ely established@ &BF /44F: =F'. these are important learnin) occasions for both daily life matters and employment and earnin) opportunities- $he main obstacle consists in the lar)er opportunity costs since at this sta)e people spend the ma%or part of the day in the workplace- $his is true even when classes are or)ani,ed after workin) hours &BF /44F'3ne typical e8ample of an intervention which uses food security as a means to improve school1a)e children2s education is school feedin)- School feedin) pro)rammes. primarily implemented by international or)ani,ations such as BF and FA3. aim at increasin) children2s school attendance>participation and concentration in the classroom by providin) them with a meal at school- $his 32

intervention further contributes to reduce the opportunity costs of food insecure families. who now have one or more household member to feed"oreover. access to an ade!uate amount of !uality food. with the ri)ht properties is an essential condition for the health status of a person- A person debilitated from havin) only a meal a day or from havin) a monotonic diet based. say. on rice and cereals is more likely to contract diseases- First. there are several parasitic diseases which invade the body of a food insecure>malnourished person"oreover. food insecurity and malnutrition at an early sta)e of life. appearin) under the form of low body wei)ht and>or hei)ht. is associated with hi)her fre!uency and severity of diarrhea &$omkins and Batson #595'- "any empirical studies also show the stron) correlation between measles and malaria mortality with previous food insecurity &and malnutrition' situations &$omkins and Batson #595( Aaby et al- #599'. thou)h. as ar)ued by Svedber) &/44/: ch#='. none has mana)ed to provide a substantial e8planation why this may be a causal relationship"oreover. many studies in low1income as well as in mid1 and hi)h1 income countries show that a person can contrast or simply live better and lon)er with cancer or aids. one of the most dramatic problems in sub1Saharan AfricaBe have to point out that also the relationship between food insecurity and health &often mediated by nutrition' is bilateral: a person with a nutritious and diversified diet. with a parasitic disease &like worms in the intestine' reduces her>his ability to absorb food. and thus results as malnourished and in a chronically poor health status- 3ther diseases may reduce appetite. while others that manifest themselves with fever increase the ener)y e8penditure &Svedber) /44/'- $he interaction amon) food insecurity. malnutrition and health status also creates problems in identifyin) the real>primary ?causes@ of death-

33

$he third human development outcome affected by food insecurity is security- $hou)h most of the literature has stressed the ne)ative impact of war and conflicts on food security. there are both theoretical ar)uments and empirical evidence supportin) the reverse side of the relationship- Ouotin) $eodosi%eviQ &/440: F'. ?Food and economic insecurity and natural resource scarcities 1 real and perceived 1 can also be ma%or sources of conflict- Bhen politically dominant )roups sei,e land and food resources. deny access to food to other culturally or economically mar)inali,ed )roups. and cause hun)er and scarcities. violence often flares-@ In the past popular rebellion and civil wars started in "e8ico and Central America as a conse!uence of )overnments denyin) the very basic ri)ht to food to the population &"esser et al- #559'- Also in African countries like Athiopia. <wanda. and Sudan. lack of access to a sufficient amount of food. followin) a drou)ht and mismana)ement of a)riculture. ?led to rebellion and )overnment collapse. followed by even )reater food shortfalls in ensuin) years of conflict@ &$eodosi%eviQ /440'- Similarly. the /449 food crisis that hit developin) countries in Africa. Asia. and Hatin America provoked rebellions and demonstrations in many countries- Finally. accordin) to many commentators. the very recent popular uprisin)s in $unisia. A)ypt. Hibya. Kemen. Bahrain and Al)eria were ?caused@. amon) other thin)s. by increasin) poverty. hun)er and unemployment as well as by an increasin) demand of democracy &Sie)enbeek van Heukelom /4##'3ne important issue is that many )overnments have. especially in the past. considered food as a matter of national security- $he fri)ht of food shorta)es was the basis for advocatin) self1 sufficiency policies in those countries dependent on food importsSimilar attitude has been recently noticed in a number of rich. food importin) &especially in the Dulf and Asia'. countries &Sie)enbeek van Heukelom /4##'- $he concept food security is very different from &and much broader than' that of food self1sufficiency: an economy with diversified productive activities which produces only a minimal part of the food consumed in the country is able to reach 34

hi)h levels of food security. as the stories of many countries show &e-)-. the Asian $i)ers'- $hus. we do not consider lack of ade!uate national food production by itself as a real concern for national security'- $onclusions $he paper constitutes one of the first attempts to provide a comprehensive. thou)h synthetic. review of several approaches for the analysis of food security. tryin) to sort out the linka)es between different frameworks- In particular. we have tried to combine the debates )oin) on since a few decades within the academic field and the debate takin) place in international or)ani,ations"oreover. we were concerned with buildin) a brid)e between the two ma%or areas of study of Amartya Sen E that on famine and hun)er. and that on human development and wellbein)- Accordin) to us. the capability approach is a direct evolution of the entitlement approach. as well as other theoretical frameworks. and can be operationali,ed in the field of food securityIn Section 0 we have provided some preliminary insi)hts on how to apply this approach- Be have identified three steps of analysis. which can pro)ressively ensure a better understandin) of food &in'security in a )iven area- $hrou)h this procedure. we could detect whether food security is really a problem of lack of assets or purchasin) power. or is mainly the result of the lack of basic capabilities such as education and access to health careFinally. in the last section we discuss. from both a theoretical and empirical perspective. the relationship between food security and human development- Such relationship is surely stron) and bilateral since food security can be viewed as an essential element of a multidimensional concept of development- In this Section we provide some insi)hts on the impact of food &in'security on

35

development outcomes such as education. health and nutrition. and security$his paper addresses a &crucial' topic. which has not been ade!uately e8amined in the capability literature- It can potentially open a wider area of study. and we hope that new contributions in this field will appear in the ne8t future-

36

;e%erences Aaby. -. Burkh. *. Hisse. I-"-. and da Silva. "-C- &#599'. ?Decline in measles mortality: ;utrition. a)e at infection. or e8posureP@ British "edical *ournal. /5F: #//61#//9Alkire. S- &/44/' Caluin) Freedoms: Sen2s Capability Approach and overty <eduction. 38ford :niversity ress. 38fordArimond and <uel &/44=' LDietary Diversity Is Associated with Child ;utritional Status: Avidence from ## Demo)raphic and Health Surveys2 *ournal of ;utrition. #0=&#4'- pp- /6751/696Burchi. F- and De "uro. - &/447' Aducation for <ural eople and Food Security: A Cross1country Analysis. FA3. <omeBurchi. F- &/4#4' LChild nutrition in "o,ambi!ue in /440: $he role of mother2s schoolin) and nutrition knowled)e.2 Aconomics and Human Biolo)y. 9: 00#10=6Chambers. <obert &#590' <ural Development: uttin) the Hast FirstHondon( ;ew Kork: Hon)manChambers. <obert &#597'. LSustainable livelihoods. environment and development: puttin) poor rural people first2. Discussion aper /=4. Institute of Development Studies. :niversity of Susse8. Bri)hton. :G Chambers. <obert &#556' L overty and livelihoods: whose reality countsP2. Anvironment and :rbani,ation. 7: #70 Chambers. <- and Conway. D- &#55/' Sustainable <ural Hivelihoods: ractical Concepts for the /#st Century. IDS Discussion aper /5F. Bri)hton: IDS

37

Chen. Hu!. and D2Sou,a &#59#' LSe8 Bias in the Family Allocation of Food and Health Care in <ural Ban)ladesh2 opulation and Development <eview. 7&#'- pp- 64174Crocker. D-A- &/449' Athics of Dlobal Development A)ency. Capability. and Deliberative Democracy. Cambrid)e :niversity ress. Cambrid)e "ACurtis. - G- &#550'- Famine household copin) strate)ies: their usefulness for understandin) household response to armed conflict<efu)ee Studies Centre- 38ford. *anuary /= Das Dupta. "- &#597' LSelective Discrimination A)ainst Female Children in <ural un%ab. India2 opulation and Development <eview. #0&#'- pp- 771#44Davies. S- &#550' RAre copin) strate)ies a cop outPR. IDS Bulletin. v/=. no- =-. pp- F417/ DA;$3;. *ohn A- &#554' Society and the official world: a reintroduction to sociolo)y. Deneral Hall. Di8 Hills ;-KDevereu8. S-. Baulch. B-. Hussein. G-. Shoham. *-. Sida. H- and Bilcock. D- &/44='. Improvin) the analysis of food insecurity- Food insecurity measurement. livelihoods approaches and policy: applications in FICI"S. Food Insecurity and Culnerability Information and "appin) Systems &FICI"S'. FA3. September Department for International Development- &#555'- Sustainable Hivelihoods Duidance Sheet: Introduction- HondonDre,e. *- and Sen. A- &#595' Hun)er and :niversity ress. 38fordublic Action. 38ford

Allis. F- &/444' <ural livelihoods and diversity in developin) countries. 38ford :niversity ress. 38ford

38

Food and A)riculture 3r)ani,ation &#590'. Borld Food Security: a <eappraisal of the Concepts and Approaches. Director Deneral2s <eport. <omeFood and A)riculture 3r)ani,ation &#55F'- <ome Declaration on Borld Food Security and Borld Food Summit lan of Action. FA3. <omeFood and A)riculture 3r)ani,ation &/44#'. $he State of Food Insecurity in the Borld /44#. FA3. <omeFood and A)riculture 3r)ani,ation &/4#4'. $he State of Food Insecurity in the Borld /4#4. FA3. <omeFrankenber)er. $-<- &#55/' LIndicators and Data Collection "ethods for assessin) Household Food Security2 in S- "a8well and $-<Frankenber)er &Ads-'. Household Food Security: Concepts. Indicators. "easurements- A $echnical <eview. :;ICAF. ;ew Kork( IFAD. <omeDriffen. G- and Ghan. A-<- &#577' overty and Handlessness in <ural Asia- IH3. DenevaHAO. "- &#57F' $he overty Curtain. Columbia :niversity ress. ;ew KorkHarriss. B- &#556' L$he Intrafamily Distribution of Hun)er in South Asia.2 in *- Dre,e. A- Sen. and A- Hussain &Ads-'. $he olitical Aconomy of Hun)er: Selected Assays. Bider. Clarendon ress. 38fordHoddinott and Kohannes &/44/' LDietary Diversity as a Food Security Indicator2 FC;D Discussion aper. #0F. IF <IHussein. G- &/44/'- $he relevance of livelihoods approaches to food insecurity measurement- AHDIS>IDS39

*aspars S- &/44F'- LFrom food crisis to fair trade: livelihoods analysis. protection and support in emer)encies. Amer)ency ;utrition ;etwork . Special Supplement Series. ;o 0. "arch GA;$. D- &/446' Freedom from Bant: $he Human <i)ht to Ade!uate Food. Deor)etown :niversity ress. Bashin)ton D-CInternational Habour 3r)ani,ation &#57F'. Amployment. Drowth. and Basic ;eeds. a 3ne Borld roblem. IH3. Deneva"a)rabi. Chun). Cha. and Kan) &#55#' $he Aconomics of Household Consumption. rae)er ublishers. ;ew Kork"a8well. D- &#556' "easurin) Food Insecurity: $he Fre!uency and Severity of SCopin) Strate)iesS. FC;D Discussion aper. ;o 9. IF <I "a8well. D-. Ahiadeke. C-. Hevin. C-. Armar1Glemesu. "-. Makariah. S- and Hamptey D- "- &#555'- Alternative Food1Security Indicators: <evisitin) the Fre!uency and Severity of ?Copin) Strate)ies-@ Food olicy /= &#555': =##E =/5"a8well. D-. Batkins. B-. Bheeler. <- and Collins D- &/440'- $he Copin) Strate)ies Inde8: A $ool for <apid "easurement of Household Food Security and the Impact of Food Aid ro)rams in Humanitarian Amer)encies- Field "ethods "anual- Developed for CA<A Aastern and Central Africa <e)ional "ana)ement :nit &CA<A1AA<":' and Borld Food ro)ramme Culnerability Assessment and "appin) &CA"' :nit"a8well. S-. and Smith. "- &#55/' LHousehold Food Security: A Conceptual <eview2 in S- "a8well and $-<- Frankenber)er &Ads-'. Household Food Security: Concepts. Indicators. "easurements- A $echnical <eview. :;ICAF. ;ew Kork( IFAD. <ome"a8well. S- &#55F' LFood Security: A Food olicy. /#- pp- #661#74ost1modern erspective2

40

"aslow. A-H- &#5=0' LA $heory of Human "otivation2 sycholo)ical <eview. 64- pp- 074105F"esser A-. Cohen. *-"-. D2Costa. *- &#599'- Food from eace: Breakin) the Hinks Between Conflict and Hun)er- /4/4 Cision Brief 64. Bashin)ton. D-C-: International Food olicy <esearch Institute;ussbaum. "- &/440' LCapabilities as Fundamental Antitlements: Sen and Social *ustice2 Feminist Aconomics. 5- pp- 001653smani. S- &#556' $he entitlement approach to famine: an assessment. in: G- Basu. - attanaik and G- Su,umura &Ads' Choice. Belfare and Development. 38ford :niversity ress. 38ford<eardon. $-. and "atlon. -"- &#595' LSeasonal Food Insecurity and Culnerability in Drou)ht1Affected <e)ions of Burkina Faso2 in DSahn &Ad-'. Causes and Implications of Seasonal Cariability in Household Food Security. *ohns Hopkins :niversity ress. Baltimore "D<eutlin)er. S- and Selosky. "- &#57F' "alnutrition and "a)nitude and olicy 3ptions. *ohns Hopkins. Baltimoreoverty:

<eutlin)er. S- &#59F' overty and Hun)er: Issues and opinions for Food Security in Developin) Countries. Borld Bank. Bashin)ton D-C<uel. "-$- &/44/' LIs dietary diversity an indicator of food security or dietary !ualityP A review of measurement issues and research needs2 FC;D Discussion aper. #=4. IF <ISarris. A-H- &#595' LFood Security and International Security2. Discussion aper. 04#. Centre For Aconomic olicy <esearch. Hondon-

41

Scoones. Ian &#559' ?Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis@. IDS Borkin) aper 7/. Institute of Development Studies &IDS' Sen. A-G- &#59#' LIn)redients of Famine Analysis: Availability and Antitlements2 $he Ouarterly *ournal of Aconomics. 5F- pp- =001=F=Sen. A-G- &#590' LDevelopment: Bhich way nowP2 $he Aconomic *ournal. 50&07/'- pp- 7=617F/Sen. A- &#596' Commodities and Capabilities- Amsterdam. ;ew Kork. ;orth1HollandSen. A-G- &#597' $he Standard of Hivin) &ed- D- Hawthorn'. Cambrid)e :niversity ress. Cambrid)e "ASen. A- &#595'- LDevelopment as Capability A8pansion.2 *ournal of Development lannin). no-#5. pp- =#169Sen. A-G- &#556' Ine!uality <e1e8amined. Harvard :niversity ress. Cambrid)e "ASen. A-G- &#555' Development as Freedom &Ad- A- Gnopf'. 38ford :niversity ress. ;ew KorkSen. A-G- &/44=' LCapabilities. Hists and ublic <eason: Continuin) the conversation2 Feminist Aconomics. #4- pp- 77194Shue. H- &#55F' Basic <i)hts: Subsistence. Affluence. And :-SForei)n olicy. rinceton :niversity ress. rinceton ;-*- Sibrian. <amasawmy. and "ernies &/447' L"easurin) hun)er at sub1 national levels from household surveys usin) the FA3 approach: "anual2 Borkin) aper. ;o- ASS>ASSA>446e. Statistics Division. FA3-

42

Sibrian. <- &/449' Drivin) Food Security Information from ;ational Household Bud)et Surveys. FA3. <omeSie)enbeek van Heukelom. $- &/4##'. $he emer)in) securitisation of food. http:>>www-thebrokeronline-eu>Blo)s>A1new1a)riculture1 for1food1security>$he1emer)in)1securitisation1of1food Stewart. F- &#596' Basic ;eeds in Developin) Countries. *ohns Hopkins :niversity ress. Baltimore "DStreeten. - &#59#' First $hin)s First. 38ford :niversity ress for the Borld Bank. 38fordSvedber). - &/44/' overty and :ndernutrition. Indian ed-. 38ford :niversity ress. ;ew Delhi$eodosi%eviQ. S-B- &/440'. Armed Conflicts and Food Security. ASA Borkin) aper ;o- 401##. A)ricultural and Development Aconomics Division. FA3$er,i. H- &/447' L$he Capability to be educated2 in "- Balker and A:nterhalter &Ads'. Amartya Sen2s Capability Approach and Social *ustice in Aducation. al)rave. Hondon$omkins. A- and Batson. F- &#595'. "alnutrition and Infection: A <eview. ;utrition olicy Discussion aper ;o 6. ACC>SC; State of the Art Series:;D - &#55='. Human Development <eport #55=: ;ew Dimensions of Human Security. :;D . ;ew KorkBebb and Block &/44=' L;utrition Information and Formal Schoolin) as Inputs to Child ;utrition2 Aconomic Development and Cultural Chan)e. 6/&='- pp- 94#19/4-

43

Borld Bank &#59F'. overty and Hun)er: Issues and 3ptions for Food Security in Developin) Countries. Borld Bank. Bashin)ton D-CBorld Food ro)ramme &#559'. LFood Security. Hivelihoods and Food Aid Interventions2. Back)round aper. $ime for Chan)e: Food Aid and Development Consultation. <ome. /01/= 3ctober Borld Food ro)ramme- &/44F'. Borld Hun)er Series /44F: Hun)er and Hearnin)- Borld Food ro)ramme and Stanford :niversity ressKoun) Helen. *aspars Susanne. Brown <ebecca. Fri,e *ackie and Gho)ali Hisham &/44#'. LFood1security assessments in emer)encies: a livelihoods approach2. Humanitarian ractice ;etwork. aper 0F. 3verseas Development Institute

44