Article http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=10&filename=634...

Search the Site By Article go

Archive Search

1 of 18 2/8/2007 5:54 PM
Article http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=10&filename=634...

EPW Special Article October 4, 2003

Registered User Available
User Email Id EPW on CD
adityaswarup@gma 2005
Password Does the Right to Food Matter?
***** Economic and
Contrary to assertions that the right to food is both 'undefinable' and
'undeliverable', an attempt is made here to clarify its nature and
Political Weekly
will put up a stall
LOGIN content, and the obligations it entails. The right to food is a right to
policies (or, is a right to a right) that enable individuals to produce or at the
Change Password acquire minimum food entitlements. From this perspective, it is Kolkata Book Fair,
evolving into an enforceable right. Its potential for channelling food January 10, 2007 to
New User aid from donors more effectively, enabling governments to do what February 21, 2007.
they should, and sharpening the focus of NGOs in a strategy to
Register Here eliminate hunger, malnutrition and famines is likely to be substantial. Do visit us at
While the realisation of this right is slow and difficult, it would be a stall No. 562
mistake to discard it on the ground that too many rights make it we look forward to
Home harder to enforce them. seeing you there.
This Issue Raghav Gaiha
Last Issue
Archives
Forthcoming While there have been impressive achievements in the battle
against poverty and other related deprivations, the scourge of
hunger and malnutrition continues to haunt large sections of the
Subscribe Now population in developing countries [IFAD 2001,
Advertise in EPW Pinstrup-Andersen 1994, Pinstrup-Andersen et al 2001]. What
Notes for adds to this concern is the possibility that the 1996 World Food
Contributors Summit goal of halving the number of food insecure people from
800 million in 1995 to 400 million in 2015 will not be achieved till
EPW Index 2030. Besides, 132 million children under the age of six – or one
in four – will be malnourished in 2020. This implies a reduction of
The Site only 20 per cent from 166 million malnourished children in 1997
Sameeksha Trust [Pinstrup-Andersen et al 2001]. The challenge, therefore, is to CURRENT
tackle food insecurity more effectively and urgently as part of a STATISTICS
Research broader strategy designed to address human insecurity, involving
Foundation persistent poverty, capability failures, social exclusion and Macroeconomic
repression, exacerbated by natural disasters and conflicts. One Indicators (27 January
Resources issue is whether the situation would be different if every individual 2007)
Books had the right to food. A related issue is whether its realisation is
contingent upon other social, economic and political rights. In State-wise Distribution
Announcements reviewing these rights – especially the right to food – I shall focus of Outstanding
Appointments on their relationship to capabilities, monitoring mechanisms, and Advances of
Scheduled Commercial
Fellowships enforceability.
Banks to Agriculture:
2002 to 2005
Let me first respond to the broader issue of why a rights-based
perspective on development – or, more specifically, the right to
food – may make a difference. A general observation is that
growth does not trickle down to or has a weak effect on the
poorest segments in rural areas characterised by acute inequality
of endowments. If asset and income inequalities worsen as a
consequence of economic liberalisation, the poverty-alleviating Click Here for
potential of growth would be even weaker [Gaiha 2003]. Weekly Email
Considering that the rural poor are not well organised or Content Alert
politically active, their acute deprivation may persist in a
democratic system. In fact, despite large budgetary allocations
and well designed anti-poverty interventions, benefits to the poor
are often insignificant [Gaiha 2000, Gaiha et al 2001]. By
contrast, the right to food as an enforceable claim to a minimum
quantity of food of a certain quality carries with it correlated

2 of 18 2/8/2007 5:54 PM
Article http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=10&filename=634...

duties on the part of others, particularly the state. These

comprise the duty to avoid loss of means of subsistence, to
protect against deprivation of the means of subsistence, and to
provide for the subsistence of those unable to provide for their
own [Shue 1980]. Recognition of these duties may (1) help
channel food aid more effectively; (2) enable governments to do
the things that they should by providing a solid foundation for
development programmes/ policies, and to build a consensus in
their favour; and (3) sharpen the focus of civil society
organisations (CSOs) as active agents in a public strategy to
eliminate hunger, malnutrition and famines.1,2 Much, of course,
will depend on the specific form of the right to food, the
corresponding duties/obligations and the implementation
mechanisms, as discussed below.

Following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the

United Nations in 1948 (UDHR) and the International Covenants
on Civil and Political Rights, and on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly in 1966, the right to food is now formalised as
a basic human right in a wide-ranging but interrelated normative
system.3,4 At the international level, there are two other legal
instruments that are relevant to this right. These are the
Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW).5

Among the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, a major

concern is the right to food of indigenous population groups,
especially because of the increasing erosion of their traditional
entitlements and procurement of food as a consequence of
market forces.6 Although this concern is reflected in the agenda
of the international community, some initiatives have not
progressed much. There is a need to; (1) elaborate the draft
United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Rights, which is still
pending before the ad hoc working group of the Commission on
Human Rights; and to (2) complete the work for the
establishment of a Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples
[WANAHR Secretariat 1996, Daes 2002].

The separation between civil and political rights on the one hand,
and economic, social and cultural rights on the other, in the two
covenants was based on the contentious argument that the two
sets of rights were of a different nature and, therefore, needed
different instruments [Eide 1996]. Civil and political rights were
supposed to be ‘absolute’ and ‘immediate’ while economic, social
and cultural rights were essentially programmatic, to be realised
gradually. A related assumption was that civil and political rights
were ‘justiciable’ whereas economic, social and cultural rights
were essentially aspirational. Moreover, it was believed that the
latter were costly as their implementation required the state to
provide welfare to the individual. It is, however, arguable that
there are close links between and within these two sets of rights.
First, civil and political rights are the foundation of economic and
social rights. The right to food, for example, cannot be secured in
a sustainable way when the poor cannot speak out against
corruption and discrimination, and cannot form an association to

3 of 18 2/8/2007 5:54 PM
Article http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=10&filename=634...

protect their collective interests. Nor would civil and political

rights (such as the right to free expression) mean much if food
entitlements collapse in an economic crisis.7 Equally, there is a
strong interdependence within economic, social and cultural
rights. Realisation of the right to food, for example, is contingent
upon the rights to work and property. So assigning greater
importance/priority to one set of rights and/or to specific
components within either set is problematic. In what follows, I
shall concentrate on the right to food as a requirement that
everybody has access at all times to adequate food or means for
its procurement [Robinson 2002].

Poverty, Rights and Capabilities

Sen’s (1989) capability approach provides a conceptual link

between poverty and rights. Poverty could be viewed as a denial
of rights. These rights relate to certain fundamental freedoms,
especially the freedom to avoid hunger, disease and illiteracy.8
Their denial is linked closely to lack of command over economic
resources. The capability approach, on the other hand, focuses
on a set of ‘functionings’– the things that a person can do or be.
The well-being of the individual thus depends on the level of
functionings that he values, for example, how well he can be free
from hunger or how well he can take part in the life of a
community. Capabilities refer to a person’s freedom or
opportunities to achieve well-being in this sense.9 Since poverty
implies acute deprivation, some basic capability failures are
particularly relevant. These include the failure to being
adequately nourished, clothed and sheltered. As these capability
failures are a consequence of the lack of economic resources,
these are deemed as reflecting poverty.10 The link between
poverty and rights through basic freedoms is thus concretised by
the capability approach11 [Osmani 1999, Sengupta 2000, Hunt et
al 2002]. While the capability approach has been influential in the
development literature, some difficulties remain.12 These relate
to whether thresholds can be unambiguously specified for basic
functionings and whether there is an acceptable range of
trade-offs between them.13

In practical terms, the right to food translates into food

entitlements, that is, enforceable claims on the delivery of food.
These entitlements could be based on trade, production, own
labour and inheritance. Following Eide et al (2001), food
entitlements are conditional on the right to property in two ways.
One is that ownership of land makes it possible to cultivate food.
Alternatively, other commodities grown on land could be
exchanged for food. Given the inequality in the distribution of
land, it is further argued that those excluded from land ownership
must rely on their own labour in securing their food entitlements.
An issue here is whether extreme inequality in land distribution
must be taken as given even if it violates the right to food or
whether the state has a role in making the distribution less
unequal to facilitate the fulfilment of this right. There are complex
but well-documented ways in which inequality in land distribution
affects food entitlements. Wage rates of agricultural labourers, for
example, tend to be lower in oligopsonistic labour markets [Gaiha

4 of 18 2/8/2007 5:54 PM
Article http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=10&filename=634...

1995]. On the other hand, given access to credit, information and

market networks, land redistribution may boost productivity
[Bardhan 2003]. One reason for taking land distribution as given
is that it would violate the right to property. If the right to property
is held to be inviolable, as the libertarians do, land redistribution
cannot be justified to alleviate hunger.14 Typically, since they do
not recognise the right to subsistence or food, conflicts between
the right to property and the right to food cannot arise.15
Moreover, they maintain that rights entail almost exclusively
‘negative’ duties. Any positive action for or assistance to the
indigent (such as land redistribution) thus lacks a moral
justification. Even if existing property rights are legitimate, a
contentious issue, it is not obvious that protecting them would
serve freedom better than preventing starvation.16 If the latter is
given priority, a case could be made out for a market-mediated
land redistribution. Since this form of land redistribution requires
progressive land taxation, elimination of input subsidies and a
functioning land market, some positive action is involved. It is
generally agreed that there may be less political resistance to it
than to land confiscation (above a ceiling) but it is doubtful
whether the poorest segments would benefit much from it
[Binswanger and Elgin 1998]. This is not to suggest that land
redistribution has a weak case but to emphasise that it must be
supplemented by other policies, as discussed below.

Issues of Implementation

The responsibility for the implementation of the right to food vests

mainly in national authorities of each state. In recognition of this
responsibility, many countries have enshrined the right to
adequate food in their national constitutions.17 None of them,
however, has translated this right into specific legal obligations.
Nor are there any effective national or international mechanisms
to monitor progress in implementing it.18 As implementation of
this right is a major concern, three areas of state responsibility
are: (1) the obligation to respect, (2) the obligation to protect, and
(3) the obligation to fulfil.19 The first obligation refers to the
state’s duty not to interfere in the livelihood of its subjects or their
abilities to provide for themselves. The second obligation entails
the creation of a regulatory environment conducive to the
protection of the right to food (the state, for example, has a
responsibility in setting food safety standards, and in protecting
land tenure system). The third obligation requires positive action
by the state in identifying vulnerable groups and in facilitating
their access to food-producing resources or income generation
[FAO 1998]. States are obliged to take all appropriate steps to
achieve progressively the right to adequate food, subject to the
maximum of their available resources.20,21

Some elaboration of these correlated duties may be helpful.

Following Shue (1980), an important point is that this threefold
classification of duties holds for any moral right (such as the right
to security). In that case, the distinction between ‘negative’ and
‘positive’ rights – the presumption that civil and political rights are
negative while social and economic rights are positive – is
undermined.22 Consequently, whether the latter are costlier to

5 of 18 2/8/2007 5:54 PM
Article http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=10&filename=634...

implement is not self-evident. Indeed, as argued below, the right

to food may not be as costly as is often assumed, since it
involves state provision of food only in special circumstances.

If no one is deprived of the only means of subsistence, the duty

or obligation to protect ceases to be important. But this would be
a special case. In general, the state would have an important role
in “enforcing the primary duty of avoiding the destruction of
people’s means of subsistence” [Shue 1980:348]. Often it is
difficult to assign the responsibility to any one person or a group
for depriving someone of the only means of subsistence. So the
duty to protect is not confined to physical restraint but also
encompasses the design of laws and institutions that would
discourage the deprivation of subsistence. The third
duty/obligation to fulfil/assist may take three different forms:
duties attached to special roles or relationships (such as those of
parents towards their children); duties required to mitigate
failures to avoid depriving others of their only means of
subsistence and the failure to protect this deprivation; and the
duties to assist victims of natural disasters (such as earthquakes,
floods).

Some general observations on these duties may be helpful. One

is that complete reliance on either the duty to avoid or
protect may neither be feasible nor desirable. The duty to avoid,
for example, may require degrees of self-restraint on the part of
individuals or groups or organisations that are rarely observed.
On the other hand, law enforcement agencies may misuse the
power vested in them. So both duties to avoid and protect must
be fulfilled. A second point is that a narrow interpretation of one
duty broadens the scope of the other and thus makes it harder to
fulfil.23 Finally, to the extent that these duties are fulfilled, the
third duty to assist becomes less burdensome. However, past
neglect of communities/regions does add substantially to the
burden of assisting them in securing their basic entitlements
(such as tribal communities). But there is no reason to presume
that in general it is costlier to fulfil the right to food than civil and
political rights [Shue 1980, UN 2002]. This is further elaborated
below.

Right to Policies

As noted earlier, the failure to enact right to food as a legal right

as opposed to a social standard or an obligation, is often
rationalised on the grounds that it would be prohibitively
expensive to the state; that it is extremely difficult to define it in
legally enforceable terms; that it would involve redistribution of
privately held resources; and that it may be misused by
repressive governments [Pinstrup-Andersen et al 1995]. That
some of these arguments are exaggerated or specious has
already been emphasised. So a few additional remarks are made
below.

First, non-justiciability of the right to food is a presumption that

warrants careful scrutiny. In South Africa, for example, it has
been declared justiciable, subject to progressive realisation.24
India too has made some progress towards this objective, as
described below. Secondly, since the right to food does not

6 of 18 2/8/2007 5:54 PM
Article http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=10&filename=634...

involve state provision of food except under special

circumstances of failures of duties to avoid and protect, and
natural disasters, in an important sense it could be viewed as a
right to policies (or, as a right to a right) that enables individuals
to produce or acquire minimum food requirements [Osmani
1999].25 This may yield useful insights into whether
non-fulfilment of the right to food is due to insufficiency of public
resources or due to the policies followed, or both. But at the
same time, some difficulties must not be overlooked. One is that
access to income and procurement of food – or, more generally,
food entitlements of some vulnerable sections – are subject to
vagaries of market forces.26 If there is agreement on minimum
food entitlements, it is arguable, market-induced variations could
be assessed and dealt with through appropriate policies.27 But it
is a moot point whether there will be a consensus on the policy
mix (for example, price incentives versus technological and
infrastructural support). A related issue is awareness building to
facilitate fulfilment of this right. From this perspective, a crucial
requirement is a clear enunciation of time-bound objectives and a
coherent policy framework. Moreover, although not specific to the
right to food, what really matters is the effective use of resources
in enforcement. As experience accumulates – both juridical and
policy related – these costs may decline substantially.28,29
Finally, a case could also be made for a compact between donor
countries and multilateral development agencies on the one
hand, and some of the poorest countries on the other, to help
them realise the right to food within a specified period of time
[Sengupta 2000].

NGOs/CSOs have an important role in implementing the right to

food, both internationally and nationally. First, NGOs have played
an advocacy role in according greater recognition to the right to
food, and in initiating an international code of conduct. This code
of conduct is designed to overcome some weaknesses in the
human rights instruments that recognise the right to food, for
example, lack of precision in the description of this right and the
state obligations involved in achieving it.30 Secondly, through
their participation in the regular sessions of the Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, NGOs have also
highlighted violations of the right to food. At the national level too,
the role of NGOs in according greater legitimacy to this right, in
exposing its violations and in promoting its justiciability have
been significant.31

One apprehension is that the right to food may induce a perverse

behavioural response, for example, encourage dependence on
public distribution of subsidised food.32 A recent study-based on
Sri Lankan data has drawn attention to a reduction in labour
supply, as a consequence of a food subsidy.33 The analysis,
however, is not sufficiently detailed to throw light on the
underlying mechanisms. More specifically, it is not ascertained
whether the reduction in labour supply is because of time wasted
in obtaining subsidised food or whether it reflects substitutability
between different types of income. In any case, withdrawal of
food subsidies is not likely to be resisted if it is part of a package
of policy reforms with a coherent and well-publicised rationale

7 of 18 2/8/2007 5:54 PM
Article http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=10&filename=634...

[Gaiha 1993]. So the apprehension that the poor are likely to

become dependent on subsidised food is exaggerated, if not
mistaken altogether.34

I shall draw upon two sets of experiences: one relates to the role
of social activism in converting benefits of nutritional programmes
into legally enforceable claims, and the second to the benefits of
the public distribution system in India. The review is selective
mainly to ensure a focused treatment.

Social activism: A landmark case on the right to food was

brought before the Indian Supreme Court in May 2001. The
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), jointly with other
NGOs, brought a complaint against the ministry of consumer
affairs and public distribution, Food Corporation of India(FCI) and
six state governments. They held the federal institutions and the
state governments responsible for mass malnutrition, and
demanded that the country’s huge foodgrain stocks be used to
prevent hunger and starvation. On November 28, 2001, the
Supreme Court passed a significant interim order. This has three
components: (1) it converts the benefits of nutrition-related
programmes into legal entitlements; (2) it directs all state and
central governments to ensure public awareness and
transparency of these programmes; and (3) it directs all state
governments to introduce cooked mid-day meals in primary
schools within six months. This interim order is intended to clear
the way for other considerations sought in the PUCL petition,
particularly the introduction of an all-india ‘employment guarantee
scheme’ [Dreze nd]. Progress, however, has been slow and
uneven. On the basis of field visits in a few highly deprived areas
in Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand in recent months,
Dreze (nd) reported:

Everywhere I went, the situation was similar: the

public distribution system has more or less broken
down, and there are no employment programmes in
the villages. The only food-based programme that
seems to be achieving a modicum of success is the
Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY), a programme of
food-based social security for destitute
35
households. Except for this limited scheme,
India’s food mountains remain out of reach of
hunger-affected people (p 4). But the right to food
campaign has had a significant catalytic effect in
some areas. In Manatu block in Palamau district,
Jharkhand, for example, a lively public hearing on
hunger and the right to food took place on July 9,
2002. Thousands of hunger-affected people turned
up at this hearing and demanded their due.

Anguished at the non-implementation of its interim order, the

Supreme Court warned in a recent statement: “(For) any state
which does not comply with the directions to implement the
mid-day meal scheme, there will be no transfer of central funds”
(The Times of India, September 4, 2002). So even though gains
have been limited in terms of greater access of the poor and
hungry to surplus food, the likely gains from conversion of
benefits of nutritional programmes into legally enforceable

8 of 18 2/8/2007 5:54 PM
Article http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=10&filename=634...

entitlements would be substantial.

Public distribution system: The PDS is a joint responsibility of the

central and state governments. While the FCI procures, stores
and transports the commodities to central godowns, the state
governments lift them from these godowns and distribute them
through a networks of fair price shops. In general, all persons (or
ration card holders) in a village/town/city are entitled to draw
supplies at fixed prices. However, in a few states (such as
Andhra Pradesh), some restrictions are imposed. The issue price
of the FCI is lower than the cost incurred by it and the difference
is met through a central government subsidy. The PDS price is
fixed by each state government after adding its distribution costs
to the issue price. Also, foodgrains are allocated from the central
pool to special employment programmes, undertaken during
slack periods, for part payment of wages. A scheme to revamp
the PDS (RPDS) was launched in January 1992. It concentrates
on 1,752 backward and remote blocks in drought-prone, desert,
hill and tribal areas. Foodgrain in these areas is sold at prices
lower than in other PDS outlets. In 1997, the government
announced some drastic changes that led to the targeted PDS
(TPDS). This scheme offers two separate distribution channels:
one aimed at poor households and the other for the rest of the
population. Under the first channel, the central government
transfers to the state governments wheat and rice at about half
the issue price set for the PDS. The monthly ration is 10 kg per
poor household.36 State governments have to identify the poor,
issue special cards, and deliver foodgrains to them. Under the
second channel, to be phased out gradually, the central
government transfers to state governments wheat and rice at an
issue price close to the market price. But even the TPDS has not
performed well [Rakshit 2003]. Two sets of evidence are
reviewed below: one on targeting failures and another on the
effect of the PDS on consumer price of food. The former is not
very recent but strikingly illustrates the targeting failures of the
RPDS. The latter focuses on the strong causal role of food prices
in aggravating hunger [Gaiha 1999].
Targeting: Although the evidence on the targeting of the RPDS is
limited, it is suggestive of persistent inequity.37The main findings
are stated below: (1) The virtual exclusion of poor states (such as
Bihar and Uttar Pradesh) from the PDS persists. In fact, none of
the four villages surveyed in Bihar received any supplies, nor did
three out of the four in Uttar Pradesh. (2) In Uttar Pradesh, in the
only village that received PDS supplies, among the two lowest
expenditure classes, the share of PDS supplies in total cereal
consumption was also the lowest.
(3) In Kerala, all expenditure classes depended heavily on PDS
supplies of rice, including the poorest. In Andhra Pradesh, on the
other hand, PDS supplies accrued mostly to the two poorest
groups.
(4) In most cases (including two villages in Kerala), the per capita
monthly consumption of rice/cereals among the two poorest
groups ranged from under 2 kg to 4 kg.
Price of food: A controversial aspect of the PDS is its effect on
the (consumer) price of food. Even if the targeting of the PDS is
unsatisfactory, the benefit to the poor would be large if it has a
significant price dampening effect. Theoretically, the effect is
ambiguous [Schiff 1994]. Empirical analyses, on the other hand,

9 of 18 2/8/2007 5:54 PM
Article http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=10&filename=634...

are ad hoc or incomplete.38Accordingly, an attempt is made

below to analyse the effect of the PDS on the consumer price
index for agricultural labourers (food), CPIAL, in a macro
formulation.39 Changes in the CPIAL are posited to depend on:

D ln (CPIAL)t = a + b1 D ln (M3)t-1 + b2 ln (Food) t-1 + b3 ln

(GFD) t-1 + b4 ln (PDS) t-1 + b5 Dt + b1 T
where
M3 – money supply,
Food – share of food production in total agricultural output,
PDS – share of foodgrains distributed through PDS,
GFD – gross fiscal deficit as a proportion of GDP,
D – a dummy variable (= 1 for 1991-92 and 1992-93 and 0
otherwise),
T – time,
t – time subscript,

and the error term is omitted. All variables (except T and the
dummy) are in logarithms.

The results based on GLS (Prais-Winsten) are given in the

table.40All coefficients have expected signs. Fiscal deficit has a
positive effect (significant at the 5 per cent level) on the CPIAL;
share of food output has a negative effect, as also the share of
PDS supplies (both significant at the 5 per cent level); the
dummy has a positive effect (significant at the 5 per cent level),
and, after accounting for these influences, there is a positive
trend in the CPIAL (significant at the 10 per cent level). It is
intriguing why overall fiscal deficit has an inflationary effect but
money supply does not.41This warrants further investigation
since the latter has a direct relationship with prices.
Reforms: As a detailed exposition of the important reforms is
given elsewhere, the main points are summarised below.42 One
is the need for flexibility in designing food subsidies so that they
could be phased out when economic conditions improved. To
avoid violent reactions, the withdrawal of food subsidies could be
rationalised as part of a package of policy reforms perceived to
be fair.43 As means testing at frequent intervals is costly, careful
attention must be given to commodity and/or area targeting, and
to overcoming weak private trade channels through alternative
distribution networks (such as distribution of subsidised food
through rural health centres and schools). There is also a need
for simplifying/relaxing elaborate and complicated registration
procedures and other restrictions to enable the poor to have
easier access to food rations (for example, migrant workers are
excluded if they do not have a local address).44 Whether the
poor themselves can check corruption in the operation of the
PDS remains to be demonstrated.45,46 Overstocking of food by
FCI must be avoided, as storage costs impose a huge financial
burden on the central government.47

Table: Determinants of CPIAL, 1979-94

10 of 18 2/8/2007 5:54 PM
Article http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=10&filename=634...

Explanatory Variable Praise-Winsten

Coefficient t-ratio
Constant 5.462 5.979
D In (M3) -0.019 -0.062
In(GFD) 0.166 3.023*
In (Food) -0.461 -5.954*
In (PDS) -0.127 -2.267*
D 0.092 4.604*
T 0.009 1.699*
N=15
Notes:* Denotes significance at 5 per cent or lower level
and** denote significance between the 5-10 per cent
levels. The final value of p=0.806. LIMDEP does not
report any measure of goodness-of-fit.

This review points to the imperative of cost-effectiveness in the

design and implementation of food subsidies.48Although their
potential in ensuring access of the needy – especially those
unable to supplement their earnings through manual work (for
instance, the old and the disabled) – to minimum quantities of
food is considerable, their unsatisfactory design and targeting
failures often impose a huge fiscal burden. Some of the reforms
sketched here are likely to reduce this burden substantially. An
important point in the present context is that these and other
pivotal welfare reforms could be organised around the right to
food, giving them greater coherence and urgency. As a result,
the effectiveness of food-for-work programmes, mid-day meal
schemes and nutritional supplements for pregnant and lactating
women may improve substantially. The right to food also
necessitates dampening of excessive retail price fluctuations.
This may speed up long overdue reforms of the retail and
wholesale trading markets where hoarding in order to facilitate
price arbitrage seems to be the norm rather than the exception
[Gaiha and Jha 2002].

An assessment of the right to food must take into account

progress in three distinct areas: specification of the meaning and
nature of food entitlements, corresponding obligations of various
public and private agencies, and enforcement mechanisms.49As
far as food entitlements are concerned, there is widespread
recognition that these represent an enforceable claim on the
state. The large number of countries that have signed the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR), as also the subset of countries that have endorsed
the right to food in their national constitutions, testify to it.50 The
precise form of this claim, however, remains vague, if not
unclear. Although some apprehensions persist about the
implications of food entitlements as an enforceable claim, and it
is far from a legal or justiciable claim, there is undoubtedly
greater willingness among many developing countries to support
and implement it. The corresponding obligations at the state level
have been spelt out. In particular, in fulfilling the right to food, the
state is not obliged to provide food except in special
circumstances (such as natural disasters). Rather, its main

11 of 18 2/8/2007 5:54 PM
Article http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=10&filename=634...

responsibility lies in pursuing policies that would ensure that

there are no shortfalls in food entitlements. A more definitive
elaboration of this responsibility is, however, difficult as both the
mix of policies and their outcomes are likely to vary in different
contexts. Despite this difficulty, the focus on policies may help
assess better whether the progress in fulfilling this right is due
largely to a resource constraint or policies chosen. Moreover, as
the awareness of this obligation grows, it is plausible that there
will be more pointed questioning of policies that do not conform
to it. The stronger is the coalition of the poor, the more effective
such questioning will be. Although the number of cases in which
such questioning has in fact taken place are few and far
between, it is significant that the process has begun and resulted
in some remedial measures. Even though non-fulfilment of the
right to food is pervasive and severe, as a consequence of policy
biases or distortions, remoteness of location, and social
exclusion, there are no clear-cut enforcement mechanisms. An
option is to devolve responsibility to local governments/bodies
that are accountable to their constituencies, especially the poor.
While it would be naïve to overlook the possibility of their
‘capture’ by local elites, there are grounds for optimism if careful
attention is given to designing stringent accountability
mechanisms to local constituencies and ensuring transparent
functioning .

Concluding Observations

In conclusion, contrary to assertions that the right to food is both

‘undefinable’ and ‘undeliverable’, it was argued that it is evolving
slowly into an enforceable right despite considerable resistance
to it. Some of the arguments used against it are exaggerated, if
not mistaken. But more significantly, its potential for enabling
governments to do what they should by providing a strong
foundation for their poverty alleviation programmes and policies,
and for sharpening the focus of CSOs as active agents in such
programmes is substantial. While realisation of this right is likely
to be slow, difficult and uncertain, it would be a mistake to
discard it on the ground that “ too many rights may well make a
wrong”.51

Address for correspondence:

rgd@bol.net.in

Notes

[This study owes much to the initiative, support and guidance of P Roy.
Others who contributed significantly with constructive suggestions include P
Scandizzo, J Toye, J Dreze, S Mathur, S Gangulee, G Thapa, R Jha, D
Bromley, Shylashri Shankar, A Rahman, S Haralambous, K Imai, Mukul
Mudgal, and F Haque-Rahman. The views expressed here are, however, the
sole responsibility of the author.]
1 NGOs and social movements have become more assertive in demanding
the full implementation of the right to food. For example, landless peasants in
Latin America call for access to land, indigenous peoples seek security for
their traditional land titles and fishers in Asia struggle against the destruction
of local fishing grounds by local fleet [Windfuhr 1998].
2 Following Dreze (nd), hunger can be interpreted in two different ways. A
narrow interpretation is the pangs of an empty stomach. In a broader
interpretation, hunger is associated with undernutrition. The latter is the
preferred interpretation here.

12 of 18 2/8/2007 5:54 PM
Article http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=10&filename=634...

3 According to UDHR Article 25 (1), “everyone has the right to a standard of

living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family,
including food, clothing, housing….”. Under ICESCR Article 11.1, the state
parties “recognise the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for
himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing…”.
Under Article11.2, the state shall take steps to “improve measures of
production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of
technical and scientific knowledge and by developing or reforming agrarian
systems”, recognising the “fundamental right of everyone to be free from
hunger”.
4 The International Bill of Human Rights, consisting of the UDHR and the
two covenants, has since been extensively elaborated through the adoption
of numerous conventions and declarations. The rights contained in these
instruments form an interrelated normative system. Over the years, detailed
provisions have been adopted in such fields as prevention of discrimination;
the rights of women; the rights of the child; prevention of slavery and forced
labour; human rights and the administration of justice, etc [Eide 1996].
5 As of 1997, 153 states had ratified or adhered to CEDAW. It has a wide
coverage including women’s rights to agricultural credit and loans, equal
treatment in land and agrarian reform schemes, organisation of self-help
groups, access to adequate health care, and so on [FAO 1998]. A significant
development is that the optional protocol to CEDAW became effective on
December 22, 2000, strengthening implementation of this convention [UN
2002].
6 These groups comprise “landless peasants, marginalised peasants, rural
workers, rural unemployed, urban unemployed, urban poor, migrant workers,
indigenous peoples, children, elderly people, and other especially affected
groups” [Eide et al 2001].
7 To some extent, the difficulties stemming from the separation of civil and
political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights are sought to be
overcome in the right to development that unifies them into an indivisible and
interdependent set of human rights and fundamental freedoms, to be enjoyed
by all human beings, “ without distinction as to race, sex, language or
religion” [Sengupta 2000]. After an intense debate and discussion, the right
to development was ratified in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of
Action in 1993.
8 This may be contrasted with the Rawlsian emphasis on primary goods.
These include political and civil liberties, and an index of income and wealth,
the latter being a prerequisite for enjoyment of positive freedom [Rawls
1971]. Sen’s (1989) capability approach, on the other hand, moves away
from an emphasis on ownership of goods to what individuals can do with
goods. This change of emphasis is significant since conversion of goods into
achievements or functionings varies among individuals (I am grateful to S
Gangulee and R Jha for suggesting that I comment on the Rawlsian
perspective.)
9 As emphasised by Sen (1993a), capabilities are defined derivatively from
functionings. In the space of functionings, any point reflects a combination of
a person’s doings and beings. The capability is a set of such functionings,
representing various combinations of doings and beings any one
(combination) of which the person can choose. So, while functionings are
about achievements, capabilities reflect opportunities.
10 The capability–based approach to poverty is not equivalent to a uniformly
low command over economic resources as the ability to convert resources
into capabilities varies with the individual (e g, individuals with different
biological characteristics may require different amounts of food to achieve
the same degree of freedom to live a healthy life).
11 Freedom is conceived here in a broad sense to include both negative and
positive freedom. In the context of the right to food, for example, negative
freedom implies absence of obstructions in pursuing a livelihood option while
positive freedom implies an environment with an expanded set of livelihood
options.
12 In an interesting exploration, Atkinson and Bourguinon (2001) focus on
absolute and relative poverty as distinct dimensions in the space of
capabilities. Viewing absolute poverty as failure to satisfy physical basic
needs and relative poverty as falling short of socially defined minimum
consumption standards, in the capability space the former implies not being
able to function satisfactorily in purely physical terms and the latter as
unsatisfactory functioning in social terms. Using World Bank data between

13 of 18 2/8/2007 5:54 PM
Article http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=10&filename=634...

1980 and 1997, and a few simplifying assumptions, he shows that the
evolution of poverty is different depending on whether a measure of absolute
poverty is used or a combination of absolute and relative poverty is
employed.
13 Sen (1993 b) is emphatic that “Even when life styles vary greatly, with
different preferences over commodity bundles…, there may be considerable
congruence in the valuation of basic functionings relevant for the analysis of
living standards…” (p 443). But this is at best an incomplete defence.
14 This conflicts with the libertarian view in which neither inequality nor
poverty reduction justifies redistribution of assets acquired legitimately. For a
forceful exposition of this view, see Nozick (1974).
15 For an exposition of the libertarian view, see Hausman and Mcpherson
(2000).
16 For an elaboration, see Hausman and Mcpherson (2000).
17 Twenty countries have incorporated the right to food or a related norm in
their constitutions [FAO 1998]. One of the most explicit is in the South
African constitution, which stipulates that “everyone has the right to have
access to …sufficient food and water.” However, there are still relatively few
countries which have implemented a framework law on the right to food, or
broad -ranging national legislation to protect it [UN 2002]..
18 This right along with others included in the economic, social and cultural
rights are monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. The monitoring, however, has been unsatisfactory because of the
vagueness of this right and the format of reporting by governments. Also,
while there is an optional protocol to the covenant on civil and political rights
enabling individuals to file complaints, a similar complaint mechanism does
not exist for the economic, social and cultural rights. As a result, monitoring
of progress in implementing the right to food is further constrained.
19 Note that this classification is similar to that proposed by Shue (1980) to
which a reference was made earlier. One important point to note here is that
these duties are not limited to the state and involve individuals as well as
groups of individuals. Individuals, for example, must refrain from depriving
someone of his only means of subsistence. In the event somebody is being
deprived, either other individuals or the state may resort to protective
measures. For an interesting example, see Sen (2001).
20 Note that available resources include “both the resources within a state
and those available from the international community through international
cooperation and assistance” [Sengupta 2000: 560].
21 In a private communication, P Scandizzo wonders about the implications
of the right to food in an economy in which all are poor. Briefly, the state will
have a role in implementing policies that will enable more food to be
produced or augment food availability through trade. In addition, such
economies would also have greater priority in food allocations if mechanisms
for enforcing the right to food through international agencies are
strengthened.
22 The right to security cannot be protected without taking a wide range of
positive actions involving a police force, criminal courts, and penitentiaries,
financed by taxes [Shue 1980].
23 If a government, for example, fails to restrict agribusinesses from causing
malnutrition, it will then be the responsibility of agribusinesses to prevent
malnutrition. But, for various reasons, agribusinesses seldom take nutritional
effects of their operations into account [Shue 1980].
24 In the case of government of the Republic of South Africa v Irene
Grootboom and others, the constitutional court utilised the criteria of
‘reasonableness’ to review government action or inaction in progressive
realisation of the rights within the limits of available resources. Its value lies
primarily in setting a precedent [UN 2002].
25 As a critique of and an alternative to constraint-based deontology, Sen
(1985) proposed the goal-rights system in which fulfilment of rights is seen as
a goal to be pursued along with other goals in designing institutions and
policies. An advantage of this view is that it allows for rights to have both
instrumental and intrinsic value, quite apart from demanding their active
fulfilment.
26 If, for example, in anticipation of disruption of supplies, excessive food
stocks are held by private traders resulting in a sharp hike in prices, public
storage may help curb speculative behaviour. But the precise relationship
need not necessarily be stable.
27 But this is easier said than done. Under certain conditions, for example,

14 of 18 2/8/2007 5:54 PM
Article http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=10&filename=634...

price controls may not stabilise incomes [Newbery and Stiglitz 1981].
28 In a negative and pessimistic piece, The Economist (August 18, 2001)
asserts that “ certain human rights in the civil and political realm have
attained the status of moral absolutes. However, giving a similar status to
economic and social rights would produce a curious outcome. Some nations
would be subject to condemnation simply because of their poverty, while
others would be arraigned for the policy outcomes of decisions-taken
democratically”. Two observations suffice here. That some civil and political
rights have the status of ‘moral absolutes’ is not unconnected with legal and
jurisprudence-related developments. While attribution of outcomes to policies
is seldom straightforward, it is not ruled out as illustrated by the South African
and Indian cases. Important prerequisites include clearly specified targets
and a set of policy instruments designed to achieve them.
29 An illustration of how the scope of a right is redefined in light of juridical
experience may be helpful. Traditionally, Article 14 of the Indian Constitution
which guarantees equality to all persons by the state forbade discrimination
between two similarly or equally situated persons. However, the scope and
content of this article have grown to include prohibition against arbitrary,
capricious and unreasonable state actions even if they affect a person on an
individual basis despite there being no differing treatment of two similarly
situated persons (I owe this example to Mukul Mudgals.
30 For example, in 1992, 144 NGOs voiced support for the right to food at
the joint World Health Organisation/Food and Agriculture Organisation
International Conference on Nutrition [Marchione 1996].
31 Increasing numbers of national NGOs have highlighted issues such as
forced evictions of small farmers, insecurity of tenancy laws, violations of
indigenous land rights, etc [FAO 1998].
32 R Jha has drawn attention to the difficulty of monitoring violations of the
right to food without being able to check a person’s or group’s nutrition
history, and the problem of moral hazard that may arise from it in claiming
assistance. This is an important issue and deserves careful attention. An
option, however, is to monitor retail prices of staple food items of the poor. A
sharp hike could signal potential or actual violations of this right.
33 Sahn and Alderman (1995) found that, in the rural areas of Sri Lanka, the
reduction in work effort had a corresponding value of 50 per cent (for males)
and 40 per cent (for females) of the value of the subsidy.
34 I am grateful to J Toye for raising this issue.
35 This was launched in December 2000. The AAY targets one crore poorest
of the poor families out of a total of 6.52 crore poor families to be covered
under the targeted public distribution system. The poorest families are
provided 35 kg food per family per month at highly subsidised prices [GoI
2003].
36 Levinson (1998) points out that the 10 kg of grain subsidised by 50 per
cent translates into just over 100 additional calories per person per day. If the
objective of the TPDS is to bring calorie levels for the poorest 30 per cent to
an average 1,900 calories per person per day, an allocation of an additional
10 kg would be necessary.
37 This is based on the results of some village studies on the RPDS in 1995
in four states, carried out by Radhakrishna (1996). See also the persuasive
critique of the allocation criteria used in the PDS by Jha et al (1999).
38 See, for example, Parikh (1994). For a critique, see Gaiha (2002).
39 This specification follows closely the Joshi-Little specification (1994),
except that the latter does not allow for the price dampening effect of the
PDS. To the extent that the PDS supplies are endogenous to anticipated
food supplies and/or price changes, an extended formulation would be more
appropriate. Although this difficulty is overcome to some extent by using the
lagged value of PDS supplies, it is arguably not eliminated. A similar caveat
applies to other explanatory variables, e g, money supply.
40 Between the Cochrane-Orcutt and Prais-Winsten estimators, the latter is
preferred since the loss of efficiency from discarding the initial observation in
the former can be substantial [Greene 1993].
41 If much of fiscal deficit is monetised, collinearity between them would
make it difficult to disentangle their separate effects. In any case, as argued
in a critique of Datt et al (2002), a structural formulation in which some of
these variables appear as endogenous, would yield richer insights [Gaiha
2002].
42 Gaiha (1999) contains a detailed review.
43 In the context of political resistance to poverty alleviation policies, Basu

15 of 18 2/8/2007 5:54 PM
Article http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=10&filename=634...

(1991) argues that it might be better to alter the constraints under which
governments operate than to alter their preferences. What is suggested here
is that it is possible to loosen the constraints by publicising the rationale of
food subsidy withdrawal.
44 In a village of Karnataka, Mooij (1999) reports that the ration has to be
bought all at once, as the ration shop sells the rationed commodities only
during the last week of a month. Given the liquidity constraint of a typical
casual labourer, this requirement is likely to exclude some.
45 Basu (1991) argues persuasively that this may happen if the poor become
more demanding and more conscious of their rights, since “what is
acceptable depends, at least in part, on what we consider to be acceptable”
(p 370).
46 For a review of the constraints on collective action by the rural poor, see
Gaiha et al (2000).
47 In this context, Lipton’s (1995) suggestions merit serious consideration: (i)
farmers (rather than traders) are permitted to hold stocks bought forward by
the FCI, or (ii) it purchases a lien (right of first purchase) from farmers. Either
of these would of course be a substitute only in part for FCI stocks held
directly. The leakages and losses would be much lower, because on-farm
storage losses tend to be relatively small. On an alternative option of a
stock-trade strategy, see Parikh (1998). A more recent and by far the most
comprehensive reappraisal of the PDS with a number of interesting
proposals is Rakshit (2003). Two specific proposals in the context of the
rapidly burgeoning food subsidy (food subsidy of the central government as a
fraction of the GDP, for example, rose from 0.48 per cent in 1990-91 to 0.84
per cent in 2001-2002) merit serious consideration: one is use of foreign
exchange reserves as a substitute for buffer foodgrain stocks, and the
second is buffer stock norms that vary with the crop cycle.
48 When both central and state level expenses are accounted for a rupee of
income transferred to the poor in Andhra Pradesh at a cost of Rs 6.35 in
1986-87. If it was as dismal as this in Andhra Pradesh with a relatively
efficient administrative system, it would have been much worse in some of
the poorer states (e g, Bihar). For details, see Radhakrishna et al (1997).
49 This is in response to a basic concern expressed by D Bromley in a
private communication.
50 It is of course plausible that such an endorsement makes it easier to give
it a legal status, other things being equal.
51 This is in response to the concluding observation in The Economist
(August 18, 2001:20).

References

Atkinson, A B and F Bourguinon (2001): ‘Poverty and Inclusion from a World

Perspective’ in J E Stiglitz and Pierre-Alain Muet (eds), Governance, Equity,
and Global Markets, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bardhan, P (2003): Poverty, Agrarian Structure and Political Economy in
India, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
Basu, K (1991): ‘The Elimination of Endemic Poverty in South Asia – Some
Policy Options’ in J Dreze and Amartya Sen (eds), The Political Economy of
Hunger, Vol 111, Endemic Hunger, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Binswanger, H and M Elgin (1999): ‘Relationship between Land Reforms and
Farm Size’ in C K Eicher and J M Staatz (eds), International Agricultural
Development, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Daes, E (2002): ‘Protection of the World’s Indigenous Peoples and Human
Rights’ in J Symonides (ed), Human Rights: Concept and Standards, Rawat
Publications, New Delhi.
Datt, G, V Kozel and M Ravallion (2002): ‘A Model-Based Assessment of
India’s Progress in Reducing Poverty in the 1990s’, draft.
Dreze, J (nd): ‘Right to Food: From the Courts to the Streets’, typescript.
Eide, A (1996): ‘Human Rights Requirements to Social and Economic
Development’ in Food Policy, Vol 21, No 1 (Special Issue on Nutrition and
Human Rights).
Eide, A, C Krause and A Rosas (2001): ‘The Right to an Adequate Standard
of Living Including the Right to Food’, a chapter in Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights – A Textbook, Mrtinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht.
FAO (1998): ‘Implementation of the Right to Food in National Legislation’,
FAO Legal Office, mimeo, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United

16 of 18 2/8/2007 5:54 PM
Article http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=10&filename=634...

Nations, Rome.
Gaiha, R (1993): Design of Poverty Alleviation Strategy in Rural Areas, FAO,
Rome.
– (1995): ‘Does Agricultural Growth Matter in Poverty Alleviation?’,
Development and Change, Vol 26.
– (1999): ‘Food, Prices and Income in India’, Canadian Journal of
Development Studies, Vol xx.
– (2000): ‘Do Anti-Poverty Programmes Reach the Rural Poor in India?’,
Oxford Development Studies, Vol 28.
– (2002): ‘Income and Expenditure Switching among the Impoverished
during Structural Adjustment in India’, Economics of Planning, Vol 35.
– (2003): ‘Are Millennium Goals of Poverty Reduction Useful?’, Oxford
Development Studies, Vol 31.
Gaiha, R, K Imai and P D Kaushik (2001): ‘On the Targeting and
Cost-Effectiveness of Anti-Poverty Interventions in Rural India’, Development
and Change, April.
Gaiha, R and R Jha (2002): The Right to a Proper Meal, The Economic
Times, August 26.
GoI (2003): Economic Survey 2002-2003, Government of India, New Delhi.
Greene,W H (1999): Econometric Analysis, Second Edition, Macmillan, New
York.
Hausman, D M and M S McPherson (2000): Economic Analysis and Moral
Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hunt, P, M Nowak and S Osmani (2002): Draft Guidelines on a Human
Rights Approach to Poverty Reduction Strategies’, United Nations Office of
the High Commissioner for Human Right, mimeo.
IFAD (2001): Rural Poverty Report 2001, Oxford University Press, New York.
Joshi, V and I M D Little (1994): India: Macroeconomics and Political
Economy, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
Levinson, F J (1998): ‘India: Sector Review of Nutrition Programmes’, World
Bank, New Delhi, mimeo.
Lipton, M (1995): ‘Liberalisation, Poverty Reduction and Agricultural
Development in India’ in R Cassen and V Joshi (eds), India; The Future of
Economic Reforms, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
Marchione, T J (1996): ‘The Right to Food in the Post-Cold War Era’ in Food
Policy, Vol 21, No 1 (Special Issue on Nutrition and Human Rights).
Mooij, J (1999): Food Policy and the Indian State, Oxford University Press,
Delhi.
Newbery, D and J E Stiglitz (1981): The Theory of Commodity Price
Stabilisation: A Study in the Economics of Risk, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Nozick, R (1974): Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basic Books, New York.
Parikh, K (1994): ‘Who Gets How Much from PDS – How Effectively Does It
Reach the Poor?, Sarvekshana, Vol xvii.
Parikh, K (1998): ‘Food Security: Individual and National’ in I Ahluwalia and
IMD Little (eds), India’s Economic Reforms and Development, Oxford
University Press, Delhi.
Osmani, S (1999): ‘Human Rights to Food, Health and Education’, draft.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P (1994): ‘World Food Trends and Future Food Security’,
IFPRI, mimeo, Washington DC.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P, D Nygaard and A Ratta (1995): ‘The Right to Food:
Widely Acknowledged and Poorly Protected’, IFPRI: 2020 Brief 22, mimeo,
Washington DC.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P, R Pandya-Lorch and M W Rosegrant (2001): ‘Global
Food Security: A Review of the Challenges’ in Pinstrup-Andersen, P and R
Pandya-Lorch (eds), The Unfinished Agenda, IFPRI, mimeo, Washington
DC.
Jha, R, K V Bhanumurthy, H K Nagarajan, and A K Seth (1999): ‘Real
Consumption Levels and the Public Distribution System in India’, Economic
and Political Weekly, Vol 34.
Radhakrishna, R (1996): ‘Food Trends, Public Distribution System, and Food
Security Concerns’, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 51.
Radhakrishna, R, K Subbarao, S Indrakant and C Ravi (1997): India’s Public
Distribution System: A National and International Perspective, World Bank,
Washington DC.
Rakshit, M (2003): ‘Some Analytics of Medium- and Long-Term Food Policy’,
Economic and Political Weekly, May 3.
Rawls, J (1971): A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA.

17 of 18 2/8/2007 5:54 PM
Article http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=10&filename=634...

Robinson, M (2002): ‘The Right to Food: Achievements and Challenges’,

World Food Summit: Five Years Later, FAO, mimeo, Rome.
Sahn, D and H Alderman (1995): ‘Incentive Effects on Labour Supply of Sri
Lanka’s Rice Subsidy’ in D van de Walle and K Nead (eds), Public Spending
and the Poor, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Schiff, M (1994): ‘The Impact of Two-Tier Producer and Consumer Food
Pricing in India’, The World Bank Economic Review, Vol 8.
Shue, H (1980): Basic Rights, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Sen, Amartya (1985): ‘Rights as Goals’ in S Guest and A Milne (eds),
Equality and Discrimination: Essays in Freedom and Justice, Franzsteiner,
Stuttgart.
– ( 1989): ‘Food and Freedom’, World Development, Vol 17, No 6.
– (1993a): ‘Capability and Well-Being’ in M Nussbaum and Amartya Sen
(eds), The Quality of Life, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
– (1993b): ‘Christopher Bliss: Life-Style and the Standard of Living’ in M
Nussbaum and Amartya Sen (eds), The Quality of Life, Clarendon Press,
Oxford.
– (2001): On Ethics and Economics, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
Sengupta, A (2000): ‘Realising the Right to Development’, Development and
Change, Vol 31, No 3.
UN (2002): ‘Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: The Right to Food’,
Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, 58th Session,
Item 10 of the Provisional Agenda, mimeo, United Nations.
WANAHR Secretariat (1996): ‘World Alliances for Nutrition and Human
Rights’ in Food Policy, Vol 21, No 1 (Special Issue on Nutrition and Human
Rights).
Windfuhr, M (1998): ‘NGOs and the Right to Food’ in FAO, The Right to
Food – In Theory and Practice, Rome.

EDITORIALS CURRENT STATISTICS LETTER FROM SOUTH ASIA COMMENTARY

PERSPECTIVES REVIEWS SPECIAL ARTICLES DISCUSSION LETTERS

Hitkari House, 284 Shahid Bhagatsingh Road, Mumbai 400 001

Phones: 2269 6072, 2269 6073 Fax: 2269 6072
E-mail:epw@vsnl.com epw.mumbai@gmail.com

This site is hosted by and in technical consultation with Investment Research and Information Services Limited

© Copyright 2001 The Economic and Political Weekly. All rights reserved.

18 of 18 2/8/2007 5:54 PM