The Scarcity Fallacy

"The Scarcity Fallacy" is an article written by a group of sociologists at Ohio State University. The article focuses on determining the cause of World Hunger. The authors' major argument is that scarcity of food is misconceived as the biggest cause of world hunger, while in reality the problem stems from other factors. The authors argue that the root cause of world hunger is poverty. In essence, they are saying that people go hungry because they cannot afford food, not because there is a scarcity of available food. To support this position they cite the "prevalence of hunger in the world's 77 low-income food deficit countries (LIFDCs)." They also mention that becaus of their lack of "foreign exchange in the international marketplace," these LIFDCs are not able to make much progress. The child hunger rate in Sub-Saharan Africa has dropped only 0.5 percent since 1990. However, the authors also stress that hunger does not exist only in LIFDCs but also in much of the industrialized world, including the United States. In these cases, the authors relate the prevalence of hunger to gender and ethnic inequality. Countries with these types of prejudices also have very high rates of hunger. The authors also blame various types of corruption for world hunger. They claim that corruption in food aid systems contibutes to the problem. For example, they state that food policy aid specialists "found no relationship between need and food aid in Ethiopia. Food aid was instead allocated to areas where organizations had stable operations." Overall, they argue that we should remove the blame for world hunger from food scarcity and place it on the various other factors that they mention.

I think that the authors make a lot of interesting points in this article. I think that when people think about world hunger, they often think that we need to find ways to produce more food in affected countries. As the authors point out, this in fact is not really the case. I think that the idea of producing more food needs to be tweaked to finding ways to to produce inexpensive, sustainable food in impoverished countries. I also think that we need to attack the other underlying issues that the authors mention such as inequality and corruption in government and food aid. We need a more rounded, complete approach in order to reduce and eventually wipe out world hunger.

Discussion Questions
1) What are the biggest underlying issues contributing to world hunger?
2) What approach should we take to solve world hunger?

Sweet Charity: Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement

Janet Popendieck's book "Sweet Charity: Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement" reviews issues involving emergency food systems in the United States. She begins by discussing who eats emergency food. She cites a number of statistics that all point to one general idea: poor people eat emergency food. More specifically, the emergency food demographic is comprised by large numbers minority group members and women. Popendieck then explains the problems involved in determining who gets emergency food, specifcally referring to the outdatedness and miscalculation of the poverty line. Due to the increasing standard of living and living costs, people spend more of their money on other living necessities and have little left to feed themselves and their family. Increased living costs come largely from increased housing expenses. Increased housing expenses lead not only to emergency food dependence but also homelessness and lack of shelter. Increased poverty also stems from decreasing job security, availibily, and benefits, as well as lower wages. Minimum wage jobs and unemployment leave millions of Americans below the poverty line and in need of emergency food.



In a related article (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/hung-f04.shtml), Hiram Lee analyzes a report by Feeding America (FA), an network of thousands of American food pantries and soup kitchens. I think the results are pretty shocking. first off, Lee mentions the statistic that as of january 2010 one out of every eight Americans need emergency food assisitence. In trying to understand the cause of this, Lee echoes many of the ideas brought forth by Popendieck. The problem of low wages is evident as the report reveals that over a third of FA housholds had "one or more adult family members currently employed but still struggled to get enough to eat." In the end I think that the increasing dependence on emergency foods is stemming from the global economic crisis in combination with a higher standard of living.

Discussion Questions
1) What kinds of people are resorting to emergency food systems? How is that significant?
2)Why are peole resorting to these programs?

The Mcdonaldization of Society

"The Mcdonaldization of Society" is a writing by sociologist and University of Maryland proffessor George Ritzer. Ritzer feeds off of the ideas of German political economist Max Weber (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weber/#IroCagValFra). He explains the process of "rationalization" that is revolutionizing the way Americans eat today. He breaks his theory into six categories. He begins with efficiency, explaining that our society is based on finding the "best or optimum means to any given end." This is evident in the increasing popularity of fast food and microwaveable meals. Ritzer also explains that our society looks for predictability. People like to be able to eat the exact same food (for example, a Mcdonald's burger) across the country and now the world. He also argues that societal food choices show a bigger emphasis on quantity rather than quantity. As an example he points out that Mcdonald's markets their premier burger as the "Big" Mac rather than something like the "Good" Mac. The food industry is also increasingly moving toward the use of technology and computers in place of people. Ritzer mentions cash registers with products and prices built and cashiers only having to press buttons as an example of this movement. All of these ideas collectivel constitute what Ritzer calls the "Mcdonaldization" of our society.

I think Ritzer makes a lot of interesting points in this piece and presents his ideas in an interesting way. It seems from many of his examples that Mcdonaldization is leading us toward a culture where various aspects of our society are becoming more and more "man-made" or artificial. Despite the impeding societal issues however, we continue to implement technology and move in the direction of Mcdonaldization. This is because this process is rational, hence the term "rationalization". increasing efficiency and implementing technology gives people what they want. However, it comes with drawbacks leading to increasing dehumanization of our society. So can we reach a balance? Will we go to far? Or have we already gone too far?

Discussion Questions

1) I what ways do we ourselves contribute to the Mcdonaldization of our society?

2) Where do we draw the line between rationality and irrationality?