Summary: The Scarcity Fallacy

In this essay, the author tries to find the real cause and corresponding solutions to world hunger. According to Scanlan, the conventional wisdom about world hunger focuses on the problem of scarcity. However, his study shows that this is not the case today. He believes that “world hunger has less to do with the shortage of food than with a shortage of affordable or accessible food” (Scanlan 2010, para. 4). By this he means that “social inequalities, distribution systems, and other economic and political factors create barriers to food access” (Scanlan 2010, para. 5) are more responsible for the world hunger today. Following this conclusion, Scanlan argues that the current focus of the major food agencies in the world, which points to food scarcity, does not aim at the essential cause of hunger and thus will not be effective. He then points out that in specific, “poverty, inequality, conflict, and corruption” (Scanlan 2010, para. 27) are the actual crucial contributors to world hunger and all these factors “fit together, reinforce one another, and even intensify the impacts of … scarcity itself” (Scanlan 2010, para. 27). Finally, Scanlan argues that the only effective solution to world hunger is the one that focuses on these specific causes, and the solution, in essence, is “to create a more equitable and just society in which food access is ensured for all” (Scanlan 2010, para. 37).

Personal comments:
In both my biology class and my other DSOC class, we have talked about the problem of world hunger. The main arguments of this essay is in more accord with what we learned from the other DSOC class, in which the professor addresses that the essence of hunger is poverty, and the essence of poverty is social inequality. Thus, he proposes the solution to the problem is social reforms. In our biology class, however, the professor focuses on Multhus’ idea that population tends to grow geometrically while the food supply tends to grow arithmetically, and therefore the population could outgrow the food supply. It is interesting to notice how the same issue is viewed differently from these two perspectives. I personally agree more with the sociological perspective.

Questions to consider:
1. With respect to the issue of poverty and inequality, I believe the social structure do play a role in it, but as many economists and psychologists point out, there may be genetic factors which determine some groups have an innate advantage over other groups (e.g. males are more muscular than females). If this is the case, are social reforms trying to promote equality a contradiction to nature?
2. In my DSOC 1101 class, the professor proposed a quasi-socialistic model with the focus of improved social welfare for social reforms in the US. However, as the model has already failed in East European countries in the 1960s, how can we solve the problem of free riding and lack of incentive to work if we push too far in using improved social welfare as a means of promoting social equality?