Is Food Aid Good or Bad

FOOD AID

Food Aid

Does food aid create a dependency culture among the poor? From the onset, it would be prudent to note that food aid programs seek to achieve a wide of goals and objectives. Some of these objectives are inclusive of, but they are not limited to, improvement of family nutrition, improvement of food security, saved lives (i.e. via the elimination/reduction of hunger), etc. The goal of the United States food assistance programs, for instance, happens to be ensuring that populations affected by crises are provided with emergency food relief (Congressional Research Service – CRS, 2021). The said programs also seek to avail assistance considered nonemergency with an intention of reining in “food insecurity and help populations build resilience to potential threats to food supplies” (CRS, 2021). On paper, the said goals and objectives are largely novel and beneficial. However, some, like Brown (2018), query the efficacy and relevance of food aid programs. The author quips; what if hungry people in various countries across the world would benefit more by NOT receiving food aid from abroad?

Available literature indicates that to some extent, food aid programs bring about more harm than good – effectively meaning that they do not necessarily achieve their purpose. Swanson (2015) is categorical that in some instances, foreign aid – including food aid programs – does get in the way of the formulation and implementation of long-term solutions to address inherent problems (such as hunger). The author, for instance, indicates that what most persons in developing nations need is a government that is efficient. Thanks to food aid programs, the government of the day may lack the motivation and drive to pursue policies meant to enhance food security. Park (2019) makes an observation to the effect that food aid programs also end up harming the interests of local farmers. For instance, according to the author, the ability of local farmers in Haiti to tend to their own crops and put food on the table was devastated by years of subsidized US crops delivery. This is more so the case given that over time, as Park (2019) observes, “flooding the developing world with food aid undercuts local farmers.” Related to this, concerns have in the past been raised over the utilization of food aid programs to promote dumping of certain food items in undeveloped nations. According to Cohen (2016), the move by the United States to dump rice in Haiti approximately two decades ago ended up being a boom for the donating country’s farmers and a bane for farmers in the recipient country. This had a negative impact on the Haiti’s rice production – owing to the fact that the country’s market soon became awash with foreign rice. It is also important to note that some are convinced that in some instances, those who benefit most from food aid programs are not the hungry, but other stakeholders such as owners of shipping companies (Guest Blogger, 2014)

In as far as the US approach to food aid is concerned, it is important to note that as Park (2019) points out, “the United States provides half of all global food aid”. Other countries such as Germany, Turkey, the United Kingdom, etc. provide the other half. As Park further indicates, the US has traditionally opted to employ a bipartisan approach on this front, i.e. owing to the fact that it provides aid to multiple nations across the world (approximately 150 nations). The US covers processing and shipping costs, whereas the UN World Food Program distributes food aid (Park, 2009). At present, food aid program efforts in the US are deployed via in-kind assistance and market-based assistance (Congressional Research Service – CRS, 2021). It should be noted that the in-kind approach still appears to be the country’s preferred and most relied upon approach (CRS, 2021). Other countries, as the CRS (2021) indicates, opt for the market-based assistance approach.