16

The World Food Program USA claims that 345 million people around the world:

are experiencing the most severe levels of hunger including starvation. These are the people the U.N. World Food Programme aims to serve.

They cite their own Executive Director, David Beasley, as saying in 2021

ending hunger by 2030 would cost US$40 billion per year.

The same page claims that

"one meal costs the U.N. World Food Programme as little as $0.43 cents"

Are these estimates accurate?

Kodiologist
  • 437
  • 4
  • 10
EarlGrey
  • 489
  • 3
  • 10
  • 3
    Related: Would eradicating hunger worldwide coast about 30 billion US dollars a year? – Oddthinking Sep 22 '23 at 17:47
  • 5
    Related: Can we end poverty for US175 billion per year? – Oddthinking Sep 22 '23 at 17:49
  • 5
    Not that for me "feeding 345 million people one meal a day" and "ending hunger by 2030" are not the same thing at all. It's about the same as "give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day; teach him how to fish, he'll eat forever". – jcaron Sep 23 '23 at 12:00
  • 1
    There seems to be two questions here. Can food poverty be ended for any amount of money by giving food? – Weather Vane Sep 23 '23 at 19:13
  • 4
    @jcaron Notwithstanding how condescending the teach him how to fish proverb is (as if people have hunger because they don't know how to grow or catch food... more accurate would be provide him with the resources to fish), the real problem is that essentially all famines are associated with war or extreme political mismanagement. Considering wars are expensive, the cost of solving world hunger is negative. – gerrit Sep 25 '23 at 14:36
  • @jcaron what about the people living in the East part of Africa ravaged by war and by fights over fisheries? "teach him how to fish, he will ignore you because he already knows that, teach him how to defend his fisheries, he will buy a Kalashnikov and join the Somali pirates"? – EarlGrey Sep 25 '23 at 20:09
  • @EarlGrey I'm not taking the proverb literally, the point is only that, to me "ending hunger by 2030" is not about just providing food to people who need it. If that were the case, there would be no end date (it would "just" require to continue providing the food to those who need it forever). Having a target date, to me, means changing the system so that, by that date, they can eat and no longer need external help. Is this actually achievable for everybody given the reasons why some people do not eat? That's probably (and sadly) quite a stretch. – jcaron Sep 25 '23 at 22:45
  • Depending on how you define "world hunger" the answer will always be changing. Define ending world hunger as nobody anywhere ever has to worry about food, that is not possible with any of the economic or political systems presently in play. Define ending world hunger as producing enough food to feed every mouth, that is done and solved. Different definitions will put you somewhere in between. – David S Sep 28 '23 at 20:41
  • @DavidS sorry being pedantic, you are defining in different ways "ending world hunger", not "world hunger". It is a small difference, but there it lays the conundrum of my question. – EarlGrey Sep 28 '23 at 22:05
  • 3
    Another way to word this is "is world peace achievable with $40B per year?" Without world peace, there can really never be an end to hunger. – CGCampbell Oct 02 '23 at 12:04
  • @CGCampbell you are stretching it much farther. Peace is a necessary but not sufficient condition (in my humble view). The answer to your question would be "you cannot stop war with any amounf of direct funding (i.e. paying not to have war), but smaller inequalities between countries may reduce the risk of armed conflicts ... are these inequalities more than 40B? – EarlGrey Oct 02 '23 at 12:47
  • @gerrit, procuring food is a skill that can be taught, the saying isn't any more condescending than your offered "correction". And not all famine has roots in politics, it can be caused by weather as well. – Michael Hall Oct 03 '23 at 15:25
  • @MichaelHall It's a combination. In a well-functioning state at peace, weather alone has not caused a famine since before 1900. I seem to recall there's a question confirming that claim somewhere on this site, (or maybe it was History.SE) – gerrit Oct 03 '23 at 16:55
  • @gerrit, have you seen the late Sam Kinneson's bit on ending world hunger? "Weather" is really just shorthand for climate, which can be temporary or permanent. And some climates are simply not suited for food production. "Move to where the food is" was his comedic take on the issue. – Michael Hall Oct 03 '23 at 17:22
  • @EarlGrey Either way, the answer to your question will change dramatically depending on how "world hunger" is defined as well as how "ending" it is defined. And the answers range from "its impossible" to "its already done and solved". What CGCambell said about peace is also relevant, as you need to solve the logistics question, which requires political cooperation between providing groups and receiving groups, as well as the groups physically between them. A mechanism to support that cooperation would be required. So its either world peace or conquest on all supply lines and distribution. – David S Oct 03 '23 at 20:33
  • @MichaelHall If we weren't moving billions of tonnes of food around the world, billions would starve tomorrow. Ergo, the fact that many regions don't have a suitable climate to grow (enough) food (for the local/regional population) is not the sole cause for famine. Droughts and other climate catastrophes can trigger famines, but only when the logistical chain has broken down (such as due to war or extreme political/economical mismanagement). When was the last time Iceland had a famine? If Laki erupts tomorrow, I certainly don't expect another famine there. – gerrit Oct 04 '23 at 08:04
  • So, yes, in peacetime and with good governance, world hunger has been solved already. We have surplus food, and we have the capacity to get it where it needs to be. – gerrit Oct 04 '23 at 08:08

1 Answers1

4

Are these estimates accurate?

We should start by clearly stating: These are estimates. They are estimates based on economic models which are based on implicit and explicit assumptions to make them simpler. The only way to truly know if they are accurate is to empirically test them by spending US$40b every year as recommended, and seeing if it cures world hunger.

Failing that, we can look to see how different economists model the problem to see if the numbers are at least consistent with other estimates.

The Global Cost of Reaching a World Without Hunger: Investment Costs and Policy Action Opportunities is a paper that (a) makes an estimate of an approach they recommend, and (b) includes a review of the previous estimates.

They claim:

Ending hunger by 2030 is estimated to require US$39–50 billion annually until 2030.

So that is consistent with US$40b estimate, only with larger error bars.

Their Table 1 includes a summary of five different papers (from 2015-2017) - that make differing annual estimates to achieve different goals:

  • $US265b, to eliminate hunger and extreme poverty by 2030
  • $US52b, to reduce hunger to 5% by 2030
  • $US30b, to reduce hunger to 3% and improve nutrition by 2030
  • $US11b, to reduce hunger to 5% by 2030
  • $US7b, to reduce hunger to meet targets on anaemia, child stunting and wasting by 2025

It seems that the estimate given by David Beasley is in the same ballpark as a range of other estimates.

Meanwhile, Cost and Affordability of Preparing Basic Meal Around The World looks at the per meal price for a "Basic Plate" (as defined by the World Food Programme):

Such a meal would contain about one-third of an adult's daily energy requirement, and is not itself a healthy diet.

They conclude (in Table 2) that the global average cost per day (in 2017 USD) for one meal, using the most affordable items is $0.71, but climbs to up to $1.30 if you include meat.

So the US$0.43 per plate seems low compared to this estimate, but it is hard to say which is more accurate.

Oddthinking
  • 142,615
  • 46
  • 558
  • 646
  • 5
    A big problem would be how to get the food to the people who need it. Much of the worst conditions are because they're under the thumb of some dictator who is going to take whatever they can. – Loren Pechtel Sep 25 '23 at 02:18
  • 5
    @LorenPechtel: I am aware of that, but not nearly to the same degree as economists specialising in World Hunger are aware of it. This paper includes a number of approaches (including educating women, improving soil, addressing plant diseases, small irrigation projects, etc.) to allow locals to feed themselves, rather than merely sending food and money into a country. – Oddthinking Sep 25 '23 at 06:42
  • 1
    It still doesn't work--the reality is that much of the aid that supposedly goes directly to the people is diverted with the reluctant cooperation of the people delivering it. – Loren Pechtel Sep 25 '23 at 15:02
  • 4
    @LorenPechtel: That seems like a cynical perspective; if you have evidence it is true, please post an answer showing the original claim is false. – Oddthinking Sep 25 '23 at 17:02
  • I'm not addressing the original claim, but whether it's actually possible to get the aid to where it belongs. – Loren Pechtel Sep 25 '23 at 23:08
  • 2
    @LorenPechtel: if your position is that it is impossible to get food and/or resources to some populations at any price, then you are arguing $40b per year for x years is insufficient. – Oddthinking Sep 25 '23 at 23:27
  • In a sense, but I see the question as asking whether spending that amount on the purpose would work--and I have no answer to that. I'm saying that it's moot because it's impossible to actually get that aid to many of the people that need it. – Loren Pechtel Sep 26 '23 at 01:16