Hunger Report 1997 Executive Summary
7th annual report on the state of world hunger
Executive Summary
Politicians, scholars and citizens worldwide engage in heated debates about the appropriate role of various governments in addressing economic and social issues. The outcome of these debates are critical to the lives of the world's millions of hungry people. What Governments Can Do: Hunger 1997, the seventh annual report on world hunger issued by Bread for the World Institute, argues that despite widespread skepticism and criticism, governments have crucial roles to play in reducing hunger and poverty. Governments at all levels—local, subnational, national and international—must establish a framework in which people can secure their own livelihoods, ensure that basic needs are met for people who cannot secure their own livelihoods and enhance the quality of our lives together. National governments must ensure national standards and meet global responsibilities.
Individual and private voluntary activities make important and creative contributions to ending hunger and poverty in the United States and developing countries, but cannot accomplish a task of this magnitude on their own.
The active political participation of citizens—including hungry and poor people themselves—is needed to ensure that government activities are effective. Many existing programs have worked well to alleviate hunger and poverty, and an engaged public can help make further improvements.
What Governments Can Do: Hunger 1997 includes up-to-date data on the extent of hunger in 164 countries. An increased number of people face food insecurity in countries in transition from communist rule. Hunger is endemic and on the rise in Africa. The largest number of hungry people live in South Asia, but hunger has declined throughout Asia and the Pacific mainly because of effective anti-hunger policies.
Hunger in the United States
While Bread for the World Institute finds there are fewer hungry people in the world than 25 years ago, hunger continues to plague the industrial countries, especially the United States. Children are particularly vulnerable—more than one of every four U.S. children is hungry or at risk of hunger. Childhood poverty is more widespread in the United States than in any other industrial country, yet this country does less than any industrial government to protect children from hunger.
The U.S. government's role in anti-poverty and food assistance programs has grown during much of this century. What Governments Can Do reviews the history of programs currently under attack. Modern economies are, and should be, a mix between markets and direct government responsibility. But the 104th U.S. Congress cut deeply into federal anti-poverty programs and, with President Bill Clinton's concurrence, did away with the long-standing guarantee of cash assistance to poor families with children. These decisions will almost certainly increase the number of hungry children in the United States.
It is incorrect to argue, as many welfare critics have, that out-of-wedlock births are the main cause of U.S. poverty. Economic and social forces beyond the control of poor people such as declining real wages for low-skilled workers are more significant causes.
Real welfare reform would, in the short run, cost more, not less money. Most recipients will need education and training, health care and child care to get into the job market. And some are too old, young or disabled to work.
Critics assert that churches and private charities should pick up more of the social load. But not everyone is aware that, for example, in 1994 federal funding accounted for about two-thirds of the domestic and international human needs budgets of the nation's largest Catholic agencies (Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services). Private charities may often be more innovative and provide more personal care than government programs, but many depend on major infusions of government funds; and with fewer government dollars they will do less, not more. Charities cannot possibly expand to make up for the government cuts that have been made.
The 1996 welfare law shifts more responsibility to state governments. This report examines recent changes in social policies at the state level. "Welfare reform," as it is currently being pursued, will not help poor people find good jobs with decent pay and benefits because it does not provide the funds to make that happen.
Hunger and the Global Economy
What Governments Can Do: Hunger 1997 analyzes why the global economy's mixed results have not measured up to its bright promise. If the global economy is to contribute to improved livelihoods generally, the governments of the world must cooperate to manage and complement what free markets do. Economic globalization has made it more difficult for governments to maintain full employment policies, for example. This has contributed to declining real wages for unskilled workers in the United States and high unemployment in Europe. It has slowed development in developing countries, too. International coordination of economic management could improve economic growth, employment and the quality of life.
Competitive global pressures drive government decisions as well as those of firms. It may not be more food that is needed for better nutrition, but education, safe water, medical services, reduced work loads, fewer unwanted pregnancies, shorter walks to and from work places, counter-pressures to advertisements or land reform. In all these areas, public policies play an essential role.
Developing countries are also relying less on governments and more on markets. In India, Mexico and Ghana, for example, some people have benefited from the experience of liberalization, while poverty and hunger have grown worse for others. These experiences confirm the essential role that governments play in ensuring the well being of poor and hungry people.
The governments of the world must cooperate to complement what free markets do if the global economy is to contribute to improved livelihoods generally. The United States and some other industrial countries are cutting those parts of foreign aid that help poor people and support international institutions. This report challenges the claim that aid is wasted on unworkable, damaging government programs. It argues that aid can work and should be reformed rather than cut. The report also reviews the necessary and often effective work of intergovernmental institutions. It explores ways to make international institutions such as the United Nations more accountable to the public in both the industrial and developing countries. National governments and international organizations have the duty to uphold the principles embodied in such agreements as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1974 Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition, which states:
Every man, woman, and child has the inalienable right to be free from hunger and malnutrition in order to develop fully and maintain their physical and mental faculties. . . . . It is a fundamental responsibility of governments to work together for higher food production and a more equitable and efficient distribution of food within countries and between countries.
The Politics of Hunger
Transforming the politics of hunger is essential to feeding a hungry world. Everyone has the right to fair treatment, not only by individuals, but in the economy, society and political life. Justice is predicated on "the dignity of the human person, realized in community with others." Bread for the World and Bread for the World Institute seek justice—economic, social and political justice—because hunger results from injustice more than from inadequate food supplies. Bread for the World Institute seeks justice for hungry people by engaging in research and education on policies related to hunger and development. The institute works closely with Bread for the World, a nationwide Christian movement that lobbies the nation's decision makers. Both organizations are committed to transforming the politics of hunger.
The elimination of the injustice of hunger is more important than whether the policy that achieves this is decided at the municipal or national level, or whether it is carried out by a government institution, the market or among the society's popular and civic organizations. But it is a role of governments to see that justice prevails.
