The Uruguay Round, the Marrakesh Decision and the Role of Food Aid

2013 ◽  
pp. 84-109
Keyword(s):  
1992 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 225-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond F. Hopkins

The principles and norms adopted by the regime governing food aid in the 1950s have changed substantially during the subsequent three decades. Explaining the changes necessarily includes analyzing the efforts of an international epistemic community consisting of economic development specialists, agricultural economists, and administrators of food aid. According to the initial regime principles, food aid should be provided from donors' own surplus stocks, should supplement the usual commercial food imports in recipient countries, should be given under short-term commitments sensitive to the political and economic goals of donors, and should directly feed hungry people. As a result of following these principles, the epistemic community and other critics argued, food aid often had the adverse effects of reducing local production of food in recipient countries and exacerbating rather than alleviating hunger. The epistemic community (1) developed and proposed ideas for more efficiently supplying food aid and avoiding “disincentive” effects and (2) pushed for reforms to make food aid serve as the basis for the recipients' economic development and to target it at addressing long-term food security problems. The ideas of the international epistemic community have increasingly received support from international organizations and the governments of donor and recipient nations. Most recently, they have led to revisions of the U.S. food aid program passed by Congress in October 1990 and signed into law two months later. As the analysis of food aid reform demonstrates, changes in the international regime have been incremental, rather than radical. Moreover, the locus for the change has shifted from an American-centered one in the 1950s to a more international one in recent decades.


1997 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 169-185
Author(s):  
Peter G. Warr ◽  
Helal Ahammad
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Barry Riley

Johnson made food aid a major element of his foreign relations with several countries. He saw it as a tool, an inducement, a reward or a cudgel. As a product of Senate leadership, he knew how important the role of Congress was in approving and funding his many initiatives, and he sought to ensure that he was not viewed as a “dewy-eyed, give-away boy.” He had to be seen as a tough guy even though he was, at heart, quite a benevolent person. Critics of food aid were suggesting that it could do more harm than good when used outside narrowly defined situations requiring emergency relief. Johnson paid them little heed. He fought with Congress over control of food aid, losing several battle and winning others. His liberal stance on domestic human rights issues lost him votes among conservatives in Congress on his desired food aid reforms.


2019 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Rachel B. Herrmann

This introductory chapter discusses the important role of hunger during the American Revolution. Enduring, ignoring, creating, and preventing hunger were all ways to exercise power during the American Revolution. Hunger prompted violence and forged ties; it was a weapon of war and a tool of diplomacy. In North America, Cherokee, Creek, Delaware, Iroquois (Haudenosaunee), Miami, and Shawnee Indians grew and destroyed foodstuffs during the Revolutionary War, which forced their British and American allies to hunger with them, and to furnish provisions that accommodated Native tastes. By the 1810s, the United States had learned how to prevent Indian hunger, to weaponize food aid, and to deny Indians the power gained by enduring and ignoring scarcity. Meanwhile, people of African descent gained some power by creating white hunger during the Revolutionary War, but more so as formerly enslaved communities, primarily after leaving the new United States and migrating to British colonies in Nova Scotia and then Sierra Leone. After white officials in Sierra Leone realized that colonists' hunger-prevention efforts gave them too much freedom, black colonists lost their hunger-preventing rights. Ultimately, three key behaviors changed and were, in turn, changed by evolving ideas about hunger: food diplomacy, victual warfare, and victual imperialism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document