Thinking critically about food security

Abstract

This article examines the tension between food security as strategic practice and as the human insecurity of hunger. It makes the case that hunger is a security matter that warrants greater attention from security scholars, but identifies some limitations with state-centric and human security approaches. The article explores Ken Booth's 'emancipatory realism' security project as one avenue for overcoming these limitations and uses Booth's work to assist in developing a reframing of food security. It proposes redefining food security in terms of securing vulnerable populations from the structural violence of hunger, and argues that such a framing offers both conceptual and practical value for efforts to confront the problem of increasing and widespread hunger.

Does the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition impose biotechnology on smallholder farmers in Africa?

“…When it comes to private company accountability, according to Oxfam, companies detail commitments to: … expand market presence for inputs such as seeds, chemicals, and mechanized farming and irrigation equipment … that can increase crop yields, but they will not contribute to poverty reduction unless they are situated within a broader context of regulations and policies to protect and promote the interests of agricultural workers, small-scale producers and the environment. (Munoz, 2013, p. 10) Multinational corporations are linked to worsening environmental conditions, limiting the food quality and availability, and worsening of socioeconomic conditions of smallholder producers because they have no mechanisms or incentives to ensure basic rights (Carney, 2012;Patel et al, 2005, p. 430;Shepherd, 2012;Yengoh & Armah, 2014). In this perspective, the New Alliance continues to emulate the structural adjustment programs of the 1980s that took away control from government.…”

No emancipatory alternative, no critical security studies

“…In fact, it could well be argued that most of the current strands of what we call 'critical security studies' would reject emancipatory approaches altogether. Rather than imposing Western understandings of emancipation, advocates of emancipatory security approaches today recognise that there is a problem of which actors have emancipatory agency in these approaches (Richmond 2010a(Richmond , 2010bMulligan 2011;Lemanski 2012;Roberts 2008Roberts , 2010Shepherd 2012). It seems clear from today's vantage point (at least) that even the first generation of critical theorists lacked Cox's (1981, 130) emphasis on the alternative emancipatory actors that could enable critical approaches to be a guide to strategic action.…”

Kara Kita’nin “Yeni̇den Keşfi̇”: Ulusal Çikar Ve Gida Güvenli̇ği̇ Perspekti̇fi̇nden Küresel Güçleri̇n Afri̇ka’daki̇ Gida Poli̇ti̇kalari

“…Bu süreçte, savaş sonrası dünyada ekonominin yeniden inşa edilmesi için bilimden ve teknolojiden daha fazla yararlanma çabaları görülmektedir (İba, 2013: (Shaw, 2007); (Simon, 2012); (Friedmann, 1982); (McMichael, 2010); (Sodano, 2012); (Pinstrup-Andersen, 2009); (Shepherd, 2012); (Gao, 2010).…”