Chapter I


 the rule of law can cause chaos which tumbles many households, which were thought to be
 food secure, into extreme vulnerability.

 Some risks are more likely to occur than others. Much depends on the extent of climatic
 variation in a country, the stability of the state and of community institutions and the extent
 of involvements in markets, particularly those markets which have historically been subject
 to major fluctuations. However, the table gives a good categorisation of the wide source of
 risks which may push a household into food inadequacy.

 The definition we are using of food security contains the three concepts of availability,
 access and stability. This latter can be interpreted as incorporating the ability to withstand
 shocks to food entitlements. The greater the degree of resilience a household has in the
 face of these risks, the more food secure it will be. The most food insecure households
 will be those facing the greatest probability of an entitlement failure with the least assets.
 Lipton has introduced the concept of the ultra poor, those who have to use 80% of their
income to achieve less than 80% of their food requirements. In fact, households who
 allocate over 70% of their inrnme tn fnnr almost certainly have little flexibility in
 reallocating resources to meet an entitlement shoc. Household food stocks may be
 important in withstanding temporary shocks, as is possession of assets. However, once
 households are forced into selling assets to meet shocks they are no longer following
 sustainable strategies. Unless the shock is a temporary one, they will sooner or later fall
 into food deficiency. Once they start selling productive assets, they are reducing their
 future food entitlements.