Chapter 1


There is plenty of evidence that markets can break down in times of famine, leading to great
food insecurity for those who depend on them. However, in areas where markets have not
developed to any great extent, crop failure can also have devastating effects. The very poor
are always vulnerable to shocks, whether in terms of crop failure or price rises. People who
have land to farm, a production entitlement to food, are often not amongst the very poorest
in society, who are frequently the landless who have no choice but to depend on the market,
or on charity for food.

Increased market integration can offer possibilities of greater income, increasing entitlement
and greater food security. It also offers greater risk. Perhaps the greatest risk is that of
borrowing in order to purchase inputs, or food in situations of extreme need, and losing
ownership of assets, including land, if crops fail. If markets function well, this may be a risk
worth taking. However, in many rural towns and villages, markets are highly monopolistic,
often with output and credit markets interlinked to the detriment of the borrower. When the
process of integration into imperfect markets leads to increasing landlessness, then it is
detrimental to food security. However, subsistence farmers will always have cash
requirements, for medicine, for children's schooling, for clothing. It may be impossible to
increase food security and livelihood beyond a certain very low level, without increased
specialisation and market integration. In the long run, government has to take action to
improve the way markets function, and to stop powerful local interests manipulating markets
for their own ends.

The International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington D.C. has undertaken a
 number of studies on the effect of the introduction of cash crops on food security. Box 1.5
 discusses the results they found for sugar production in Kenya. These results are similar to
those found in other studies in the Philippines and in the Gambia. There was little evidence
 of nutritional status being adversely affected by commercialization, though in most cases the
 smallholders diversified their farming rather than switched totally away from food
 production. The nutritional implications and improvements which they discovered were
 often quite small and overshadowed by health and sanitation constraints. Food security could
 be improved by increasing employment opportunities, but this was very crop specific. Many
 cash crops are, however, quite labour intensive. Most of the negative impacts found were
 associated with changes in asset ownership, particularly land.

 There is clear evidence of changes in intra-familial income distribution in a number of
 countries with increasing commercialization of agricultural production. Often the income
 from cash crop production is seen as falling under male control. This can have an important
( influence in the way that income is spent. For example, in West Africa, men and women tend
 to have different spheres of economic activity. They control different types of income and
 are responsible for different types of expenditure. Women are more likely to be responsible
 for food expenditures, and to spend extra income on increasing food consumption. Men tend
 to be responsible for big purchases, expenditure on the house and school fees. This could
 explain why increasing incomes through cash crop production has not apparently led to
 major increases on food consumption.