FAD: SEN-BOWBRICK ENCOUNTER AND CONCEPTUAL COMPLEXITY

Abstract

FAD is an acronym for “Food Availability Decline.” Amartya Sen coined this acronym in 1976 to introduce a novel theory to explain the causation process of famines in Africa and South Asia during the 20th century, which is famously known as the “Entitlement Approach to Famine Analysis (EAFA).” In 1981, he published a monograph, Poverty and Famine: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation, to consolidate his famine philosophy. EAFA is genuinely a novel. Naturally, it provoked colossal literature that examined its theoretical and practical virtues. Unfortunately, the controversy over Sen’s famine philosophy did not die down over this long period of time. One suspected reason is that Sen did not clarify FAD’s meaning unambiguously, i.e., he left some space for his readers to interpret the term differently. Sen admirers and critics seem to have overlooked this suspicion, although it clearly surfaced in the Sen-Bowbrick in 1986. This debate resulted from Sen’s reply to Bowbrick’s critical article published in The Journal of Peasant Studies. Based on their debates, this article analyses two questions: What is FAD? What does it denote: a “secular” or “temporary” decline in food supply? The paper concludes that Sen’s FAD concept can be given different interpretations. More specifically, his understanding of FAD as a secular decline in food availability is inconsistent with the definition of famine, which means mass death in an area due to starvation and related diseases. Sen’s study of four gruesome famines suffered in the last century corroborates this conclusion. The controversy