A Comparison Between Thomas Malthus’s and Amartya Sen’s Views on Famine: Natural Constraints or Political Pathologies?

Abstract:This paper compares the similarities and differences between Thomas Malthus and Amartya Sen’s opinions on famine. By studying them, the hope is to discover the fundamental mechanisms of historical famines and find practical solutions to cope with this kind of “social malaise”. The comparison between Thomas Malthus’s and Amartya Sen’s views on famine highlights their contrasting explanations and implications. Malthus, rooted in 18th-century England, argued that famine is a natural check on overpopulation, stemming from the imbalance between population growth and agricultural production. In contrast, Sen, influenced by his upbringing in British India, criticized the Food Availability Decline (FAD) theory and instead proposed the entitlement approach, which highlights political and economic inequalities as root causes of famine. Malthus viewed famine as an inevitable part of natural cycles, while Sen demonstrated that famines often occur despite adequate food production, due to failures in distribution systems and access. The FAD approach is critiqued for focusing solely on food supply while overlooking accessibility and distributional disparities, with Sen’s framework is praised as a significant advancement in addressing famine. However, critiques of Sen’s theory point to its potential undervaluation of agricultural production in subsistence economies. Their legacies are enduring—Malthus’s ideas influencing sustainability and resource debates, and Sen’s theories shaping global policies like the Human Development Index (HDI). Ultimately, Malthus’s “pessimistic optimism” contrasts with Sen’s proactive and human-centered solutions to famine and poverty, underscoring their relevance to contemporary challenges.