World Hunger Crisis
Part – 2
Agricultural policies today bear the imprint of centuries-old power
dynamics. Colonial powers carved up fertile lands, imposed cash-crop
economies and reshaped local diets to feed far-away markets rather than
nourish local populations. In India, for instance, the colonial shift from
subsistence millet and sorghum to export-oriented indigo, cotton and tea
undermined local food security, making communities dependent on
imported staples and vulnerable to price swings. Across West Africa,
forced labor on cocoa and palm oil plantations created monocultures that
eroded soil fertility and community resilience. These historical patterns
persist: land grabs by foreign investors and agribusinesses today often
echo colonial expropriations, displacing smallholders and consolidating
market power in the hands of a few.
In the post-colonial era, structural adjustment programs in the 1980s and
1990s, dictated by the World Bank and IMF, further constrained
governments’ ability to protect their farmers. By mandating export-led
growth, removing subsidies on fertilizers and seeds, and liberalizing
markets overnight, these policies aimed for macroeconomic stability but
left millions of smallholder producers without safety nets. In Zambia,
the removal of maize subsidies in 1994 saw domestic production
plummet and rural poverty spike, forcing the country to rely heavily on
food imports. Similar trajectories unfolded across East and Southern
Africa, where price deregulation decimated local seed systems and
extension services vanished under austerity, undermining both
productivity and food sovereignty.
Global trade rules have also entrenched inequities. The 1995 Agreement
on Agriculture under the World Trade Organization committed low-
income countries to progressively open their markets, while high-income
nations continued to shield their farmers with billions of dollars in
subsidies. American cotton growers, for example, received nearly $4
billion in annual support, enabling them to flood global markets with
artificially cheap exports. This practice undercut West African cotton
producers, who lacked comparable financial safety nets and saw their
market share collapse by over 40 percent in the early 2000s. Such
distortions not only disempower smallholder farmers but also erode the
very foundation of rural livelihoods, perpetuating cycles of poverty and
hunger.
Meanwhile, the rise of multinational agribusinesses has concentrated
control over critical inputs—seeds, agrochemicals, processing facilities
and distribution networks. Over the past two decades, a handful of
corporations merged or acquired rivals, resulting in a market where just
three companies control over 60 percent of global seed sales. The
intertwining of seed patents, digital farming platforms and agrochemical
portfolios means that farmers are increasingly locked into proprietary
systems. Independent seed savers and community gene banks struggle to
compete with hybrid and genetically modified varieties that demand
specialized fertilizers or licensing fees. This centralization raises barriers
to entry for small producers and erodes biodiversity, making farming
systems more vulnerable to pests, diseases and climate shocks.
Power imbalances extend into value chains as well. Supermarket
consolidation in urban centers of Latin America, Asia and Africa gives a
handful of retailers outsized bargaining power over producers.
Smallholder farmers who lack collective bargaining tools or quality
certifications often receive pennies on the dollar compared to end-
consumer prices. In Kenya’s horticultural sector, although flower and
vegetable exports generate hundreds of millions in foreign exchange, the
average cut-flower grower earns less than 10 percent of the retail price
paid by European consumers. These margins fragment the rural
economy, leaving farming households trapped in subsistence or forced
to migrate to cities in search of precarious labor.
Domestic policies, too, can perpetuate inequity when governments lack
both the fiscal space and political will to invest in agriculture. In many
low-income countries, public spending on agriculture averages less than
5 percent of national budgets—far below the 10 percent target pledged
in the 2003 Maputo Declaration. Insufficient funding translates into
weak infrastructure, minimal research and development, and inadequate
extension services. In Nigeria, for example, only 15 percent of
smallholders have access to any form of agricultural advisory, and just
12 percent can reach markets year-round due to poor road networks.
Without these foundational investments, even the most innovative
private-sector solutions struggle to find fertile ground.
To recalibrate the political economy of food, agrarian reforms must
restore agency to smallholder communities. Land-titling initiatives that
secure use rights—rather than full fee simple titles vulnerable to
speculative grabs—help farmers invest in long-term soil health and
adopt sustainable practices. In Ethiopia, participatory land certification
saw crop productivity climb by over 30 percent as farmers gained the
confidence to apply organic amendments and terracing techniques.
Simultaneously, public procurement policies that reserve a portion of
school-feeding or social-safety-net purchases for smallholder
cooperatives can stabilize demand and provide predictable income
streams. Brazil’s Food Acquisition Program, which mandates that 30
percent of government food purchases come from family farmers,
increased rural incomes by 25 percent and diversified school lunches
with fresh fruits and vegetables.
On the international stage, trade negotiations must be rebalanced to
allow developing countries policy space for strategic agricultural
protection and support. Phased tariff reductions, paired with capacity-
building for local industries, can nurture nascent agro-processing sectors
rather than expose them prematurely to global competition. The concept
of “special and differential treatment,” enshrined in WTO agreements,
needs operational clarity: developing countries should be empowered—
without fear of retaliatory measures—to subsidize staples, invest in
infrastructure, and cultivate value-adding industries that create rural
employment.
Achieving these shifts demands inclusive governance and robust civil
society coalitions. Farmer organizations, women’s groups and
indigenous networks have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to shape
policy agendas, from securing land reform in Peru to steering
agroecology initiatives in India. By strengthening these voices, we can
recalibrate the stakes of reform away from corporate boardrooms and
back into the hands of those who grow our food. Moreover, transparent
budgets and participatory monitoring can ensure that public funds
allocated to agriculture yield tangible benefits for the most vulnerable.
Reconfiguring the political economy of food systems is not a simple
task. It requires dismantling entrenched privileges, reasserting the rights
of small producers and redesigning international rules to serve people
rather than profits. Yet history also shows that transformative change is
possible when coalitions mobilize around a shared vision of justice. The
next sections will examine how social movements, technological
innovations and financing instruments can converge to sustain equitable
food systems and finally overcome the legacy of hunger.
