Is there a nutritional poverty trap?

Among economists, there seems to be a divide between those who believe that a poverty trap exists and those who do not. For example, Jeffrey Sachs, an economist based at Columbia University, believes in the tangibility of some form of poverty trap and therefore would support the 'S-shaped curve' model of poverty, which depicts a distinct region of income for the very poor in which they are condemned to earning increasingly diminishing amounts, eventually becoming enslaved to the trap of poverty. Alternatively, there are economists from across the ideological spectrum such as William Easterly of NYU and Dambisa Moyo, former economist for Goldman Sachs and the World Bank, who do not believe such a trap exists and thus would advocate for the 'inverted L-shaped curve' model of poverty, which implies that the very poor can escape poverty simply by making small-scale progress continuously and that this will result in a rise in future income.

For this particular study, instead of considering whether any form of poverty trap exists given that the topic is of particular complexity and involves multiple factors, I have decided to focus on the key presentation of the poverty trap from the standpoint of much of the West: that of the nutritional poverty trap. 

There has always been this notion in the West that poverty and hunger are the same issue; this issue has been reflected in the UN's Millenium Development Goal of 'eradicating extreme poverty and hunger'. This connection has resulted in arguably a large misconception that hunger is one of the main drivers of poverty, which is not necessarily the truth. 

Historically, it is fair to say that the food crisis has been a significant issue facing our world, such as in the Middle Ages and Renaissance period in which peasants were forced to beg for food due to their physical incapability to meet the demands of physical labour due to extreme caloric deficiency. However, the same cannot be said of today. Due to innovations and revolutions in the world of food, such as the importation of the potato from Peru and the industrialisation of the agricultural process, there is no longer an absence or deficiency of food in the world. In fact, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation declared that there was substantial food to go around so that every individual on the planet could receive 2,700 calories per day, which is actually a caloric surplus.

So if the issue isn't the quantity of food and the calories available to individuals, then what is it?

In Poor Economics, development economists Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo explore the problem with a variety of studies on individuals in poverty-stricken areas. One of these areas is Maharashtra in India. In 1983, an increase in income for the poorest individuals did not result in an increase in spending on caloric foods in order to maximise nutrition. Rather, the trend showed a transition towards buying 'tastier' (and more expensive) food. In place of the nutritionally favourable millet, people took the "flight to quality", opting instead for rice and wheat, which both cost significantly more and were considered better in taste yet had a lower nutritional value. 

Elsewhere, in George Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier, which is a sociological exploration into the harsh living conditions of the working class in Lancashire, Orwell observed the habits and lifestyle of the poverty-stricken. He outlines how they had substantial food by way of white bread, margarine, corned beef and sugared tea, yet remarked that the nutritional value was severely lacking. Additionally, when Orwell observed how such families survived the depression, instead of scaling back on unnecessary goods and focusing purely on the basic necessities, he saw the inverse happen: there was a leap towards the cheap, unhealthy, tasty but noticeably less nutritional food.

When the West reacts to a poverty crisis, there is often a tendency to ship vast quantities of grain to the countries that are in need of assistance. The issue here is that this may be unintentionally having a negative effect. These grains are not providing the nutritional value that those in poverty desperately need, and it is increasingly seeming to be that quality and not quantity is what is required at this point. 

In Africa, worms are a major issue in places such as Kenya, affecting the lives of the young. Worms act as a barrier for young Kenyans to obtain the nutritional value that they require, hindering their individual productivity and wellbeing, and as a knock-on effect, the economic success of their future selves and societies at scale. In one study, it was found that Kenyan children who received deworming pills for 2 years were found to have gone to school longer and earned 20% more on average than children in comparable schools in Kenya who received deworming pills for one year rather than two. 

The key and fundamental idea here is that nutrition has far-reaching implications for the wellbeing and future success of an individual in poverty. And while there likely isn't a nutritional poverty trap that is keeping those in poverty poor, it is clear that malnutrition is a significant impediment to large-scale success and prosperity in some parts of the world. Perhaps, it all begins with the major aid organisations of the West reconsidering their approach and the foods and services that they ought to provide to those who need them.