The Economists’ Voice: Special Issue on Nutrition and Poverty Introduction

IF 0.4 Q4 ECONOMICS Economists Voice Pub Date : 2017-06-28 DOI:10.1515/ev-2017-0010
M. Cragg, J. Stiglitz
{"title":"The Economists’ Voice: Special Issue on Nutrition and Poverty Introduction","authors":"M. Cragg, J. Stiglitz","doi":"10.1515/ev-2017-0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Americans spend billions of dollars a year fueling enormous commercial agricultural operations to plant more crops than we need, while tens of millions of Americans – and a huge number of American children – live tenuously close to hunger. Millions more are kept from the brink by our Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, that provides a paltry $4.13 per person each day.1 Having a two-headed policy that addresses production and consumption is necessary. Just having a bounteous supply does not ensure each American will be fed. And just giving poor Americans money to buy food does not ensure they can or will do so. However, when the end result is that we produce far more food than we need, because of subsidies, whilemillions of our citizens both have inadequate food on the table and suffer from nutrition-related diseases in epidemic proportions, there is clearly a problem in need of an urgent solution. Post-depression-era farm subsidies made sense because they relieved farmers’ poverty, allowing them to keep producing food so that the nation could feed itself. The 21st century is not the 1930s. While many might nostalgically think of the family farmer in overalls and a straw hat, the vast majority of farm subsidies go to a small number of very large American corporations and conglomerates that wield disproportionate political power. Modern subsidies do not tackle modern dietary problems and, in fact, exacerbate the health problems associated with Americans’ distorted diets. These dietary distortions have had devastating consequences, especially in low-income areas: exploding obesity rates, increasing rates of Type 2 diabetes, and declining learning outcomes. Dietary inequality is a factor that reduces quality of life amongst those most affected by income inequality. Poor nutrition is a cause of the epidemic level of diabetes2 and other poor health outcomes. The food paradox is that we collectively spend huge amounts on farm subsidies, yet many citizens do not have access to high-quality, nutritious food. We collectively spend huge amounts on healthcare, yet our health outcomes, particularly for those living in poverty, are a national emergency. A chain of poor policy choices is exacerbating inequality. One of our main anti-poverty efforts is SNAP (modern-day food stamps). Despite providing only $125.50 per person permonth,3 the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that SNAP kept 10.3 million Americans out of poverty in 2012.4 However, a two-person household receiving SNAP benefits and a $7.25 per hour minimum wage job is still below the poverty line, and more so if that income is the sole source for a family of four or more.5 We clearly need a stronger food stamp program and more rational subsidies for food production. Stagnant minimumwages with rising costs of living magnifies the health and human development problems associated with poor access to nutrition. Budget constraints and thework requirement to obtain benefits6 have reduced the number of SNAP claimants and the average monthly benefit per claimant.7 All the while, one-third of adults are obese and 10% of adults have diabetes.8 Where do we go from here? This special issue of the Economists’ Voice focuses on the interplay between nutrition and poverty, how they are related, and what we can do about it. We aim to provide the most relevant information and analysis for economists, legislative bodies, and policy makers to consider as our society tries to address the complex issues of food security, quality, and affordability, especially amongst our most vulnerable. This edition provides papers that advocate for economic and nutrition policies that can provide the greatest help to low-income Americans, including improving SNAP and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program forWomen, Infants and Children, raising the minimumwage, offering price incentives for healthier foods, providing nutrition education, and reforming our tax and subsidy system to incentivize better food choices. Policy makers must recognize the interplay between the enormous long-term health costs generated by a shortsighted pandering to agribusiness lobbying.","PeriodicalId":42390,"journal":{"name":"Economists Voice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/ev-2017-0010","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economists Voice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ev-2017-0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Americans spend billions of dollars a year fueling enormous commercial agricultural operations to plant more crops than we need, while tens of millions of Americans – and a huge number of American children – live tenuously close to hunger. Millions more are kept from the brink by our Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, that provides a paltry $4.13 per person each day.1 Having a two-headed policy that addresses production and consumption is necessary. Just having a bounteous supply does not ensure each American will be fed. And just giving poor Americans money to buy food does not ensure they can or will do so. However, when the end result is that we produce far more food than we need, because of subsidies, whilemillions of our citizens both have inadequate food on the table and suffer from nutrition-related diseases in epidemic proportions, there is clearly a problem in need of an urgent solution. Post-depression-era farm subsidies made sense because they relieved farmers’ poverty, allowing them to keep producing food so that the nation could feed itself. The 21st century is not the 1930s. While many might nostalgically think of the family farmer in overalls and a straw hat, the vast majority of farm subsidies go to a small number of very large American corporations and conglomerates that wield disproportionate political power. Modern subsidies do not tackle modern dietary problems and, in fact, exacerbate the health problems associated with Americans’ distorted diets. These dietary distortions have had devastating consequences, especially in low-income areas: exploding obesity rates, increasing rates of Type 2 diabetes, and declining learning outcomes. Dietary inequality is a factor that reduces quality of life amongst those most affected by income inequality. Poor nutrition is a cause of the epidemic level of diabetes2 and other poor health outcomes. The food paradox is that we collectively spend huge amounts on farm subsidies, yet many citizens do not have access to high-quality, nutritious food. We collectively spend huge amounts on healthcare, yet our health outcomes, particularly for those living in poverty, are a national emergency. A chain of poor policy choices is exacerbating inequality. One of our main anti-poverty efforts is SNAP (modern-day food stamps). Despite providing only $125.50 per person permonth,3 the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that SNAP kept 10.3 million Americans out of poverty in 2012.4 However, a two-person household receiving SNAP benefits and a $7.25 per hour minimum wage job is still below the poverty line, and more so if that income is the sole source for a family of four or more.5 We clearly need a stronger food stamp program and more rational subsidies for food production. Stagnant minimumwages with rising costs of living magnifies the health and human development problems associated with poor access to nutrition. Budget constraints and thework requirement to obtain benefits6 have reduced the number of SNAP claimants and the average monthly benefit per claimant.7 All the while, one-third of adults are obese and 10% of adults have diabetes.8 Where do we go from here? This special issue of the Economists’ Voice focuses on the interplay between nutrition and poverty, how they are related, and what we can do about it. We aim to provide the most relevant information and analysis for economists, legislative bodies, and policy makers to consider as our society tries to address the complex issues of food security, quality, and affordability, especially amongst our most vulnerable. This edition provides papers that advocate for economic and nutrition policies that can provide the greatest help to low-income Americans, including improving SNAP and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program forWomen, Infants and Children, raising the minimumwage, offering price incentives for healthier foods, providing nutrition education, and reforming our tax and subsidy system to incentivize better food choices. Policy makers must recognize the interplay between the enormous long-term health costs generated by a shortsighted pandering to agribusiness lobbying.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经济学家的声音:营养与贫困专题介绍
美国人每年花费数十亿美元资助大规模的商业农业运营,以种植比我们需要的更多的作物,而数以千万计的美国人——以及大量的美国儿童——生活在饥饿的边缘。我们的补充营养援助计划(SNAP)使数百万人免于陷入困境,该计划每天为每人提供微不足道的4.13美元。1有必要制定一项解决生产和消费问题的双头政策。仅仅拥有充足的粮食供应并不能确保每个美国人都能吃饱饭。仅仅给贫困的美国人钱购买粮食也不能确保他们能够或将要做到这一点。然而,当最终结果是,由于补贴,我们生产的粮食远远超过了我们的需求时,而我们的数百万公民既没有足够的粮食,又患有与营养相关的流行病,显然有一个问题急需解决。后萧条时代的农业补贴之所以有意义,是因为它们减轻了农民的贫困,使他们能够继续生产粮食,从而使国家能够养活自己。21世纪不是20世纪30年代。虽然许多人可能会怀念穿着工作服、戴着草帽的家庭农场主,但绝大多数农业补贴都流向了少数拥有不成比例政治权力的美国大公司和企业集团。现代补贴并不能解决现代饮食问题,事实上,它加剧了与美国人扭曲饮食相关的健康问题。这些饮食扭曲产生了毁灭性的后果,尤其是在低收入地区:肥胖率激增,2型糖尿病发病率上升,学习成绩下降。饮食不平等是降低受收入不平等影响最严重人群生活质量的一个因素。营养不良是糖尿病流行水平2和其他不良健康结果的原因之一。粮食悖论是,我们集体在农业补贴上花费了巨额资金,但许多公民却无法获得高质量、营养丰富的食物。我们共同在医疗保健上花费了巨额资金,但我们的健康结果,特别是对那些生活在贫困中的人来说,是一个国家紧急情况。一连串糟糕的政策选择正在加剧不平等。我们的主要扶贫工作之一是SNAP(现代食品券)。尽管每人每月仅提供125.50美元,3预算和政策优先中心估计,2012年SNAP使1030万美国人摆脱了贫困。4然而,一个领取SNAP福利和每小时7.25美元最低工资工作的两人家庭仍低于贫困线,如果收入是一个四口或四口以上家庭的唯一来源,情况就更糟了。5我们显然需要更强有力的食品券计划和更合理的食品生产补贴。最低工资停滞不前,生活成本不断上涨,加剧了与营养缺乏相关的健康和人类发展问题。预算限制和获得福利的工作要求6减少了SNAP申请者的数量和每个申请者的平均每月福利。7一直以来,三分之一的成年人肥胖,10%的成年人患有糖尿病。8我们该何去何从?《经济学家之声》的这期特刊聚焦于营养和贫困之间的相互作用,它们之间的关系,以及我们能做些什么。我们的目标是为经济学家、立法机构和政策制定者提供最相关的信息和分析,供他们在我们的社会努力解决粮食安全、质量和负担能力等复杂问题时考虑,尤其是在我们最脆弱的人群中。本版提供了倡导经济和营养政策的论文,这些政策可以为低收入美国人提供最大帮助,包括改善SNAP和妇女、婴儿和儿童特别补充营养计划,提高最低工资,为更健康的食品提供价格激励,提供营养教育,改革我们的税收和补贴制度,鼓励人们选择更好的食物。政策制定者必须认识到短视的迎合农业综合企业游说所产生的巨大长期健康成本之间的相互作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Economists Voice
Economists Voice ECONOMICS-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
25.00%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: This journal is a non-partisan forum for economists to present innovative policy ideas or engaging commentary on the issues of the day. Readers include professional economists, lawyers, policy analysts, policymakers, and students of economics. Articles are short, 600-2000 words, and are intended to contain deeper analysis than is found on the Op-Ed page of the Wall Street Journal or New York Times, but to be of comparable general interest. We welcome submitted Columns from any professional economist. Letters to the editor are encouraged and may comment on any Column or Letter. Letters must be less than 300 words.
期刊最新文献
Natural Interest Rate and Money Interest Rates An Evolutionary Path Towards a European Monetary Fund The Fairy Tale of Low Inflation in the Euro Area Food Insecurity and Health Outcomes The Economists’ Voice: Special Issue on Nutrition and Poverty Introduction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1