WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO ELIMINATE WORLD HUNGER?

With direct cash transfers and pinpoint poverty maps, ending world hunger is an achievable reality, not a distant dream

?

By Sibel Kulaksiz

?

Is it administratively or logistically complicated to end world hunger once and for all when we know where the impoverished people are thanks to poverty maps generated for every country at municipality levels? Direct cash transfers are proven to be the most effective way of reaching beneficiaries. The Center for Global Development found that ending poverty costs US$160 per person/year. For example, if we transfer US$500,000 directly to the community―preferably under the leadership of the women community leaders―this money could take 3,125 people out of poverty overnight. This could be in the form of delivering cash to impoverished people and letting recipients decide how best to meet their needs. Of course, the one-time transfer is insufficient to keep people out of poverty, but we must first eliminate world hunger. It is unacceptable to allow famine in this era when it does not take much logistically to reach these communities. This is an obligation of us all. Once we ensure that there is no hungry person left, ending poverty is the next priority toward which many organizations are already working tirelessly.

?

Unfortunately, the prevalence of undernourishment has been increasing every year. The number of impoverished people has climbed from 572 million in 2017 to 735 million in 2023. This disgraceful situation exists despite significant efforts by humanitarian organizations. But maybe we need a new and more practical approach to end world hunger. According to the United Nations, hunger is defined as the periods when people experience severe food insecurity—meaning they go for entire days without eating due to lack of money and access to food. Women, children, and the elderly are disproportionately affected by this situation as they are the poorest of the poor in any community. They usually do not get equal access to the resources. The solution to address this issue is not complicated. Economic literature shows that both conditional and unconditional cash transfers can make a substantial positive impact on people's lives.

?

World hunger is preventable. According to the United Nations, there is no global food shortage because we produce more than enough to feed everyone. We make so much food globally that one–third of it―1.3 billion tons―is wasted. And yet, 14 million children suffered from severe acute malnutrition in 2023. Around 45 percent of child deaths worldwide are due to hunger and related issues. One in ten people worldwide go to bed hungry each night, mainly driven by external shocks and chronic inequality. This is all happening during our watch. The chart below shows the world’s hunger hotspots based on data from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations; and World Food Programme (WFP). Democratic Republic of the Congo is in the worst hunger crisis, with 26 million people severely hungry.

Hunger Hotspots: FAO-WFP Early Warnings on Acute Food Insecurity

Every day we do not address world hunger, child protection problems are becoming more acute and widespread. According to Plan International, 45 percent of children between six months and four years old are malnourished. In Mali, stunting affects over 30 percent of children under five. In Zambia, more than a third of children under five are stunted. Despite global surplus, the situation is worsening while we are watching. In Guatemala, two-thirds of the population lives on less than US$2 a day. In Sierra Leone, 66 percent of the population cannot meet their basic food needs. In Bangladesh, 40 million people are food insecure. In Burkina Faso, 3.3 million people are suffering from extreme hunger. Of course, cash transfers and food delivery will not solve all the problems, but these are the first steps to eliminate world hunger. Then, in parallel, we can talk about practical solutions to address poverty, such as educating children, providing access to clean water, ensuring primary health care, and creating economic opportunities for the population.

?

Cash transfers to disadvantaged people give them tools to invest in their future. It has a multiplier effect. A study by the University of California at Berkeley found that every US$100 given directly to the poorest households generated between US$250 and US$270 in GDP. That is a fiscal multiplier between 2.5 to 2.7―around 18 months after the money was spent. They also found that cash transfers benefited the entire local economy, not just direct recipients, as money made its way through the area; both families who did and did not receive cash ended up substantially better off. Cash transfers are often more efficient and effective than other aid forms. Administrative costs are much lower, and resources directly reach the right people. Households could decide and prioritize their recovery with a transparent, simple system showing where the money is spent.