Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Nolan's [1993] present ‘critique’, like his two previous ‘critiques’ of my work [Nolan, 1991; Nolan and Sender, 1992], draw liberally on misconstruction of what I have said. The distortions cover a vast field, including the concept of entitlements, the nature of famines in general (and of the Chinese famine in particular), the roles of food production, transport, and wars, and so on. In my reply I have tried to identify the misrepresentations in some detail. What Nolan calls ‘Sen's approach’ is his own creation, and the criticisms that Nolan makes of that approach should be addressed by its author, to wit, Nolan. I have tried to spell out the respects in which the analyses I have presented on famines differ from the views, conjectures and slogans cheerfully attributed to me by Peter Nolan.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amartya Sen (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: