The Economic Joumal 110(Januar), 136-158. C Royal Economic Society 2000. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford Ox4 F, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA O2148, USA FOOD AVAILABILITY. ENTITLEMENTS AND THE CHINESE FAMINE OF 1959-61* Justin Yifu Lin and Dennis Tao Yang Food availability decline and Sens entitlement are two leading appro understanding causes of famine. Previous research based on case studies has give ach approach. This paper analyses the Chinese famine of 1939-61 by considering jointly th rban bias and the decline in food availability as causes. We find that both factors contributed significantly to the increase in death rates during this famine. To our knowledge, this paper is the first econometric study to assess the importance of famine causes using the entitlement approach The problem of famines and food shortages has received much attention from economists because such crises continue to occur despite persistent progress in agricultural production technology. The traditional approach to famine analysis, which dates back to the writings of Adam Smith and Malthus, proposes that famines are primarily caused by a sudden decline in food availability (FAD). For example, a war or a natural calamity may decimate agricultural production in a particular geographic region and result in spread food shortages that lead to famine. This supply-based FAD accour an accepted explanation for famines before the influential work of Sen 1981a, b), who proposed a more general entitlement approach. Sen empha- sised that famine was a situation in which a significant number of people in a region failed to acquire enough food to eat. While a shortage in per capita food output may cause famine, it is only one of many possible causes. In his studies of several well known historical famines. Sen found that famines occurred even when per capita food output was maintained. Famines resulted either from sudden collapses in the endowments of population subgroups or from dra- matic changes in relative prices, which caused some of the population to fail to acquire enough food While the entitlement approach has been accepted by many famine analysts proponents of the FAD approach have offered criticism. Instead of examining food availability at aggregate levels as Sen did, opponents emphasise local supply conditions. They argue that crop failures due to natural calamities often result in high food prices because of supply shortages, speculative behaviour, increased demand to deal with uncertainty, and sales of possessions to obtain food. Ultimately, the poor and those who are negatively affected by bad weather become famine victims because of reduced purchasing power. Since indebted to the participants in thos rs for their Robert marshall. Martin Ravallion I See, for example, Seaman and Holt(1980), Cutler(1984)and Bowbrick(1986). Ravallion(1997) provides a comprehensive description of the entitlements approach and its criticsFOOD AVAILABILITY, ENTITLEMENTS AND THE CHINESE FAMINE OF 1959±61 Justin Yifu Lin and Dennis Tao Yang Food availability decline and Sen's entitlement are two leading approaches in understanding causes of famine. Previous research based on case studies has given independent support to each approach. This paper analyses the Chinese famine of 1959±61 by considering jointly the urban bias and the decline in food availability as causes. We ®nd that both factors contributed signi®cantly to the increase in death rates during this famine. To our knowledge, this paper is the ®rst econometric study to assess the importance of famine causes using the entitlement approach. The problem of famines and food shortages has received much attention from economists because such crises continue to occur despite persistent progress in agricultural production technology. The traditional approach to famine analysis, which dates back to the writings of Adam Smith and Malthus, proposes that famines are primarily caused by a sudden decline in food availability (FAD). For example, a war or a natural calamity may decimate agricultural production in a particular geographic region and result in wide￾spread food shortages that lead to famine. This supply-based FAD account was an accepted explanation for famines before the in¯uential work of Sen (1977, 1981a,b), who proposed a more general entitlement approach. Sen empha￾sised that famine was a situation in which a signi®cant number of people in a region failed to acquire enough food to eat. While a shortage in per capita food output may cause famine, it is only one of many possible causes. In his studies of several well known historical famines, Sen found that famines occurred even when per capita food output was maintained. Famines resulted either from sudden collapses in the endowments of population subgroups or from dra￾matic changes in relative prices, which caused some of the population to fail to acquire enough food. While the entitlement approach has been accepted by many famine analysts, proponents of the FAD approach have offered criticism.1 Instead of examining food availability at aggregate levels as Sen did, opponents emphasise local supply conditions. They argue that crop failures due to natural calamities often result in high food prices because of supply shortages, speculative behaviour, increased demand to deal with uncertainty, and sales of possessions to obtain food. Ultimately, the poor and those who are negatively affected by bad weather become famine victims because of reduced purchasing power. Since The Economic Journal, 110 ( January), 136±158. # Royal Economic Society 2000. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. [ 136 ] An earlier version of this article was presented at Chicago, Duke, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and University of North Carolina. We are indebted to the participants in those seminars for their insightful comments. We are also grateful to Robert Marshall, Martin Ravallion, Dudley Wallace, and especially Costas Meghir and an anonymous referee for helpful suggestions. 1 See, for example, Seaman and Holt (1980), Cutler (1984) and Bowbrick (1986). Ravallion (1997) provides a comprehensive description of the entitlements approach and its critics.