138 THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL LJANUARY the extent of food availability, respectively, in that province and assess their contributions to the observed cross-province differences in death rates. We find that, in normal years, the cross-province differences in the variables did not result in cross-province differences in death rates. However, in the famine period of 1959-61, both variables contributed significantly to the observed inter-provincial differences in mortality rates. To our knowledge, this paper is the first serious econometric study to assess the relative importance of famine causes using the entitlement approach. I. China's food procurement and entitlement In the entitlement approach, Sen (1981a, b) proposes that the acquisition problem is central to questions of hunger and starvation in the modern world Consider a person's endowment vector x, which may include the possession of land, labour services, health conditions, and the ownership of other proper ties. The person may produce his own food based on initial endowment, or he may exchange possessions in the market for a consumption bundle that includes food. This person starves if he fails to obtain enough food. This may occur either through a fall in the endowment vector x(direct entitlement failure), or through an unfavourable shift in the terms of exchanging proper ties for food(trade entitlement failure). Consequently FAD is not a necessary condition for famine. Towards testing his propositions, Sen recognised that there could be ambiguities in the specification of entitlement, and this problem could be compounded by data limitations. Instead of conducting statistical analysis, Sen relied heavily on the indices of rice-exchange rates and the price ratios of other products or services to rice as major indicators of changing entitlement relations. He found that sharp declines in the food- exchange rates for people in selected occupations explained many of the In contrast to the market environment where sen laid out his entitlement theory and applications, China had a planned economic structure where the cquisition and distribution of food were directly controlled by the central government. Rural people had to deliver quotas to procurement agencies at prices set by the government. A food rationing system existed in cities where urban residents had protected legal rights for certain amount of grain consumption. In this planned setting, Sens entitlement approach is still appropriate for understanding the causes of famine In the wake of the founding of the People's Republic in 1949, an in-kind gricultural tax was the main vehicle by which the state acquired grain from evolution with FAD approaches, see Osm uilibrium, for instance, entitle be well defined characterisations of a pers for additional explanation 7 In addition to Sen, Ravallion(1987)and Dyson( 1991)analysed higher food prices as a proximate C Royal Economic Societythe extent of food availability, respectively, in that province and assess their contributions to the observed cross-province differences in death rates. We ®nd that, in normal years, the cross-province differences in the variables did not result in cross-province differences in death rates. However, in the famine period of 1959±61, both variables contributed signi®cantly to the observed inter-provincial differences in mortality rates. To our knowledge, this paper is the ®rst serious econometric study to assess the relative importance of famine causes using the entitlement approach. 1. China's Food Procurement and Entitlement In the entitlement approach, Sen (1981a,b) proposes that the acquisition problem is central to questions of hunger and starvation in the modern world. Consider a person's endowment vector x, which may include the possession of land, labour services, health conditions, and the ownership of other proper￾ties. The person may produce his own food based on initial endowment, or he may exchange possessions in the market for a consumption bundle that includes food. This person starves if he fails to obtain enough food. This may occur either through a fall in the endowment vector x (direct entitlement failure), or through an unfavourable shift in the terms of exchanging proper￾ties for food (trade entitlement failure). Consequently FAD is not a necessary condition for famine.5 Towards testing his propositions, Sen recognised that there could be ambiguities in the speci®cation of entitlement, and this problem could be compounded by data limitations.6 Instead of conducting statistical analysis, Sen relied heavily on the indices of rice-exchange rates and the price ratios of other products or services to rice as major indicators of changing entitlement relations. He found that sharp declines in the food￾exchange rates for people in selected occupations explained many of the famines.7 In contrast to the market environment where Sen laid out his entitlement theory and applications, China had a planned economic structure where the acquisition and distribution of food were directly controlled by the central government. Rural people had to deliver quotas to procurement agencies at prices set by the government. A food rationing system existed in cities where urban residents had protected legal rights for certain amount of grain consumption. In this planned setting, Sen's entitlement approach is still appropriate for understanding the causes of famine. In the wake of the founding of the People's Republic in 1949, an in-kind agricultural tax was the main vehicle by which the state acquired grain from 5 For an assessment of the entitlement approach that describes its conceptual apparatus, the evolution of Sen's analysis, and the contrast with FAD approaches, see Osmani (1995). 6 In the absence of a market-clearing equilibrium, for instance, entitlement may not be well de®ned. There is also a great deal of ambiguity in characterisations of a person's possessions. See Sen (1981b) for additional explanations. 7 In addition to Sen, Ravallion (1987) and Dyson (1991) analysed higher food prices as a proximate cause of food entitlement collapse. 138 [ THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL JANUARY # Royal Economic Society 2000