MAIN | PEACE | CHEMISTRY | LITERATURE | MEDICINE | PHYSICS
NOTES | OVERVIEW | LAUREATE LOCATOR

(CNN) -- A famine, by definition, is a widespread lack of food that results in misery and death. But Indian economist Amartya Sen makes the argument that misguided politics, not lack of food, is what makes that misery and death possible in the first place.

It is a hypothesis that springs not only from his academic research but also from his own experience. He was just 9 years old when he witnessed the devastating 1943 famine in Bengal, India, that killed more than 3 million poor people in the middle of an economic boom.

Sen has spent his academic life offering influential analyses of the causes of poverty and famine, which has led some observers to label him the "conscience of economics." Now, his work has also earned him the 1998 Nobel Prize for economics.

The Nobel committee's decision to honor Sen has not been without controversy. For years, despite pressure from Sen disciples to reward him for his work, his leftist world view and implicit criticism of unfettered markets kept him from capturing a Nobel. Some critics also maintained his analyses weren't all that original, that his popular renown outstripped the quality of his scholarship.

Sen's studies of famines showed they often occur even when food is in plentiful supply. In World War II-era Bengal, for instance, British colonial authorities hoarded food, fearing a Japanese invasion. That decision was made during a general economic boom that drove the price of food beyond the reach of the poor.

And because India was not then a democracy, British rulers had very little interest in the plight of the poor.

Indeed, Sen argues that democratic political systems, buttressed by a free press, are the best insurance against famine. Democratic governments that rely on the support of the masses will not long ignore hungry people, and a free press will bring food shortfalls to the attention of both government officials and the public at large, he says.

However, in closed societies with an authoritarian government and little press freedom, even small shortfalls of food can accelerate into epic disasters.

The most vivid illustration of Sen's central hypothesis is his analysis of a famine in the late 1950s in China, in which as many as 20 million people may have died. By contrast, since its independence in 1947, democratic India has never had a major famine.

Sen has also argued that even poor countries can make remarkable strides in improving their citizens' lives by emphasizing social spending.

For example, Brazil and Costa Rica have about the same average annual per capita income. Yet Costa Rica, which disbanded its army and has emphasized public spending on basic health and education, has a life expectancy that is 10 years higher than that of Brazil, which has greater social inequalities and a large portion of its population living in deep poverty.