Food for Thought: Does the Delivery of Food Aid Contribute to Conflict?

The Transportation, Student Loan, and Flood Insurance Bill (HR 4348), signed into law on July 6, 2012, includes a provision to reduce the 75 percent cargo preference for food assistance shipments on U.S. flagged vessels to 50 percent. While this legislative change will help reduce food aid transportation costs, questions persist over the efficacy of international development assistance. In a recent report, “Aiding Conflict: The Impact of U.S. Food Aid on Civil War,” authors Nathan Nunn and Nancy Qian examine the impact of U.S. food aid on the incidence, type, and duration of armed conflict in recipient developing countries.

The United States is the largest donor of food aid globally, accounting for more than half of all annual deliveries to alleviate and address chronic hunger. In 2006, over 70 million people benefited from the largest U.S. food aid program, Title II of the Food for Peace Act. In-kind food shipments, however, are particularly vulnerable to theft, misappropriation, and illegal taxation. Recognizing the various channels through which food aid can incite or mitigate violence, Nunn and Qian seek to estimate the average causal effect of food aid on conflict in recipient countries.

Nunn and Qian analyze a sample of 134 developing countries between 1972 and 2006, exploiting annual variation in U.S. wheat production and a country’s likelihood of being a U.S. food aid recipient. Using a two-stage least-squares estimate, they uncover a large and positive correlation between U.S. food aid provision and the incidence of civil conflict in a recipient country. Their estimates reveal, “increasing food aid by ten percent increases the incidence of conflict by approximately 1.14 percentage-points.”

To better understand the potential impact of U.S. food aid, Nunn and Qian examine different types of conflict and recipient country characteristics. They conclude, “Food aid has a more adverse effect on small-scale armed conflicts and in countries with a less developed transportation network.” Their findings support anecdotal accounts of food aid seizures by armed groups during transport.

The authors do not suggest, however, that food aid is completely ineffective or that the United States should discontinue food assistance programs. Rather, they encourage researchers and policymakers, “to examine a broad range of outcomes that capture both the potential benefits as well as the costs of food aid.” While the development debate continues, Nunn and Qian’s study highlights the tradeoffs and nuances between humanitarian aid and development policies.