Officer of Engineers

On Measuring "Famine" Deaths: Different Criteria for Socialism and Capitalism?
uploaded on: 13 sep 03
by Utsa Patnaik

Many developing countries which have a high proportion of poor in their population, are typically characterised by a high death rate as well as a high birth rate, with the birth rate exceeding the death rate. The rate of natural increase is given by the difference between the birth rate and the death rate. The actual increase of population is obtained by subtracting from this the net out-migration from the country, if any. In the course of development as health services reach a larger segment of the population, education levels improve and per head real incomes rise, it is expected that not only will the death rate come down but so will the birth rate. The aim is to obtain an even faster decline in the birth rate than in the death rate, if the rate of natural increase is to come down from initial high levels. China however although starting from a worse situation had lowered both the death rate and the birth rate much faster.

In a class-divided society, average figures do not give a true picture of how bad the situation is for the most deprived, who owing to endemic lack of adequate nourishment are also more vulnerable to sickness or morbidity. We know that endemic poverty, under-nutrition and lack of access to affordable medical services get reflected in a much higher death rate than the average, for the poor segment of the population. By the same logic, a given decline in the average death rate over time in the overall population, while in itself desirable, may well be very unequally distributed, with a very large decline in the already lower- than- average death rate among the top income groups in urban areas as their access to health services improves further, and a very small or non-existent decline in death rate say among the poorest in rural areas with initial high levels of deaths. A decline in the average death rate may be quite compatible even with a rise in the death rate for some segments of the population.

The difference between endemic high death rate among the (mainly rural ) poor , and what is identified by most academics as " famine deaths", seems to be the fact that the first involves the poor dying at a rate higher than the average for the population, but slowly, unobtrusively and over a longer period of time owing to being chronically under-nourished and therefore being subject to higher morbidity; this higher than average death rate being considered nothing 'out of the way' given the existing distribution of incomes.

The second, which is considered not normal or usual and is termed "famine deaths", involves a sudden rise in nutrition-deprivation and hence sudden rise in morbidity and death rate, usually among segments of the very same group which is poor as a 'normal' state of affairs. In short, a sudden upward deviation from the prevalent death rate is thought of as "famine death". The cause of a sudden and unpredicted rise may be various - a sudden decline in output, or a sudden rise in the price of the basic food staple. The second cause is not necessarily predicated on the first; a sudden rise in food price may take place , not because output is less than usual, but because government follows policies of suddenly increased expenditures, which rapidly expand incomes in the hands of one segment of the population and hence their demand for food, while leaving untouched the purchasing power of another segment of the population, as happened during the 1943 Bengal famine when deficit-financed defence -related expenditures were suddenly raised.

While China has performed much better than India, it is widely believed that China had a more severe famine than India ever had, during the "Great Leap" period in which millions died; the figure of 27 to 30 million famine deaths is frequently quoted. The main source of this figure in India is Amartya Sen's writings and speeches which are more widely known and reported than are the basic sources, the work of Western scholars, which he uses. The argument made by him is that the absence of press freedom in China explains the fact that the world did not have any inkling that such a massive famine had taken place at the time. Similarly, Peter Nolan and others have argued that a massive famine took place during the collectivisation drive in the Soviet Union in the thirties.

In general, the thrust of the argument is that collectivisation produces famine and the absence of a 'free' press as in capitalist countries, prevents anyone outside these countries knowing about it until much later- when Western liberal scholars painstakingly uncover the facts through their research. Since collective ownership and production is the very essence of socialist production relations, this appears to constitute a damning indictment of socialism. The picture is complicated by the fact that in China itself, some of those, earlier termed the 'capitalist roaders , who were always opposed to egalitarian principles of distribution and wanted to dismantle the rural communes (which were indeed dismantled from 1980 onwards), seized upon the alleged massive "famine " as one argument for an ex post justification for doing so, regardless of the fact that they themselves despite their active involvement in political life were apparently quite ignorant at that time that such a massive famine with 27 to 30 million deaths, had taken place in their own country.

It would be instructive to look at how exactly this estimate of massive "famine deaths " has been arrived at by the ever busy Western liberal scholars, which estimates have then been assiduously spread by them and by others to discredit socialism and praise the bourgeois press (thereby, incidentally, ensuring a very good press for themselves).

In China in 1959-61 there was indeed a large shortfall in agricultural output, as much as 15 percent from normal in 1959 and 25 percent from normal in the next two years and this decline did in fact coincide with the "Great Leap" when the transition from advanced co-operatives to the peoples' communes took place. At that time a number of reasons including drought in parts of the country, floods in others and attacks of pests were put forward for the output fall. No-one, including the foreign diplomatic corps stationed there, or the ideological critics of collectivisation within the Party, at that time suggested there was massive famine. In India too the sixties were difficult years and output shortfall owing to drought in 1964-5 was severe, although less so than in China and was combined with rapid inflation which eroded real wages and raised poverty levels to nearly 60 percent according to the available World Bank estimates.

To associate China's economic difficulties with communes formation would be rather like associating Indonesia's 1997-8 economic crisis and collapse with the widespread forest fires which took place at that time. In short empirical coincidence is not a causal explanation. The same commune system ensured a massive rise in employment, in food security and health security for the rural population in the next two decades. It was not communes which created economic difficulties; rather, it can be argued that without the newly-formed commune's egalitarian distribution, the exogenous output decline might have had a far more severe impact in and made recovery much slower than it was in fact.

When we look at the estimates of death rate and birth rate for China made by US scholars during the years 1959 to 1961, we find that the death rate rose sharply in a single year, 1960, by as much as 10.8 per thousand compared to 1959. But because China in the single preceding decade of building socialism, had reduced its death rate at a much faster rate (from 29 to 12 comparing 1949 and 1958) than India had, this sharp rise to 25. 4 in 1960 in China still meant that this "famine" death rate was virtually the same as the prevalent death rate in India which was 24.6 per thousand in 1960, only 0.8 lower. This latter rate being considered quite "normal" for India, has not attracted the slightest criticism. Further, in both the preceding and the suceeding year India's crude death rate was 8 to 10 per thousand higher than in China. Of course, each economy has to be judged in relation to its own internal performance; and no doubt the rise in the death rate during the worst years of output shortfall is a bad blot for China on its otherwise very impressive record of rapid decline and good food security. But is it correct to say that "famine deaths" totalled as much as 30 million; and is it correct to imply that absence of press freedom meant that China's then leaders, despite knowing about such massive deaths, were so cynical and depraved that they could mislead the world successfully?

In a recent article, published in a Bengali-language journal, Badruddin Umar has provided a powerful explicit critique of the widely accepted argument put forward by Sen on large famine deaths (and hence also a critique of others like Nolan). Umar argues that it is inconceivable that such a large number of "famine deaths" should have been wilfully suppressed by a state in China which had demonstrated its commitment to peoples' welfare by undertaking measures to reach basic food security and health services to the poor, and which had achieved a much faster reduction in infant mortality and the death rate in the very first decade of independence than had India. We propose here to try to provide an explanation which includes a more realistic estimate of mortality, and also of why no-one including the Westerners in China, even noticed that mortality was higher during these years.

Most people will accept that in order to qualify to "die" in a famine, and become a famine-death victim, it is necessary to be born in the first place. But about 18million of the estimated 30 million "dead' in China's famine, were not born at all ! Most of those non-experts, journalists and others who accept and propagate the 'massive famine deaths' in China argument put forward by the academic sophists, do not themselves realise that people who were never born at all, and indeed never conceived at all, are being included to arrive at the 27 to 30 million estimate of "famine deaths" in China. The measurement techniques are designed to mislead, to talk about the "death" of people who were never born. How is this absurd procedure possible? It has come about because not only the rise in the death rate, but also the accompanying sharp fall in the birth rate is being taken into account when estimating "famine deaths". The birth rate in China declined and fell to a low of 18 per thousand in 1961 compared to 29.2 in 1958. (After 1961 it rose faster than it had fallen, to reach a peak of 46 by 1964).

The rise in the death rate during 1959-61 compared to the bench-mark year 1958 implies that there was indeed a total excess mortality of 10.5 million persons over the three-year period 1959-61 in China, excess in the sense that if the death rate had remained the same, then the population would have been larger by that many more people. This is the correct estimate of excess deaths, but this order of "famine deaths" is not quite spectacular enough for the liberal scholars. Therefore, the decline in the birth rate which was very steep during these three years, is taken into account and the children who would have been born if the decline in birth rate had not taken place, are added on by them to the estimate, to arrive at a three times higher estimate which is then called the "missing millions" and identified with "famine deaths". The fact that at least 18 million of the alleged famine victims were never conceived or born, is a minor point for those who want to talk tendentiously about massive "famine deaths" totalling 30 million in China and thereby discredit collectivisation.

That periods of food shortage do lead to decline in fertility is a fairly well established proposition. Periods of mass mobilisation of males, for military service for example, also get reflected in a decline in the birth rate. There was no military conscription at this date in peacetime China, but there was massive mobilisation of both male and female workers for a stupendous construction effort during this period of early commune formation. The established peasant family living and work patterns were radically re-organised with the formation of the communes:

* large bands of and men and women set out in teams and brigades for constructing water management systems, cleaning up the environment and eradicating disease-carrying organisms, afforesting hills, terracing and bunding and so on.

* They spent weeks on the work-sites, and there were communal kitchens and creches to look after children in these years. It is not surprising if this disruption of normal family life in the interests of construction, also contributed greatly to the observed decline in the birth rate as birth decisions were postponed.

* With stabilisation of the new system, dismantling of communal kitchens and reversion to family life the birth rate again surged to unprecedented heights, peaking at 37.9 in 1964.

As regards the genuine excess mortality during China's difficult years, while shortage and difficulties were very real and visible, famine was near invisible to all including the Westerners at that time in China, because China by then was an egalitarian society, not a class society. The undoubtedly severe food shortage was not concentrated in a sharp drop in consumption by the members of a particular deprived class like poor peasants who then died in the sight of all , while others had more than enough to eat, as typically happens with famine in class societies. Food shortage while it was severe, was spread out over the rural consuming population much more evenly and therefore must have led mostly to higher rates, but not immediately or obviously visible higher rates of mortality in the particularly vulnerable segments in an otherwise equal society - parturient mothers, infants and the very old. It is a mistake to think that all real trends are visible to the individuals at the time.

Thus even though we ourselves in this country have lived through the period when the infant mortality has fallen greatly, it is a matter we are convinced of not from our direct experience of it, but after the numbers have been counted and presented to us. China's leaders were not guilty of wilful suppression of knowledge of the higher mortality; the knowledge itself was built up much later than the events, and the correct estimate as we have seen is just over one-third of the wrong and sensationalised estimates which are still being circulated.

On a visit to China in the eighties, at the time the inflated "famine deaths" were being talked about in the West, this author mentioned these estimates and asked some very senior Chinese economists about their own experience of this period. They were extremely surprised and said that while there were cases of more deficiency diseases than usual they were not aware of widespread famine deaths.

It should be noted that those sophists who designed the above mentioned unique measure of "famine deaths" are very reluctant to apply it to non-socialist countries and have never done so. Their method if impartially and honestly applied would produce more than one episode of large "famine deaths" - on their own definition - in the West European countries, which saw not only a rise in civilian mortality but also a decline in the birth rate during the time of wartime shortages. Even the accurate definition in terms of rise in the death rate, is never applied by them to talk about famine in countries which are not socialist.

Thus in Russia comparing 1994 with 1990 from the data given by an US academic, we find that the death rate rose from 48.8 to 84.1 per thousand able-bodied persons, as that country plunged into "shock therapy" to usher in a capitalist paradise, and succeeded in halving its national income. No one can say that the press is under censorship in Russia today or that the estimates are not known. But not one of those eminent economists who have deafened us with their estimates of "famine deaths " during Soviet or Chinese collectivisation, have bothered to apply the same method to current Russian or East European data, nor will they ever do so; for their interest lies not in objectivity, but in a sophisticated vilification of socialism.

Alastair

That's the reason why these chinese "scholars" were unpopular in China because of distorting the turth.

to be honest, i feel regret when i read some words or ideas like : All things chinese govt agree that we argue against it ; all things chinese govts disagree that we support it..... white is always white,while black is always black

ture

__________________
We learn from history that men never learn from history!

Blademaster

OOE,

I would take the article with a large dose of salt. His writings indicates that he has some Marxist or Communists leanings. The Communist Party of India which have a large base of support in West Bengal are notoriously known for their fanatical support of China and her policies and distorting numbers to fit their "universal truth" ideologies.

You have to read between the lines. Yeah what he said may sound sensical but it is not necessarily true.

All this is conjecture unless somebody is willing to dig up all the bodies that died during the GLF and perform autopsies which will reveal the exact cause of death, famine-induced death related causes or other factors such as environmental external factors, diseases not brought on by famine but other means. For example, nobody has ruled out the flu as everyone knows tha people living in poverty are more highly susceptible to flu or diarrhea causing diseases because they have weaker immune systems due to malnourishment or improper eating diets.

Officer of Engineers

I think you've missed the point here. The population of China did not fell by 30 million during those years.

__________________
Chimo

Blademaster

I see your point.

cooldw57

Your altitude disgusts me. While it's true the people in China clearly deserve an apology from CCP for the 1989 Tian'anmen Massacre, nothing else you mentioned above is even comparable to the Rape of Nanking.

Imagine the city you are living in, say Vancouver, 90% of the population are murdered by Japanese forces, 80% of women/girls from age 6 to age 65 are raped by Japanese solders. while another 70,000 unarmed *surrendered* Canadian solders being killed, those "fortunate" are killed by rifles and machine guns, the rest who aren't as fortunate are being used for target practice. How would you feel, uhh?

smilingassassin

I wasn't aware I was in flight.....

....and how would you feel if your city was nuked and 90% of the population was wiped out?

Did I ever defend the rape of Nanking?, no I didn't.

I find all this double standard crap repulsing. Japan got its ass kicked for its militaristic behavour as did the germans who committed acts equally as barbaric, against their own people no less. An apology dosn't wipe the slate clean so why the crocodile tears?

Since when do we forsake our allies while egnoring others atrocity's as well? Cripes, if the word "Japan" wasn't in half these posts I'd swear we were talking about terrorists in Iraq with the amount of contempt thrown arround....

There are some who STILL generalize every German as a goose stepping nazi. Just look at the hub bub over the new popes breif stint in the Hitler youth.

As long as we are going to hold gruges for 50 years and demand apologys the healing process will not proceed naturally.....

cooldw57

I would choose to be vaporized in a split of second, rather than going through the slow, touturous, and painful death. The Japanese soldiers do not want to simply stab you to death, they would cut your hands and legs off so you can't defend yourself, and let out their dogs to eat you alive.

The use of A-Bomb could be justified, it was the best way to avoid Allies casualties. Althought still controversal to a certain extent, it was the only way to end the war successfully at the earliest possible moment. Therefore Hiroshima could not be used to compare to the Rape of Nanking, where the Japanese soldiers actually enjoyed the killing.

I am not in a position to defend craps the CCP had done, you could start a seperate thread on that and I would be glad to share our hatred towards the CCP. You could call what the CCP did was double standard and to a certain extent I agree. But here the point is, criticizing Japanese Government's altitute towards their wartime atrocity has nothing to do with the CCP's killing of its own people. So it's pointless to bring up China's own problems when talking about the Japanese altitute towards the warcrime.

It doesnt wipe the slate clean, but an aplogy from the Japanese Government could at least present the neighboring countries a promise- not to repeat history again. Thousands of "comfort woman" from Korea, China, Taiwan could now die with their eyes closed. Could you imagine a situation where today's German Government refuse to apologize to the Jews? "Double standards" does not just apply to China, but also applies to western hypocrites like you.

This is the difference between Germany and Japan:



Done in the name of Germans past and present, the silent act was arguably more powerful than any words Brandt might have uttered. It demonstrates how language sometimes falls short of capturing the overwhelming tragedy of genocide and war—and of human beings’ inhumanity towards one another.

This image of Willy Brandt kneeling has become a symbol. A symbol of accepting the past and of understanding it as an obligation for reconciliation. As an obligation for a common future. Like so many Germans and Poles I will never forget this image. It has come to be a reminder and a political credo for entire generations



The Yasukuni Shrine honors a few Class A war criminals, Japanese President's visit to Yasuhuni discounts the strong feelings of Asian victims of Japanese militarism about such visits. It also ignores the strong feelings of most Americans about war criminals enshrined at the Yasukuni Shrine. It is a place, after all, where fanatical Japanese revisionists display paintings and sell postcards showing American soldiers being decapitated by gleeful sword-wielding Japanese.

Anon

The Japanese commited all kinds of atrocities(hell my whole regiment was wiped out at a little place called Bataan), but we made them pay for it in spades.

Time to let it go.

Blademaster

Yeah USA definitely made them paid but the problem is that most of the victims at the hands of the Japanese didn't get around to dispensing the justice and relieve the anger and temper through the process. Basically the problem is that it is like complaining, "You didn't leave anything for us to kill." The victims were denied their vengeance.

Hence all the cries and demands for an ever unending apology from the Japanese.

Anon

Then they should just watch the Hiroshima video over and over till they feel better.

What's got their panties in a bunch now is the fact that Japan is challenging their regional dominance instead of just cowing down to the little superpower that can't.

F them.

smilingassassin

Let me ne more specific how would you feel as a surviver?

I agree on the A-bomb comment, it was the only way to defeat the militant japanese running the show, however your generalization of all japanese soldiers enjoying their actions shows your own double standards on racism. Using your logic ALL the Japanese were blood thirsty animals....if a few nuts did dispicable things then they must have all been guilty right?



Nice cop out, lets forget china's atrocity's because they are irrelevent, instead lets focus on the atrocity's of a country commited 60 years ago, a country that since the end of the war never lifted a hand against another nation, but of course according to you they didn't learn their lesson because their was no groveling apology.

In fact I've read in a news report Japan has apologized for its behavior in the war 37 times, including the apology made to day, 17 times alone to China. Koizumi today made nearly the same apology to China as his predessessor Murayama did 10 years earlier but because he fails to grovel to China its not good enough for the "enlightened" types such as yourself.


You come on here all huff and gruff, throwing insults, jumping to conclusions and twisting my statements to paint me as a hypocrit and a racist, but the fact of the matter here is you, not I, are the hypocrite. I don't see any European power DEMANDING an apology from Germany do you?

Again Japan has aplogized, 37 times I suppose they should aoplogise another 37 times to satisfy you, oh enlightend one? How many apology's do they need to make? whats your rule book for apology's? When should the Germans have stoped apologising? What number did they reach before they convinced you?

Nice spin on those photos by the way, say's nothing about the decent Japanese wardead enshirned at that tomb, I suppose now we should catigorize are war dead and bury they accordingly?

Both the Japanese and Germans inflicted and recieved terrible horrors of war, its time to get over this crap.....

cooldw57

Lol I call that "Spiritual Masturbation", don't you think?


Again, this anti-Japanese emotion in Eastern Asia has little to do with regional dominance. Look at the protests in Taiwan, South Korea, North Korea and Hongkong, so please don't generalize

cooldw57

Please ask that question again without the "ne", I dont exactly understand it.

You might feel my previous statment implicitly stated "ALL" Japanese were bloody thirsty animals. By no means I am here to spread hatred of racism and of course I do not imply ALL Japanese were bloody thirsty animals. But if you look at the statistics behind the Rape of Nanking, 200,000~300,000 slaughtered civilian and 80,000 raped women/girls could not be a result of just "a few nuts" who did dispicable things.


The problem here we are discussing are with the Japanese wartime atrocity, I had never even suggested what the CCP did to its own people was ok! Here we got completely seperate issues! Explain to me why people in South Korea and Taiwan are pissed of at Japanese Government too! As a matter of fact, the demostration in South Korea was much more violent than the Chinese protest.


That is indeed true, in fact that was the reason why China+South Korea never had bad relationship with Japanese government until now. I admired the old Japanese leader's altitute towards this, however starting the mid 90's, newly elected Japanese Presidents started paying visit to Yasukuni Shrine, a temple that honors Class A war criminals (Japanese version of Hitler). Are you going to justify this action of theirs?

Hypocrite indeed, and I never accused you being a racist. If Germany propose any plans to beautify Hitler and Halocaust then the entire western world would turn against Germany, Japan's newly published textbook suggests "Rape of Nanking" was a hoax and protraits Japanese wartime leader was "heroic national figure", and you guys just dont give a damn. Doesn't this match the definition of "hypocrite" perfectly?

I just realized this topic has been discussed numerous times on other threads, and I would like to quote OoE to emphasize my point:

The Germans have at least issued a public and formal apology for the Holocaust and make restitutions. The Japanese never did and to this day are fighting in the courts to prevent compensation from a whole range of victims from Nanking type massacres (Nanking is not the only one, just the largest and most famous) to Comfort Women (sex slaves). And all of this, it's OUR fault for pushing the Japanese into war.

It was indeed a great gesture of Japan for aplogizing for its wartime atrocity in Indonesia this week, and I do hope they could stop all their inapropriate acts from now on. Afterall, people in Eastern Asia are not being unreasonable: if Japan could prove to its neighbor of its sincere regret, then people in China, South Korea and Taiwan would be happy to accept Japan as the their new friendly neighbor

smilingassassin

Substitute the "n" for a "b", shall I show you which word exacty, or will you answer the question?

You know as well as I do it took but a few nuts to stir up a hornets nest of Hatred in Germany prior to the war.


The initial problem was Japans permanent seat in the UN, China dosn't like that, hence the red herring of Japans past atrocity's. We won't let Japan recieve a permanent seat but we are fine with Libya heading the human rights commision....nice to see we have are morals set right.




Again you generalize, so your saying the shrine only represents class A war criminals.......



Post some dirrect sorces on the text of those textbooks, with those kind of accusations. I think your grossly exagerating, either that or buying into the CCP propoganda...

This is false, I found an article that states they have apologised 37 times, two of which I can confirm with very little digging. Show me where this is the official govt. opinion on the issue and not Japanese nationalist fundamentalists opinion.

Heres some more apology's......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ssued_by_Japan

I'm sure they would, they are after all so freindly to each other.....I wonder how many more apology's Japan will have to utter before that happens.


Indeed a great gesture that will likely continue on and on and on everytime something happens and China dosn't like it.