Exploring the practical relevance of food aid rationales in Belgium
Lessons from applying in‐kind transfer valuation methods
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6452068 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Karen Hermans (0000-0001-9192-2948, Centre for Social Policy Herman Deleeck University of Antwerp Antwerp Belgium, corresponding author), Sarah Marchal (0000-0001-9481-9081, Centre for Social Policy Herman Deleeck University of Antwerp Antwerp Belgium) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 59 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 470-486 |
| Publication date | 2024-07-29 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Social Policy and Administration (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0144-5596 • E-ISSN: 1467-9515 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/spol.13072 |
| OpenAlex | W4401066766 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 29 |
Charitable food aid is gaining new relevance in mature welfare states: the number of beneficiaries increases while the subsidization by and collaboration with the state intensifies. We distinguish three rationales to this further institutionalization: poverty mitigation, and ecological and paternalistic reasonings. In this explorative study we assess the validity of these rationales in the actual set‐up of food aid in Belgium. Specifically, we apply three different in‐kind transfer valuation methods (production cost, market and recipient value) to robustly estimate the value of food aid. This mixed‐methods study builds on purpose‐collected field work data on distributed food aid packages, Household Budget Survey data on common consumption patterns, and a thorough document analysis into food aid spending data. The estimated value of food aid strongly depends on the valuation method: the annual total value of food aid in Belgium ranges from 57 to 148 million euros. Importantly, we observe a discrepancy between prevalent rationales and the actual set‐up of food aid. In contrast to the ecological reasoning of fighting food waste, large part of the total value stems from new food purchases, which involve paternalistic choices. Yet, the composition of food aid packages only partly complies with nutritional recommendations. Moreover, they do not fully meet recipients' preferences and needs, which generates a welfare loss. Food aid may nonetheless seem efficient from a policy perspective: a ‘charity multiplier effect’ appears to translate the government production cost in a higher market value. Still, its unpredictable and mismatched nature likely reduces its poverty mitigating effect
Economics · Political science · Public economics · Relevance (law · Valuation (finance · Accounting · Computer Science · Food Security and Health in Diverse Populations · Gender, Labor, and Family Dynamics · Income, Poverty, and Inequality
First World Hunger Revisited
Transfers in Cash and In-Kind
Zero Poverty Society
Food Reference Budgets as a Potential Policy Tool to Address Food Insecurity
Food Insecurity and Hunger in Rich Countries—It Is Time for Action against Inequality
The experiences and perceptions of food banks amongst users in high-income countries
We are constantly overdrawn, despite not spending money on anything other than bills and food’
Measuring the Economic Value of Volunteer Work Globally
Shifts at the margin of European welfare states
The Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived and social citizenship
A glass ceiling on poverty reduction? An empirical investigation into the structural constraints on minimum income protections
Charitable food aid in Finland
Issues in valuing food aid
Welfare effects of an in-kind transfer program
Food Banks and Food Security
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
The “dark side” of food banks? Exploring emotional responses of food bank receivers in the Netherlands
The politics of the new social policies
Hungry? Food Insecurity, Social Stigma and Embarrassment in the UK
Win-win
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |