Food Sec.

(2014) 6:585–601
DOI 10.1007/s12571-014-0364-2

ORIGINAL PAPER

Food security governance: a systematic literature review

Jeroen J. L. Candel

Received: 20 January 2014 / Accepted: 2 June 2014 / Published online: 24 June 2014
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and International Society for Plant Pathology 2014

Abstract The role of governance has been receiving increas- Keywords Food security . governance . Systematic literature
ing attention from food security scholars in recent years. review . Food governance . Wicked problem . Agricultural
However, in spite of the recognition that governance matters, policy
current knowledge of food security governance is rather
fragmented. To provide some clarity in the debate about the
role of governance in addressing food (in)security, this paper Introduction
reports the results of a systematic review of the literature. The
synthesis revolves around seven recurring themes: i) the view Food security has received much attention in recent years,
of governance as both a challenge and solution to food secu- from both academics and non-academics (Lang and Barling
rity; ii) a governability that is characterized by high degrees of 2012; Allen 2013). This increase in attention is particularly
complexity; iii) failures of the current institutional architec- noticeable after the 2007–2008 and 2010 world food price
tures; iv) the arrival of new players at the forefront; v) calls for crises and the 2008 World Development Report, which called
coherency and coordination across multiple scales; vi) varia- for greater investment in agriculture in developing countries.
tion and conflict of ideas; and vii) calls for the allocation of These events made clear that, in spite of decades of efforts to
sufficient resources and the integration of democratic values in eradicate hunger and malnutrition, food insecurity is still a
food security governance. Two lines of discussion of this significant problem. Furthermore, it has become increasingly
synthesis are raised. First, the researcher argues that a large clear that food security is strongly interlinked with other
proportion of the food security governance literature is char- issues, such as global environmental change and energy mar-
acterized by an optimist governance perspective, i.e., a view kets, and that its policy environment is undergoing transfor-
of governance as a problem-solving mechanism. mation and globalization (Lang et al. 2009; Ingram et al.
Complementing this body of literature with alternative gover- 2010). For those reasons food security has become a concept
nance perspectives in future research may strengthen current that finds wide resonance among academic institutions and in
understandings of food security governance. Approaching policy considerations (Mooney and Hunt 2009; Candel et al.
food security as a ‘wicked problem’ could provide valuable 2014).
insights in this respect. Second, food security governance as a Within these recent food security debates, the role of gov-
research field could make headway by engaging in further ernance has been attracting increasing attention. This devel-
empirical investigation of current governance arrangements, opment stems from the often-heard notion that food security
particularly at sub-national levels. solutions or approaches should not only address the technical
and environmental dimensions of the issue, but also take
social, economic, and political aspects into account (von
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article Braun 2009: 11; FAO 2012; Wahlqvist et al. 2012; Maye
(doi:10.1007/s12571-014-0364-2) contains supplementary material,
which is available to authorized users. and Kirwan 2013). Katrien Termeer (in: Kropff et al. 2013:
128), for example, stated that “food security cannot be realized
J. J. L. Candel (*)
by means of idealistic plans or new technologies only. It
Public Administration and Policy Group, Wageningen University,
Hollandseweg 1, Wageningen 6700EW, The Netherlands requires advanced steering strategies that involve govern-
e-mail: jeroen.candel@wur.nl ments as well as companies, NGOs and citizens.”
586 J.J.L. Candel

The concept of governance has been used and developed in food security before the introduction of the notion. On the
a broad range of academic disciplines, resulting in a plurality contrary, governance of food and food security are probably as
of definitions and applications (for an overview, see: Kjaer old as man (cf. Diamond 2005).
2004). Here, I follow Termeer et al. (2011: 160) in choosing a The reason for choosing a systematic review method is the
broad definition of governance as “the interactions between assumption that bits and pieces of knowledge regarding food
public and/or private entities ultimately aiming at the realiza- security governance already exist, but that these have only
tion of collective goals.” Governance is generally differenti- sparsely been linked to one another. In other words, there is no
ated from government, which is associated with more hierar- clear overview of the food security governance literature. On
chical and state-centered modes of managing public issues the one hand, this has proved to be an advantage, because, as
(e.g., Pierre and Peters 2000; Kersbergen and v., and Waarden, shown in the fourth section, it has resulted in complementary
F. v. 2004). As the above quote illustrates, in recent years the insights from various schools, disciplines, and approaches. On
concept of governance has been increasingly applied to the the other hand, however, it has prevented the realization of a
notion of food security,1 which is most often defined as “all combined understanding up to now. This article aims to fill
people, at all times, having physical, social and economic this gap.
access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their The article proceeds in section 2 with a description of the
dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy systematic review methods used. In section 3, the data, i.e., the
life” (FAO 2003) and which is constituted by the elements body of included literature, are described. Section 3.1 sets out
food availability, food access, and food utilization, and their the key characteristics of the literature, 3.2 gives an overview
stability over time (FAO 1996). These interactions take place of the various conceptualizations of food security governance
both within and outside food systems (cf. Ericksen 2008; in the literature. A synthesis of the literature is presented in
Ingram 2011), and cover factors such as food prices, agricul- section 4 along seven recurring key themes. This synthesis is
tural trade, poverty reduction, infrastructure, education, and reflected upon by the researcher in the discussion section,
crisis management. In addition to interactions aimed at im- which revolves around two lines of discussion: section 5.1
proving food security, food security governance is about man- elaborates on the dominant governance perspective within the
aging the context in which these interactions take place (cf. literature and 5.2 on the current state of the research field. The
Jessop 2003). article ends with some brief conclusions.
What is striking is that, in spite of these various calls for
food security governance, it is not very clear yet what food
security governance entails, what its essential characteristics The systematic review process
or features are, and how it could be enhanced. The aim of this
paper is therefore to: i) provide a state-of-the-art of the current The advantage of using systematic review methods over other
state of knowledge about food security governance, ii) provide review types is that researcher bias can be limited and made
a critical appraisal of this state of knowledge, and iii) lay out visible (Petticrew and Roberts 2006). Systematic methods
an agenda for future research. require a certain structured way of working, the use of clear
These research objectives were addressed by performing a inclusion and exclusion criteria to select eligible literature, and
systematic review of both academic and grey literature elab- a positive attitude towards transparency, in both doing the
orating on food security governance. This paper presents the analysis and reporting findings. They urge the researcher to
synthesis that resulted from this review as well as the re- take the reader by the hand and walk him/her step by step
searcher’s critical appraisal of the state of the research field. through the procedures followed and the choices made during
Here, it is important to note that, although many concrete the research process. Thus, systematic review methods can
global, national, and local food security initiatives, programs, enhance the trustworthiness of the conducted research, and,
and projects have been both developed and studied, the focus consequently, the legitimacy of claims being made (Gough
of this article is primarily on that part of the literature, which et al. 2012).
studies these initiatives and interactions through an explicit
governance lens, in which governance is both study objective
and theoretical perspective. Also, although this study focuses Data collection
explicitly on the relatively recent literature on food security
governance, this is not to say that there was no governance of The data collection process is depicted schematically in Fig. 1.
First, an initial assessment of the literature was performed
1
in Scopus to develop a query. Besides governance, similar
Food security governance here refers to the governance of food security,
concepts that are more common in specific academic commu-
and not to a specific type or mode of governance. Food security gover-
nance and governance of food security are used interchangeably in this nities, such as stewardship and management, were included.
article. The resulting query, consisting of the terms ‘food (in)security’
Food security governance: a systematic literature review 587

Fig. 1 Data collection process,

based on (Biesbroek et al. 2013a)

and (synonyms of) ‘governance’ (Electronic Supplementary on Google Scholar,3 and 10 texts from global organizations, of
Material I, henceforth: ESM), was used to search academic which 2 were academic publications.4 All abstracts were
articles, reviews, articles in press, and conference papers in loaded in Endnote and read. Academic articles were judged
two digital bibliographical databases: Scopus and Web of potentially relevant when they matched the inclusion criteria
Science. Scopus and Web of Science were both chosen to (ESM II) (n=65). Reflections were included on both concrete
prevent either European (Scopus) or American (Web of food security governance arrangements and food security
Science) bias. Grey literature was retrieved by searching governance in general. Also, both empirical and theoretical
Google Scholar, and the websites of five organizations. or conceptual articles and documents were considered poten-
Although Google Scholar has some serious limitations in tially relevant.
relation to performing a systematic review (cf. Anderson Full papers were read and judged again using the inclusion
2013), it did provide two relevant documents that could not and exclusion criteria. This led to a final body of academic
have been retrieved otherwise. I therefore chose to accept this literature of 30 articles. Backward and forward reference
impurity for the sake of the comprehensiveness of the includ- checking led to 8 more articles (ESM III). Including the 2
ed body of literature. The organizations whose websites were Google Scholar and 10 international organization articles this
searched were the UN Food and Agriculture Organization led to a total of 50 documents.
(FAO), the World Food Programme (WFP), the World Trade
Organization (WTO), the International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD), and the World Bank. These organiza-
tions were selected on the basis of a Google Scholar search
using the query ‘food security governance.’
For the academic databases, this query was restricted to the 3
I scanned the first twenty pages of results. All other relevant results had
titles, abstracts, and keywords of articles. The first search led
already been retrieved by searching Scopus and Web of Science, global
to 663 academic articles,2 2 additional academic publications organizations’ websites, or reference checking.
4
Eight from the FAO website, two from IFAD. Searches on the other
2
Duplicates excluded. websites did not lead to relevant results.
588 J.J.L. Candel

Data analysis whereas the combination of the two has only emerged in
recent years, as shown in the next section. Many issues and
All articles and other documents were read again, and the data domains that touch upon food security have been studied for a
were collected in a data extraction table (ESM IV). The data much longer time, and these research lines hold potentially
extraction table presents the results literally, without interpre- highly relevant insights with respect to food security gover-
tation by the researcher, and includes the following categories: nance. In other words, there has been governance of food
governance level, governance locus, type of document, meth- security for a much longer time than the notion itself has been
od, theoretical orientation, conceptualization of food security used. The scope of this article was restricted to studies and
governance, core argument and insights into the nature of food articles that focus explicitly on the notion of governance in
security governance, and recommendations made to improve combination with food security, and not agriculture, rural
food security governance. The table is a summary of the key development, or other related issues. In future research or
insights into food security governance that each document reviews, this review could be complemented with insights
provided, and it served as the basis for the synthesis. from these specific domains or disciplines. Some studies,
Before the synthesis was written, the various insights in the books and chapters that were not included in this review
table were compared to one another and grouped under the because of one or more of the limitations mentioned, and that
main themes that recurred throughout the literature. This could be particularly relevant additions to this review’s syn-
provided the opportunity to identify differences and similari- thesis are an edited volume by Barrett (2013) on food security
ties between the data, and to interpret these. The resulting in relation to sociopolitical stability, a chapter by Schilpzand
seven themes eventually became the headings of the synthesis. et al. (2010) on the role of private sector involvement and a
The synthesis is thus the researcher’s endeavor to bring to- book by Barrett and Maxwell (2005) on governance issues in
gether the core observations and arguments throughout the food aid
data extraction table and associated literature.

Limitations A description of the data

Despite its attempt to provide a review of a body of literature Characteristics of the body of literature
that is as comprehensive as possible, this review has some
serious limitations. First, only documents written in English The food security governance literature can be categorized
were included. The initial search led to several results in other along various characteristics. This section presents a ‘map’ of
languages, such as French, Spanish, and Portuguese, that the body of literature included (see: Gough et al. 2012).
could be highly relevant for the purposes of this review but The ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citations Report indi-
were excluded nevertheless (e.g., Lerin and Louafi 2012; cates that the various journals in which the 33 included aca-
Postolle and Bendjebbar 2012; Soula 2012). Second, the demic articles were published cover a broad range of disci-
review is heavily skewed towards academic peer-reviewed plines within both the natural and the social sciences. Among
articles. Although some book chapters, conference proceed- these fields5 are International Relations (n=5), Food Science
ings, and grey literature documents were included, & Technology (n=4), Sociology (n=4), and Economics (n=
complementing the body of literature with books, disserta- 3). Of all the journals that included articles on food security
tions, and more grey literature could lead to additional in- governance, only one journal had more than two articles
sights. This is especially true for books and book chapters, (Food Security, n=3), which, together with the journal cate-
which proved difficult to retrieve by searching digital data- gories, indicates the spread of academic attention across var-
bases. Third, the academic literature was searched using the ious disciplines and communities.
two biggest databases, Scopus and Web of Science. Although Regarding the years in which the documents were pub-
these two databases together cover a significant majority of lished, an upward trend can be seen from 2009 onwards
international peer-reviewed journals, other, more specialized (Fig. 2). Whereas none of the years before 2009 includes three
databases might cover other potentially relevant journals. In or more documents, this increases to five and four in 2009 and
addition, new journals are often not (yet) covered by either 2010, respectively, and ten, twelve, and nine in 2011, 2012,
Scopus or Web of Science. It also means that the body of and 2013,6 respectively. This observation confirms the notion
literature is dominated by publications from the Western
5
hemisphere, whereas publications from other parts of the Based on journal subject categories in Journal Citations Report. Only
ISI-indexed journals were included in this analysis. Ten articles were not
world, such as India, Brazil, and China, are relatively under-
published in an ISI-indexed journal. If journals were ascribed to multiple
represented. Finally, both food security and governance are categories, all categories were included.
6
labels that have become particularly popular in recent decades, Up to the time of data collection, see ESM I.
Food security governance: a systematic literature review 589

Fig. 2 Number of publications 12

concerning food security
governance per year
10

that the recent food crises formed the impetus for an increase Food security governance conceptualizations
in research on food security in general (Rockson et al. 2013). in the literature
Figure 3 shows that a large proportion of the included
documents focus on the global governance level. The concept Of the 50 included documents, 8 provided a conceptualization
of food security governance seems most integrated in the of food security governance, or mentioned what food security
discourse of, and research on, global organizations, such as governance comprises (Table 1). The remainder of the articles
FAO, the Committee on World Food Security (CFS), and the and documents either discussed food security governance
G20. Nevertheless, more than a fifth dealt with national food without explicitly defining the notion, or did not have food
security governance. Countries covered range from developed security governance as their core focus but provided some
countries like Canada and Japan, to developing countries such insights on the margins.
as South Africa, Malawi, the Philippines, and Brazil. Only a
relatively small proportion of the literature covered gover- Table 1 Food security governance conceptualizations
nance of food security at sub-national levels.
1.“a mechanism that will facilitate debate, convergence of views and
Finally, the data extraction table indicates that 69 % (n= coordination of actions to improve food security at global but also at
29) of the 42 academic publications did not collect data, or regional and national levels.” (FAO 2009: 1)
did not justify the methods used. Those that did mention 2. “the exercise of power within institutional contexts, particularly crafted
the methods most often used interviews (n =8) or docu- to direct, control, and regulate activities concerned with food security
ments analysis (n=6). whereby these institutions are viewed by citizens as legitimate,
accountable, and transparent.” (Mohamed Salih 2009: 501)
3. “Good governance for food and nutrition security is fundamentally
about national governments prioritizing policies, plans, programs and
Not funding to tackle hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity in the most
specified vulnerable populations, whether it be through humanitarian or
10% development assistance, nationally, bilaterally or multilaterally.”
(High-Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis 2010: 3)
4. “relates to formal and informal rules and processes through which
interests are articulated, and decisions relevant to food security in a
Multiple country are made, implemented and enforced on behalf of members of
Global a society.” (FAO 2011a: 17), also used in (Pérez-Escamilla 2012;
14%
42% Colonelli and Simon 2013)
Local
5 “governance for food and nutrition security relates to formal and
4% informal rules and processes through which public and private actors
Region/ articulate their interests, and decisions for achieving food and nutrition
security (at local, national and global level) are made, implemented and
state sustained.” (FAO 2011b)
6% National
22% 6. “there are over a dozen international institutions active in the field of
food security. Working alongside these institutions are numerous
Regional regional, non-governmental and private organizations. This
2% decentralized patchwork of institutions constitutes what may be best
described as global food security governance.” (Margulis 2012: 231)
Fig. 3 Governance levels on which documents focused
590 J.J.L. Candel

As Table 2 shows, the six conceptualizations differ consid- Regarding the first, a good example is Margulis’ equation of
erably regarding the elements of food security governance that food security governance with the global constellation of
they underline or deem crucial. Also, various nomenclatures institutions and organizations. This description differs from
are used, such as ‘food security governance,’ ‘governance of the five others in the sense that it does not mention the role of
food security,’ and ‘good governance for food security’ (FAO agency or interactions. Regarding the element of multi-
2011a). levelness, it is not self-evident whether this refers to multiple
A recurring element in most definitions is ‘steering,’ which levels of governance, or to merely aiming to have an impact
refers to the exercise of power through the design and en- on multiple levels of food security. These conceptualizations
forcement of interventions aimed at improving food security do seem to imply, however, that food security is an issue that
conditions. Although this can be done by both public and spans spatial and jurisdictional scales.
private actors, most conceptualizations are relatively Finally, three elements mentioned only in a single concep-
government-centered. tualization were ‘coordination,’ ‘convergence,’ and ‘public
Apart from steering, elements that are mentioned re- and private.’ However, as can be seen in the following section,
peatedly are ‘deliberation,’ ‘formal and informal,’ ‘demo- these are all themes that recur frequently throughout the
cratic values,’ ‘institutions,’ ‘multi-levelness,’ and ‘nutri- literature.
tion.’ Deliberation is particularly pervasive in the three Food security governance is thus conceptualized in various
FAO definitions, which all emphasize the articulation of ways, whereby each description highlights different elements.
views and/or ideas. This could be due to FAO’s closeness Moreover, rather than reflecting a current regime, most con-
to the CFS, which primarily aims to stimulate and facil- ceptualizations sketch an ideal state of (good) food security
itate deliberation. The formal–informal nexus suggests governance.
that these deliberations do not necessarily take place in
formal institutional settings, but that both exchanges of Synthesis of the literature
ideas and steering can also occur through informal pro-
cesses and institutions. The synthesis presented in this section is divided along seven
In two of the conceptualizations of food security gover- interrelated key themes that recur throughout the literature.
nance, the authors find it essential that these steering and/or For each theme, the central insights and arguments are pre-
deliberative activities are grounded in societal support and sented. These insights and arguments are reported as they are
respect democratic values, such as legitimacy, accountability, raised in the literature and do not necessarily reflect the
and transparency. Two other conceptualizations underline the viewpoint of the researcher. It is important to note that the
importance of nutrition, which can be traced back to wider boundaries between these seven themes are relative, and con-
support within the food security academic community to sequently there is some substantive overlap between themes.
include the nutritional dimension in measures of food The synthesis starts with the broad views of governance as
insecurity. both a challenge and a potential solution to food security.
Two final elements of food security governance mentioned Themes 2 through 5 show that the potential positive contribu-
more than once were ‘institutions’ and ‘multi-levelness.’ tions that governance arrangements can make to food security

Table 2 Elements of the various conceptualizations

Definition elements FAO 2009 Mohamed Salih 2009 High-Level FAO 2011a FAO 2011b Margulis 2012
Task Force 2010

Global governance Governance of Good governance Food security Governance for food Global food security
of food security food security for food security governance and nutrition security governance
Coordination X - - - - -
Convergence X - - - - -
Deliberation X - - X X -
Democratic values - X - X - -
Formal and informal - - - X X -
Institutions - X - - - X
Multi-level X - (no specific level) - (national) - (national) X - (global)
Nutrition - - X - X -
Public and private - - - - X -
Steering - X X X X -
Food security governance: a systematic literature review 591

are argued to be complicated by the high degrees of complex- bad governance often has a significant negative
ity that characterize the issue (theme 2), failures of current impact on food security, the opposite is true for
institutional architectures to address this complexity (theme good governance. Although often overlooked,
3), and the arrival of new types of actors in food security well-developed governance arrangements that
governance (theme 4), but could arguably be stimulated by a are able to respond effectively to both crisis situ-
stronger focus on coherency and coordination across scales ations and structural concerns are key to eradicat-
(theme 5). However, apart from complexity, the literature ing hunger (High-Level Task Force on the Global
shows that food security governance involves various, some- Food Security Crisis 2010; L. Haddad 2011; Galiè
times conflicting, ideas about the way (s) in which to address 2013). Pereira and Ruysenaar (2012), for exam-
food insecurity, as is set out under theme 6. Theme 7 adds two ple, show how the extension of South-African
more factors that should be taken into account according to the business’ ‘good corporate governance’ principles
literature: resources and democratic values. to the inclusion of stakeholders in decision-
making has resulted in an improved ability to
Theme 1: the view of governance as both a challenge and a respond to changes in the food system. Similarly,
solution to food security Haddad (2011) argues that the creation of a new
social policy program and a ministry, which has
Throughout the literature, governance is consid- been tasked with coordinating the work of other
ered as both a potential driver of, and a potential ministries toward a number of food security goals,
solution to, situations of food insecurity. has had a significant positive impact on Brazil’s
Regarding the former, Boyd and Wang (2011) food and nutrition security.
clearly show that, in some situations, poor gover-
nance, rather than natural conditions, constitutes Theme 2: a governability that is characterized by high de-
the main driver of food insecurity. Conflict, lack grees of complexity
of institutional capacity, poor policy design, and
lagging implementation can inflict serious harm to Although the importance of food security gover-
the production and distribution of healthy food. nance is increasingly acknowledged, the literature
Boyd and Wang, in this respect, refer to Peter indicates that food security is not an issue that
Bauer’s earlier example of North and South lends itself to being ‘governed’ easily. It is recog-
Korea, which have similar natural conditions but nized that food security is a highly complex and
big differences regarding their levels of food se- multi-dimensional issue that is impacted by a
curity, which can be traced back to differences in broad range of drivers and food system activities,
the quality of governance. Note that, in this ex- stretches across various scales, and involves mul-
ample, poor governance does not necessarily refer tiple sectors and policy domains (Makhura 1998;
explicitly to governance of food security, but rath- Maluf 1998; Drimie and Ruysenaar 2010;
er to a country’s governance system in Behnassi and Yaya 2011; Margulis 2011, 2013;
general.Other authors stress that, even when poor Marzeda-Mlynarska 2011; McKeon 2011;
governance is not the main cause of food insecu- Duncan and Barling 2012; Pereira and
rity, it can be a significant contributory factor Ruysenaar 2012; Colonelli and Simon 2013).
when it fails to effectively address natural, eco- Regarding the last point, food security is not so
nomic, or social drivers of conjectural or structural much approached as a domain in itself, but, rather,
hunger (Sahley et al. 2005; Committee on World as an issue affected by a wide array of domains,
Food Security 2012; Pereira and Ruysenaar such as agriculture, trade, fisheries, environment,
2012). For example, in a food security assessment development cooperation, and energy, as a result
of Malawi, Sahley et al. (2005) argue that the of which many actors and institutions are in-
limited capacity of the Malawian government to volved in food security governance (Mohamed
implement its own policies and programs formed Salih 2009). Consequently, it is difficult to iden-
a significant constraint to tackling the country’s tify the main drivers of food insecurity, the more
development challenges. Likewise, Pereira and so because there is a distinction between structural
Ruysenaar (2012) contend that governments often food insecurity and associated drivers, and con-
fail to respond to crises because of poor decision- jectural food insecurity, such as hunger related to
making, limited coordination, weak institutions, sudden food price spikes (High-Level Task Force
and scarce resources.At the same time, it is on the Global Food Security Crisis 2010; Clapp
underlined throughout the literature that, whereas and Murphy 2013). Margulis (2013) argues that
592 J.J.L. Candel

there is, nevertheless, increased awareness of the complex for food security, in which food security
structural factors that play a role.The body of is affected by a wide array of governance regimes
literature shows that food security governance is that are all constituted by distinct sets of actors,
spread not only across domains and sectors, but forums, discourses, interests, and so forth. As a
also across spatial scales. States of, as well as result, there is a considerable overlap of mandates
challenges to, food security can be considered and actions, in the best scenario resulting in du-
on a global, regional, or national level, but plicate actions, but in the worst in conflict be-
have also been increasingly studied and tween interests, visions, and paradigms
addressed at local, community, household, or (Margulis 2011, 2012, 2013; McKeon 2013).
individual levels over the last decades. Moreover, as the CFS (2012) argues, this
Whereas Robert Paarlberg (2002) argues that fragmented effort has resulted in a large number
the main drivers and solutions should primar- of projects that lack the scale to make a real
ily be sought at national level, recent food difference. This vacuum of global governance
crises have shown that ongoing globalization has therefore led to a general inadequacy in tack-
and the associated entanglement of world food ling effectively both structural hunger and sudden
systems have led to a situation whereby food food crises (McKeon 2011). Many authors see a
insecurity drivers increasingly lie outside the potentially important role for the recently re-
scope of national governance (McKeon 2011). formed Committee on World Food Security in
filling this vacuum, but state at the same time that
Theme 3: failures of the current institutional architectures the CFS still needs to prove its effectiveness (FAO
2010; High-Level Task Force on the Global Food
Addressing an issue as complex as food security Security Crisis 2010; Global Forum on Food
thus requires a sophisticated governance system. Security and Nutrition 2011; FAO 2012; Clapp
Nevertheless, the majority of the reviewed litera- and Murphy 2013). In addition to the occurrence
ture is highly critical of the current institutional of conflict between international bodies, the liter-
architecture and practices of food security gover- ature also gives examples of how these bodies
nance and offers recommendations for a more affect one another through their norm-setting
effective and/or democratic future governance tasks, the creation of rules, and diffusion of para-
system.Most of this critique is focused on the digms. This effect is reinforced by the participa-
global level of food security governance (e.g., tion of actors in several of these bodies at the same
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition time, all of which attempt to pursue their interests
2011; Margulis 2011; McKeon 2011; Colonelli through various channels (González 2010). Clapp
and Simon 2013). However, to a large extent this and Murphy (2013), for example, argue that the
can be attributed to the lack of national and sub- G20’s unwillingness to address the root causes of
national governance arrangements and associated price volatility has had a chilling effect on the
studies, especially in developing countries discussions taking place in other organizations,
(Thomson 2001). The main critique of the global such as the CFS. For this reason, and because of
governance of food security is that there is no truly an arguable lack of legitimacy of the G20, they
authoritative and encompassing body or institu- plead for the G20’s withdrawal from food security
tion with a mandate to address food security con- governance and for other organizations to take
cerns across sectors and levels (Amalric 2001; back the helm. Although a large proportion of
von Braun 2009; Behnassi and Yaya 2011; documents focus on the global level, some of the
Margulis 2011; McKeon 2011; Colonelli and literature describes similar dynamics in national or
Simon 2013). Instead, responsibilities, jurisdic- local governance. Sahley et al. (2005), for
tions, and foci are spread across a broad range of example, observe that policy formation in
international organizations and forums, which all Malawi was ad hoc and resulted in a plethora of
have their own core business, but none of which policies and programs that were sometimes
deals with food insecurity in a holistic and inclu- disconnected and contradicted one another, and
sive manner (Global Forum on Food Security and were spread across central government agencies.
Nutrition 2011; Committee on World Food Similarly, Drimie and Ruysenaar (2010) argue
Security 2012). Margulis (2013) and Orsini et al. that the South African Integrated Food Security
(2013) have termed this the shift from an interna- Strategy (IFSS) was poorly executed and had too
tional food security regime towards a regime strong an emphasis on agriculture. There was a
Food security governance: a systematic literature review 593

lack of coordination between departments, sub- security governance closer to those who are hun-
programs were weakly integrated, and supportive gry. It therefore enhances the legitimacy of, and
legislation was lagging behind. public support for, food security interventions,
which, together with the resources that CSOs can
Theme 4: the arrival of new players at the forefront bring in, stimulate effective implementation (Koc
et al. 2008; Behnassi and Yaya 2011; Edwards
Part of the complexity and the difficulties with the 2012). Third, CSOs can form bridges between
design of institutional structures stems from an government agencies that did not previously co-
increase in the number of actors involved in food operate, or between various governance levels
security approaches, or that have a direct or indi- (global – national, national – local, global – local),
rect impact on food security (Koc et al. 2008; von and thus contribute to a multi-sector and multi-
Braun 2009; Behnassi and Yaya 2011; McKeon scalar approach (McKeon 2011; Edwards 2012).
2011; Duncan and Barling 2012; Edwards 2012; Fourth, CSOs frequently operate as co-workers of
Margulis 2012; Pereira and Ruysenaar 2012; Seed government agencies and can offer the capacity
et al. 2013). This increase in stakeholders can be that government often lacks (Seed et al. 2013). In
reduced to three types in particular: international spite of these potential advantages and a handful of
organizations, civil society organizations (CSOs), best practices, the inclusion of CSOs in food secu-
and private sector corporations. These actors are rity governance is not self-evident. Both Seed et al.
active on all governance levels and within inter- (2013) and Koc et al. (2008) show that these forms
national organizations or government agencies, of collaborative governance call for appropriate
whereby they often ‘shop’ between forums or structures, capacity, and political will, which are
venues, depending on where they perceive their not always at hand. In addition, involving civil
interests to be best represented (McKeon 2011; society actors entails a shift in bureaucratic philos-
Duncan and Barling 2012).The increase in inter- ophies, and this requires time and continuous ef-
national bodies, in particular, followed the 2007– fort. Moreover, some actors may benefit from the
2008 world food crisis. After the crisis, the CFS exclusion of others, because it enables them to
was thoroughly reformed, the UN installed a satisfy their own agendas. The inclusion and ex-
High-Level Task Force, the World Bank renewed clusion of actors influences the structures and
its focus on agriculture and food security, and the mechanisms of food security governance as well
G8/G20 became increasingly involved (Jarosz as the substance of decisions made, and is there-
2009, 2011; Margulis 2012; Clapp and Murphy fore important to take into account when setting up
2013). However, as the above section on the glob- or evaluating arrangements (Duncan and Barling
al institutional architecture has made clear, this 2012). A third group of actors who are increasing-
increase in organizations has not been without ly involved in food security governance are private
criticism. Civil society participation has not only corporations and related associations. Compared
increased in recent years, but is also considered to CSOs, this group has received relatively limited
crucial for effectively addressing food insecurity attention. This is partly because, although private
on all levels (Makhura 1998; Thomson 2001; corporations do participate in global forums and
FAO 2009; Jarosz 2009; Rocha and Lessa 2009; organizations, most of their activities and impacts
von Braun 2009; High-Level Task Force on the remain relatively hidden. This has led to critiques
Global Food Security Crisis 2010; Global Forum about the lack of regulation and democratic control
on Food Security and Nutrition 2011; Margulis of private sector interests (Behnassi and Yaya
2012; Seed et al. 2013). The literature indicates a 2011; McKeon 2011), but others have argued that
broad range of advantages that CSOs could pro- this new reality should be accepted and that these
vide to more traditional government-centered ap- players should be further embedded in food secu-
proaches. First, civil society can provide the rity governance (von Braun 2009).
policy-making process with valuable information.
Local, bottom-up knowledge creation may con- Theme 5: calls for coherency and coordination across mul-
tribute to identifying food insecurity problems and tiple scales
response gaps of which policy-makers are often
unaware (Koc et al. 2008; Bastian and Coveney To overcome the identified problems of fragmen-
2012; Brownhill and Hickey 2012; Seed et al. tation, overlap, conflict, increasing numbers and
2013). Second, CSO participation brings food types of stakeholders, and ineffectiveness that
594 J.J.L. Candel

characterize current food security governance, the issue of institutional capacity, which is deemed
literature almost unanimously calls for an en- essential to organize sustained coordination
hanced institutional capacity that could contribute (Thomson 2001; L. Haddad 2011; Margulis
to realizing higher degrees of coherence and co- 2011). As the example of Malawi shows, a lack
ordination. A central argument is that addressing of institutional capacity can lead to lagging im-
the complex food insecurity drivers requires pol- plementation, and it may also hamper the quality
icies and programs that mutually reinforce one of policy formation and integration with multiple
another, thereby contributing to shared goals and policy sectors and governance levels (Sahley et al.
outcomes. The individual actions of 2005). Moreover, it is not only the capacity itself
(international) organizations, countries, donors, that matters, but also where this capacity is
corporations, and other private actors can address situated institutionally. Drimie and Ruysenaar
various drivers and aspects of food insecurity but (2010) show that, although there was a certain
would, together, have to result in a coherent and amount of capacity to implement the South
holistic approach, whereby trade-offs and dupli- African IFSS, this capacity was mainly positioned
cated efforts are minimized and one actor’s course at the Department of Agriculture, and this led to a
of action does not impair that of others. This calls neglect of non-agricultural issues and actors relat-
for high degrees of coordination, both between the ed to food security. For that reason, the re-
currently fragmented institutions and between searchers plead for a concerted effort by depart-
governance levels, and integration of food securi- ments and other actors to harness available exper-
ty concerns into other policy domains or sectors tise and to initiate and coordinate food security
(Maluf 1998; MacRae 1999; FAO 2009, 2012; efforts across sectors. Here, the importance of
Drimie and Ruysenaar 2010; High-Level Task boundary organizations, such as interdepartmen-
Force on the Global Food Security Crisis 2010; tal committees, becomes clear again. Various au-
Margulis 2011, 2013; McKeon 2011; Clapp and thors have either shown the effectiveness of these
Murphy 2013; Rola 2013; Seed et al. 2013). This kinds of organizations, or plead for their creation
would imply that, on each governance level, re- (Maluf 1998; FAO 2011b; Misselhorn et al.
gimes, sectors, policy domains, and associated 2012). Both Misselhorn et al. (2012) and Pereira
actors and institutions would have to be brought and Ruysenaar (2012) argue that creating such
into line; but this can only be realized by active capacity demands a different governance perspec-
coordination on the one hand, and the inclusion of tive, in which states shift from a predominantly
multiple public and private actors and mono-centric governance perspective to gover-
decentralized initiatives on the other (Edralin nance arrangements that stimulate and facilitate
and Collado 2005; FAO 2009; Drimie and interactions across multiple levels and scales.
Ruysenaar 2010; High-Level Task Force on the
Global Food Security Crisis 2010; Behnassi and Theme 6: variation and conflict of ideas
Ya y a 2 0 11 ; M a r z e d a - M l y n a r s k a 2 0 11 ;
Committee on World Food Security 2012; Lang An issue identified in the literature as a major
and Barling 2012). At the same time, it is argued challenge to institutions’ coordinative efforts is
that coordination between governance levels the plurality of ideas around food security in gen-
would have to be stimulated, so that drivers of eral, and food security governance more specifi-
food insecurity are addressed at the appropriate cally (Jarosz 2009; González 2010; Margulis
level, thereby complying with the principle of 2011, 2013; McKeon 2011; Lang and Barling
subsidiarity (Global Forum on Food Security 2012; Seed et al. 2013). This multitude of ideas
and Nutrition 2011; McKeon 2011). According comes on top of the varying formal definitions,
to Misselhorn et al. (2012), ‘boundary organiza- which are set out in section 3.2, and is a result of
tions’ can play an important role in this respect. the variety of sectors, countries, governance
As the term indicates, these organizations operate levels, and associated actors and interests that are
on the boundaries between sectors or governance involved in, or have an impact on, food security
levels and thus have the potential to stimulate governance. Idea, here, is an umbrella concept for
coordination. Regional organizations, such as the ideational concepts used in the literature on food
European Union or ASEAN, or their divisions, security governance, such as discourse,
provide promising opportunities in this regard paradigms, norms, governmentality, or
(FAO 2011b).These last examples point to the philosophies. Some ideas are deeply embedded
Food security governance: a systematic literature review 595

in the culture or administrative philosophy of responsibility and human rights. Stakeholders

organizations, countries, or other actors. Barclay in these organizations play active roles in
and Epstein (2013), for example, explain how protracting these conflicts by actively framing
Japan’s approach towards food security is firmly food security (governance) according to their
grounded in ways of thinking about the protection views and interests (McKeon 2011; Barclay
of national culture and social and environmental and Epstein 2013; Clapp and Murphy 2013).
responsibility. This governmentality led the How are these ideational conflicts to be re-
Japanese government to support both free trade solved? The literature provides no silver bullet
and protectionist policies at the same time. solutions in this respect, but both Margulis
Similarly, Edwards (2012) empirically showed (2013) and McKeon (2011) argue that a first
that collaborative governance had become deeply step would be to increase awareness and under-
institutionalized in the administrative philosophy standing of the multitude of ideas, and to agree
of various U.S. state agencies. Edwards’ results on some basic principles and values.
form an interesting contrast to Seed et al. (2013),
who reveal that bureaucratic cultures in state Theme 7: calls for the allocation of sufficient resources and
agencies in British Columbia were strongly dom- the integration of democratic values in food secu-
inated by ideas of top-down policy-making. A rity governance
third example is provided by M. Haddad (2012),
who by analyzing the Quran shows that Islam As repeatedly stated in the above sections, most
champions a state-centered perspective on food of the literature focuses primarily on what food
security. Lang and Barling (2012) show that, on security governance should ideally look like,
an aggregate level, these perspectives or modes of thus on what good food security governance
thinking may result in encompassing discourses entails. The previous themes have already
or paradigms that can have a significant impact on shown that coherency, coordination, and dealing
how food security is approached, on the distribu- with ideational pluralism and a broad range of
tion of power and resources, and on which gover- actors are widely considered to be crucial ele-
nance or policy options are considered. Often, ments of a good governance approach. Here,
various discourses or paradigms exist at the same two more criteria that are repeatedly mentioned
time and compete for domination; this leads to in the literature are added: resources and dem-
conflicts between their proponents about the ocratic values. Various types of resources that
courses of action to follow and about who is to are essential to create and maintain responsive
decide (Lang and Barling 2012). These conflicts and effective governance arrangements are
in food security governance become most visi- underlined in the literature. Many of these arti-
ble in the work of Matias Margulis (2011, cles share the concern that governance arrange-
2013), whose central argument is that diverging ments have often failed to effectively address
rules and norms (paradigms) across the global hunger because most energy was expended on
regimes of agriculture and food, international shaping their architectural features without suf-
trade, and human rights concerning the appro- ficiently thinking out the sustainable resource
priate role of states and markets in tackling allocation that these institutional architectures
food insecurity cause conflict and have a detri- need to be effective in the long term. A first
mental effect on policy coherency. Before glob- type of resource required is finance, i.e., a
al food security governance became a regime sufficient budget (FAO 2009). Edralin and
complex, assumptions and principles were Collado (2005), for example, argue that, al-
more shared within the food security regime though decision-making authority was
(Coleman and Gabler 2002; Margulis 2013). decentralized in the Philippines, the effective-
Similar ideational conflicts can also occur with- ness of these measures was hampered by a
in organizations. Both González (2010) and lagging decentralization of financial resources.
Jarosz (2009) argue that the FAO is subject to A second crucial resource is political will, lead-
conflicting discourses. According to Jarosz, the ership, and prioritization (Makhura 1998;
FAO’s ineffectiveness can, to a large extent, be Sahley et al. 2005; High-Level Task Force on
traced back to a conflict between a discourse the Global Food Security Crisis 2010; Global
that centers on free trade and productivity, and Forum on Food Security and Nutrition 2011; L.
one that is more concerned with shared moral Haddad 2011; Committee on World Food
596 J.J.L. Candel

Security 2012). The success of an approach questions and challenges remain unanswered and unad-
often relies on the sustained efforts of one or dressed. In this section, the synthesis is critically reflected
more actors. Of particular concern in this regard upon. Two lines of discussion are raised: the first concerns
are political shifts, such as changes of office. the dominant governance perspective in the literature, the
Such shifts can lead to a discontinuation of second, the current state of the research field.
political efforts (Rocha and Lessa 2009). A
third resource often mentioned is knowledge. Dominant perspective: governance as problem-solving
Knowledge can come, inter alia, from stake-
holders who are active on the ground, from Governance has become a popular and much supported notion
the experience and expertise of policy-makers, in food security communities. This is well reflected by the
or from research institutes in the form of scien- rather recent emergence of the body of literature synthesized
tific evidence (Koc et al. 2008; FAO 2009; in the previous section. What is striking is that, although
Rocha and Lessa 2009; Behnassi and Yaya different parts of the literature have different emphases, the
2011; Global Forum on Food Security and perspective on governance that emerges seems relatively con-
Nutrition 2011). Besides resources, other ele- sonant. In the governance literature, this perspective has been
ments that are generally considered essential termed an ‘optimist philosophy on governance’ or a ‘problem-
for good food security governance are good solving governance lens’ (Bovens and ’t Hart, 1996;
governance and democratic values. Good gov- Biesbroek et al. 2013b). This perspective is particularly clear
ernance, here, does not necessarily refer to ef- in the third and fourth themes of the synthesis. From this
fective governance. It is indeed conceivable that perspective, food security is recognized as a highly complex
governance arrangements are effective in ad- issue that cannot be dealt with effectively by the current
dressing food insecurity without fulfilling par- fragmented institutional architecture. Therefore, the gover-
ticular democratic values. Values repeatedly nance system should be made more coherent, better integrated
mentioned are accountability, transparency, le- and coordinated, and more inclusive. The general underlying
gitimacy, inclusiveness, and responsiveness argumentation is that, if governance regimes were further
(Mohamed Salih 2009; Rocha and Lessa 2009; integrated on multiple scales, more knowledge and informa-
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition tion would be acquired and shared; and if all relevant stake-
2011; L. Haddad 2011; McKeon 2011; FAO holders were able to engage in collective rational delibera-
2011a; Pérez-Escamilla 2012). These values tions, it would ultimately be possible to overcome the com-
are applicable not only during policy formula- plexity of food security and to develop a holistic approach that
tion, but throughout all governance processes, would enable food insecurity to be addressed in the most
including implementation and evaluation (FAO effective way. Governance is thus approached as a concerted
2011a). Regarding this last point, an important effort to solve (complex) societal problems (Bovens and ’t
issue is how to measure the effectiveness of Hart, P. 1996). A clear exponent of this line of reasoning is the
interventions and how to determine an interven- recently reformed Committee on World Food Security, which
tion’s success (Pérez-Escamilla 2012). Apart now portrays itself as “the most inclusive international and
from these values, good food security gover- intergovernmental platform for all stakeholders to work to-
nance relies on a general supportive environ- gether in a coordinated way to ensure food security and
ment in which human rights are respected and nutrition for all” (Committee on World Food Security 2013).
in which the provision of basic public goods is However, as some included authors – particularly under the
guaranteed (Paarlberg 2002; Global Forum on fifth theme – made clear, inclusion of actors and coordination
Food Security and Nutrition 2011; FAO 2011a). are not always sufficient to overcome conflicting ideas and
interests, and do not necessarily lead to an effective food
security approach.
Therefore, notwithstanding the merits of the optimist
governance philosophy for understanding and designing
Discussion food security governance arrangements, the dominance of
this perspective has led to a rather narrow, normative, and
The synthesis presented in the previous section has shown that simplistic view of governance within a large proportion of
the emerging literature on the governance of food security has the food security community, and particularly in the in-
already provided some highly relevant, albeit non-cohesive, cluded publications of global organizations. This is so for
insights and recommendations. Nevertheless, as a research at least two reasons. First, both Bovens and ’t Hart
field, food security governance is still in its infancy and many (1996) and Biesbroek et al. (2013b) have shown that, apart
Food security governance: a systematic literature review 597

from the optimist philosophy, at least two other governance interplay of technical, environmental, economic, and so-
perspectives can be applied, termed by Bovens and ‘t Hart cial drivers across various scales. As elaborated above, a
as the ‘realist’ and the ‘pessimist’ philosophies. Whereas core assumption is that, although difficult, this complex-
the optimist philosophy approaches governance as problem ity can ultimately be overcome by designing and
solving, the realist philosophy centers on a view of gover- implementing ‘smart’ governance arrangements. This idea
nance as the whole of interactions between actors in a of solubility is severely challenged by a concept that
particular institutional context through which they identify builds further on complexity theory, i.e., that of wicked
and address problems. These interactions may be charac- problems, which has been repeatedly applied to food
terized by various degrees of conflicts of interest, ideation- s e c u r i t y ( H a m a n n e t a l . 2 0 11 ; A n t h o n y 2 0 1 2 ;
al struggles, and institutional deadlocks, as studies in the MacMillan and Dowler 2012; Termeer et al. 2013a).
fields of public administration and policy studies have Wicked problems are policy problems that are not only
extensively shown (e.g., March and Olsen 1989; Schön complex, but also ill-defined, ambiguous, contested, and
and Rein 1994; Stone 2012). In the pessimist philosophy, highly resistant to solutions (Rittel and Webber 1973;
governance is approached as a complex system in which Head and Alford 2013; Termeer et al. 2013a). This resis-
societal problems are interrelated and nested in a ‘locked- tance to solutions results from the dynamic that “today’s
in’ society, in which power plays between actors take place problems emerge as a result of trying to understand and
(Biesbroek et al. 2013b). Although it is beyond the scope solve yesterday’s problems” (Termeer et al. 2013a: 2).
of this article to elaborate much further on the differences Wicked problems therefore require a different governance
between these philosophies, it goes without saying that the perspective from that propagated by the problem-solving
perspective through which governance arrangements are lens. The literature on the governance of comparable
studied has important implications for the dynamics that wicked problems may prove a valuable source from
are considered vital as well as for consequential policy which to obtain a better understanding, for instance, of
recommendations. The perspective through which gover- climate change adaptation (e.g., Huitema et al. 2008;
nance is studied influences not only the answers or solu- Stripple et al. 2009; Biesbroek et al. 2013b; Termeer
tions proposed, but also the very research questions and et al. 2013b; Vink et al. 2013). One of the insights from
problem definitions that are considered essential (cf. this community, for example, is that fragmentation is not
Allison and Zelikow 1999; Biesbroek et al. 2013b). As a necessarily a negative condition in the attempt to govern
consequence, the dominance of the optimist philosophy in wicked issues. Fragmented networks may be better able
a large proportion of the food security governance litera- to provide capacity, to adapt to unexpected circum-
ture may lead to a process of theory development that stances, and to create space for variability and learning
overlooks dynamics that might have been considered cru- than mono-centric governance systems (Termeer et al.
cial if a different perspective had been applied. As a 2011). In this review, Pereira and Ruysenaar (2012) and
result, policy recommendations that stem from the body Misselhorn et al. (2012) make similar arguments with
of literature might result in interventions that are not respect to food security. The challenge, then, is to orga-
necessarily effective. Therefore, a diversity of perspec- nize the fragmented governance system in such a way
tives and comparisons of understandings may have a that it works collectively towards a shared goal. Termeer
healthy impact both on acquiring a better theoretical un- et al. (2011) have identified three challenges with respect
derstanding of food security governance and on plans and to the wicked issue of climate change adaptation: i) to
practices deriving from this knowledge. The recent atten- organize connectivity between policy domains, scale
tion paid by some food security governance scholars levels, leadership, and the ‘old’ and the ‘new,’ ii) to (re)
included in this review to interactions between actors allocate responsibilities and costs and benefits, and iii) to
and institutions, power plays, ideational struggles, and deal with controversies, in particular frame conflicts and
to notions of adaptive and collaborative governance, is a contested knowledge. More is to be said about how these
promising development in this respect (e.g., Misselhorn challenges apply and could be addressed in food security
et al. 2012; Pereira and Ruysenaar 2012; Margulis governance, but they offer a refreshing alternative to the
2013). current dominant mono-centric problem-solving paradigm
A second reason why a broader governance perspec- within the literature.
tive might contribute to a better understanding of food
security governance is closely related to the first and The current state of the research field
concerns the very nature of food security. A large major-
ity of the literature, especially that part which adheres to Although research on food security governance is rapidly
the optimist philosophy, approaches food (in)security as developing, a number of issues still need to be addressed in
a complex problem. This complexity originates from the the near future. Here, we highlight four such issues.
598 J.J.L. Candel

First, as section 3.2 has shown, it is not yet very clear what (best) practices. In particular, more research should be done on
is actually meant by food security governance. Definitions sub-national governance levels and initiatives, and how these
vary and emphasize various elements of the notion. One could are linked to global initiatives, as these have been largely
argue that the absence of a clear definition is not troublesome neglected in the literature so far. It is not clear whether this
because it has not hampered the amount of research being is due to a lack of sub-national governance initiatives or to a
done on food security governance so far, which has, on the blind spot in the research being done.
contrary, been increasing in recent years. However, at the A last point is that although ‘food security governance’ is a
same time, the lack of clarity regarding what food security convenient heading and perspective under which to study the
governance is – and what it is not – makes it hard to determine steering processes and interactions through which food
what constitutes the dependent variable, i.e., the indistinctness (in)security is addressed, too rigid an approach should be avoided
of the phenomenon that is being studied, i.e. food security in future research. As indicated in the limitations section,
governance research, and this complicates meaningful com- whereas both food security and governance are powerful and
parisons and theoretical advancement (cf. Dupuis and widely shared notions, much can be learned from other re-
Biesbroek 2013). For that reason, a new definition, com- search fields. This article should therefore be considered as a
bining Termeer et al.’s broad definition of governance given in first attempt to provide an overview of the relatively recent
the introduction (Termeer et al. 2011) with the three core body of literature on food security governance, aiming to
dimensions of food security and some main elements men- serve as a stepping stone for further research in which insights
tioned in previous definitions, is proposed: from adjacent research fields could be integrated.

The formal and informal interactions across scales be-

tween public and/or private entities ultimately aiming at
the realization of food availability, food access, and
food utilization, and their stability over time. Conclusions

Second, in spite of the rising attention on food security Although the importance of governance for effectively ad-
governance, a majority of the reviewed publications were of a dressing food insecurity has increasingly been recognized, the
conceptual or normative nature. As section 3.1 has shown, it knowledge about, and definitions of, food security gover-
seems that not many empirical studies have been conducted,7 nance have been rather fragmented up to now. The synthesis
although it could be the case that some researchers did use presented in this paper therefore aimed to provide a first state-
empirical methods but did not explain them. Our knowledge of-the-art. A systematic review of the food security gover-
of food security governance is thus to a large extent dependent nance literature led to the identification of seven main themes
on narratives. Although these narratives have contributed to that recur throughout the literature.
the rise in attention on governance in food security ap- Nonetheless, food security governance is still very much
proaches, this lack of empirical foundations is somewhat virgin territory that offers a lot of potential for further research.
worrying. Not only does it hinder obtaining a sound academic In particular, the researcher pleads for the inclusion of alter-
understanding of the governance issues at hand, it also native governance perspectives or paradigms in future re-
weakens the strength of recommendations made to policy- search. Approaching food (in)security as a wicked problem
makers and stakeholders involved in designing food security could provide valuable insights in this respect. Additionally,
governance arrangements. Food security governance is there- there is a need for further empirical investigation of current
fore in need of further empirical investigation and theory governance arrangements, particularly at sub-national levels.
testing as well as of the development of a conceptual frame- Eventually, this line of research should contribute to the
work or indicators to do so. design of smart governance arrangements that are capable of
Third, a large proportion of the current literature focuses on addressing food insecurity in more effective ways than are
what food security governance should ideally look like, in- possible at present.
stead of how the governance system is functioning at present.
Food security governance is often used as a synonym for good
Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Robbert
food security governance, meeting particular effectiveness Biesbroek, Peter Tamas, and Hilde Tobi for their helpful comments and
and democratic criteria. Notwithstanding the importance of suggestions regarding the methods used in this review, and Gerard
good governance, more is to be told about current governance Breeman, Katrien Termeer, and two anonymous reviewers for their
feedback on previous versions of the paper. Previous draft versions of
this paper were presented at the 7th General Conference of the European
7
Nota bene: this refers to empirical studies on governance Consortium for Political Research in Bordeaux in September 2013, and at
(arrangements) on a more meta-level, not on particular food security the 1st International Conference on Global Food Security in
solutions, projects, or programs. Noordwijkerhout in September 2013.
Food security governance: a systematic literature review 599

References Committee on World Food Security (2013). Committee on World Food

Security. http://www.fao.org/cfs/en/. Accessed 19 September 2013.
Diamond, J. M. (2005). Guns, Germs and Steel: A Short History of
Allen, P. (2013). Facing food security. Journal of Rural Studies, 29, 135– Everybody for the Last 13,000 Years. London: Vintage.
138. Drimie, S., & Ruysenaar, S. (2010). The integrated food security strategy
Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of Decision: of South Africa: An institutional analysis. Agrekon, 49(3), 316–337.
Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (2nd ed.). New York: Duncan, J., & Barling, D. (2012). Renewal through Participation in
Addison-Wesley. Global Food Security Governance: Implementing the International
Amalric, F. (2001). Strategically speaking: The world food summit, five Food Security and Nutrition Civil Society Mechanism to the
years later. Development, 44(4), 6–16. Committee on World Food Security. International Journal of
Anderson, P. F. (2013). What’s Wrong With Google Scholar for Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 19(2), 143–161.
“Systematic” Reviews. http://etechlib.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/ Dupuis, J., & Biesbroek, R. (2013). Comparing apples and oranges: The
whats-wrong-with-google-scholar-for-systematic-reviews/. dependent variable problem in comparing and evaluating climate
Accessed 20 May 2013. change adaptation policies. Global Environmental Change (in press).
Anthony, R. (2012). Taming the Unruly Side of Ethics: Overcoming Edralin, J. S., & Collado, C. M. (2005). Decentralized governance and
Challenges of a Bottom-Up Approach to Ethics in the Areas of food security: Perceptions from rural local governments and com-
Food Policy and Climate Change. Journal of Agricultural & munities in Bulacan Province, the Philippines. Regional
Environmental Ethics, 25(6), 813–841. Development Dialogue, 26(2), 61–89.
Barclay, K., & Epstein, C. (2013). Securing Fish for the Nation: Food Edwards, M. E. (2012). Food Insecurity in Western US States: Increasing
Security and Governmentality in Japan. Asian Studies Review, 37(2), Collaboration between State Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations.
215–233. Food Culture & Society, 15(1), 93–112.
Barrett, C. B. (Ed.). (2013). Food Security & Sociopolitical Stability. Ericksen, P. J. (2008). Conceptualizing food systems for global environ-
Oxford: Oxford University Press. mental change research. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 234–
Barrett, C. B., & Maxwell, D. G. (2005). Food Aid After Fifty Years: 245.
Recasting its role. Abingdon: Routledge. FAO. (1996). Rome Declaration on World Food Security. Rome: FAO.
Bastian, A., & Coveney, J. (2012). Local evidenced-based policy options FAO. (2003). Trade Reforms and Food Security. Rome: FAO.
to improve food security in South Australia: The use of local FAO (2009). Global governance of food security. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/
knowledge in policy development. Public Health Nutrition, 15(8), fao/meeting/018/k6367e.pdf. Accessed 5 June 2013.
1497–1502. FAO (2010). Towards improved governance of global food security.
Behnassi, M., & Yaya, S. (2011). Food Crisis Mitigation: The Need for an http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/46353/icode/. Accessed 5
Enhanced Global Food Governance. In M. Behnassi, S. Draggan, & June 2013.
S. Yaya (Eds.), Global Food Insecurity: Rethinking Agricultural and FAO (2011a). Good Food Security Governance: The Crucial Premise to
Rural Development Paradigm and Policy (pp. 93–125). Dordrecht/ the Twin-Track Approach - Background paper. http://www.fao.org/
New York/Heidelberg/London: Springer. fileadmin/templates/righttofood/documents/other_documents/
Biesbroek, G. R., Klostermann, J. M., Termeer, C. A. M., & Kabat, P. 2011_good_food_security_gov/FoodSecurityGovernance
(2013a). On the nature of barriers to climate change adaptation, Workshop_backgroundpaper.pdf. Accessed 5 June 2013.
13(5), 1119–1129. FAO (2011b). Good Food Security Governance: The Crucial Premise to
Biesbroek, G. R., Termeer, C. A. M., Klostermann, J. M., & Kabat, P. the Twin-Track Approach - Workshop Report. http://www.fao.org/
(2013b). Analytical lenses on barriers in the governance of climate fileadmin/templates/righttofood/documents/project_f/fsgovernance/
change adaptation. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global workshop_report.pdf. Accessed 5 June 2013.
Change, 1–22. FAO (2012). FAO calls for strengthened food security governance. http://
Bovens, M. A. P., & 't Hart, P. (1996). Understanding policy fiascoes. www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/162391/icode/. Accessed 5 June
New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 2013.
Boyd, M., & Wang, H. H. (2011). Guest editorial: the role of public policy Galiè, A. (2013). Governance of seed and food security through partici-
and agricultural risk management in food security. China patory plant breeding: Empirical evidence and gender analysis from
Agricultural Economic Review, 3(4), 417–422. Syria. Natural Resources Forum, 37(1), 31–42.
Brownhill, L., & Hickey, G. M. (2012). Using interview triads to under- González, H. (2010). Debates on food security and agrofood world
stand the barriers to effective food security policy in Kenya: a case governance. International Journal of Food Science and
study application. Food Security, 4(3), 369–380. Technology, 45(7), 1345–1352.
Candel, J. J. L., Breeman, G. E., Stiller, S. J., & Termeer, C. J. A. M. Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (Eds.). (2012). An introduction to
(2014). Disentangling the consensus frame of food security: The Systematic Reviews. London: Sage.
case of the EU Common Agricultural Policy reform debate. Food Haddad, L. (2011). Why India needs a national nutrition strategy. BMJ
Policy, 44, 47–58. (Online), 343(7832), 1042–1044.
Clapp, J., & Murphy, S. (2013). The G20 and Food Security: A Mismatch Haddad, M. (2012). An Islamic perspective on food security manage-
in Global Governance? Global Policy, 4(2), 129–138. ment. Water Policy, 14(SUPPL. 1), 121–135.
Coleman, W. D., & Gabler, M. (2002). Agricultural biotechnology and Hamann, R., Giamporcaro, S., Johnston, D., & Yachkaschi, S. (2011).
regime formation: A constructivist assessment of the prospects. The role of business and cross-sector collaboration in addressing the
International Studies Quarterly, 46(4), 481–506. ‘wicked problem’ of food insecurity. Development Southern Africa,
Colonelli, E., & Simon, G. (2013). Food Security Governance: History, 28(4), 579–594.
Definitions and Institutions. http://www.jeanmonnet.it/public/ Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2013). Wicked Problems: Implications for
Foos%20Security%20Governance%20Catania%202013.pdf. Public Policy and Management. Administration & Society
Accessed 5 June 2013. High-Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis (2010).
Committee on World Food Security (2012). Global Strategic Framework Updated Comprehensive Framework for Action. http://www.ifad.
for Food Security and Nutrition. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/ org/hfs/docs/2010_UCFA_Final.pdf. Accessed 5 June 2013.
templates/cfs/Docs1112/WGs/GSF/MD976E_GSF_Draft_Two. Huitema, D., Aerts, J., & van Asselt, H. (2008). Climate change policy in
pdf. Accessed 5 June 2013. the European Union: Confronting the dilemmas of adaptation and
600 J.J.L. Candel

mitigation? In V. Grover (Ed.), Global warming and climate Marzeda-Mlynarska, K. (2011). The Application of the Multi-
change: Kyoto, ten years and still counting (pp. 527–561). Level Governance Model outside the EUcontext – The Case
Enfield: Science Publishers. of Food Security. European Diversity and Autonomy Papers -
Ingram, J. (2011). A food systems approach to researching food security EDAP
and its interactions with global environmental change. Food Maye, D., & Kirwan, J. (2013). Food security: A fractured consensus.
Security, 3(4), 417–431. Journal of Rural Studies, 29, 1–6.
Ingram, J., Ericksen, P., & Liverman, D. (Eds.). (2010). Food Security McKeon, N. (2011). Global Governance for World Food Security: A
and Global Environmental Change. London: Earthscan. Scorecard Four Years After the Eruption of the Food Crisis. Berlin:
Jarosz, L. (2009). The political economy of global governance and the Heinrich-Böll Foundation.
world food crisis the case of the FAO. Review, 32(1), 37–60. McKeon, N. (2013). ‘One Does Not Sell the Land Upon Which the
Jarosz, L. (2011). Defining world hunger: Scale and neoliberal ideology People Walk’: Land Grabbing, Transnational Rural Social
in international food security policy discourse. Food Culture and Movements, and Global Governance. Globalizations, 10(1), 105–
Society, 14(1), 117–139. 122.
Jessop, B. (2003). Governance and meta-governance: on reflexivity, Misselhorn, A., Aggarwal, P., Ericksen, P., Gregory, P., Horn-
requisite variety and requisite irony. In H. P. Bang (Ed.), Phathanothai, L., Ingram, J., et al. (2012). A vision for attaining
Governance as social and political communication (pp. 101–116). food security. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,
Manchester: Manchester University Press. 4(1), 7–17.
Kersbergen, K. v., & Waarden, F. v. (2004). Governance’ as a Mohamed Salih, M. A. (2009). Governance of Food Security in the 21st
bridge between disciplines: Crossdisciplinary inspiration re- Century. In H. G. Brauch, U. O. Spring, J. Grin, C. Mesjasz, P.
garding shifts in governance and problems of governability, Kameri-Mbote, N. C. Behera, et al. (Eds.), Facing Global
accountability and legitimacy. European Journal of Political Environmental Change (pp. 501-507, Hexagon Series on Human
Research, 43, 143-171 and Environmental Security and Peace, Vol. 4). Berlin/Heidelberg:
Kjaer, A. M. (2004). Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press. Springer.
Koc, M., Macrae, R., Desjardins, E., & Roberts, W. (2008). Getting civil Mooney, P. H., & Hunt, S. A. (2009). Food Security: The Elaboration of
about food: The interactions between civil society and the state to Contested Claims to a Consensus Frame*. Rural Sociology, 74(4),
advance sustainable food systems in Canada. Journal of Hunger and 469–497.
Environmental Nutrition, 3(2–3), 122–144. Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (2011). Global
Kropff, M. J., Van Arendonk, J. A. M., & Löffler, H. J. M. (Eds.). (2013). Governance for Food Security: Are the current arrangements fit
Food for all: Sustainable nutrition security. Wageningen UR: for the job? http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/sites/default/files/file/68_
Wageningen. global_governance/SUMMARY%20Global%20Governance.pdf.
Lang, T., & Barling, D. (2012). Food security and food sustain- Accessed 5 June 2013.
ability: Reformulating the debate. Geographical Journal, Orsini, A., Morin, J. F., & Young, O. (2013). Regime complexes: A buzz,
178(4), 313–326. a boom, or a boost for global governance? Global Governance,
Lang, T., Barling, D., & Caraher, M. (2009). Food Policy: Integrating 19(1), 27–39.
Health, Environment & Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paarlberg, R. L. (2002). Governance and food security in an age of
Lerin, F., & Louafi, S. (2012). Food security: the building of a common globalization. Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion
public share? OCL Oleagineux Corps Gras Lipides, 19(5), 276–282. Paper 36. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research
MacMillan, T., & Dowler, E. (2012). Just and Sustainable? Examining Institute.
the Rhetoric and Potential Realities of UK Food Security. Journal of Pereira, L. M., & Ruysenaar, S. (2012). Moving from traditional govern-
Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 25(2), 181–204. ment to new adaptive governance: the changing face of food security
MacRae, R. (1999). Not just what, but how: Creating agricultural sus- responses in South Africa. Food Security, 4(1), 41–58.
tainability and food security by changing Canada’s agricultural Pérez-Escamilla, R. (2012). Can experience-based household food secu-
policy making process. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(2), rity scales help improve food security governance? Global Food
187–201. Security, 1(2), 120–125.
Makhura, M. T. (1998). The development of food security policy for Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social
South Africa (SAFSP): A consultative process. Food Policy, 23(6), Sciences: A Practical Guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
571–585. Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, Politics and the State.
Maluf, R. S. (1998). Economic development and the food question in Houndmills: Macmillan.
Latin America. Food Policy, 23(2), 155–172. Postolle, A., & Bendjebbar, P. (2012). Food sovereignty and the right to
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: the adequate food supply: For an overhaul of food security policies.
organizational basis of politics. New York: The Free Press. Souveraineté alimentaire et droit à l’alimentation: Pour une refonte
Margulis, M. E. (2011). Research Paper – Global Governance: The des politiques de sécurité alimentaire, 21(5), 318-323
Evolving Global Governance of Food Security. http://www.fao. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory
org/fileadmin/user_upload/fsn/docs/Global_Governance/ of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
PolicyResearchPaper_EvolvingGlobalGovernanceFoodSecurity_ Rocha, C., & Lessa, I. (2009). Urban governance for food security: The
Margulis_2011.pdf. Accessed 5 June 2013. alternative food system in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. International
Margulis, M. E. (2012). Global food security governance: the Committee Planning Studies, 14(4), 389–400.
on World Food Security, Comprehensive Framework for Action and Rockson, G., Bennett, R., & Groenendijk, L. (2013). Land administration
the G8/G20. In R. Rayfuse, & N. Weisfelt (Eds.), The Challenge of for food security: A research synthesis. Land Use Policy, 32, 337–342.
Food Security: International Policy and Regulatory Frameworks Rola, W. R. (2013). Research Development and Extension Agenda on the
(pp. 231-254). Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Role of Institutions and Governance for Philippine Upland
Elgar. Agricultural Development in Achieving Food Security. Philippine
Margulis, M. E. (2013). The regime complex for food security: Journal of Crop Science, 38(1), 1–11.
Implications for the global hunger challenge. Global Governance, Sahley, C., Groelsema, B., Marchione, T., & Nelson, D. (2005). The
19(1), 53–67. Governance Dimensions of Food Security in Malawi. USAID
Food security governance: a systematic literature review 601

Schilpzand, R., Liverman, D., Tecklin, D., Gordon, R., Pereira, L., & Vink, M. J., Dewulf, A. R. P. J., & Termeer, C. J. A. M. (2013). The role
Saxl, M. (2010). Governance beyond the State. In J. Ingram, P. of knowledge and power in climate change adaptation governance: a
Ericksen, & D. Liverman (Eds.), Food Security and Global systematic literature review. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 46.
Environmental Change (pp. 272–300). London: Earthscan. von Braun, J. (2009). Addressing the food crisis: governance, market func-
Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection. Towards the resolu- tioning, and investment in public goods. Food Security, 1(1), 9–15.
tion of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books. Wahlqvist, M. L., McKay, J., Chang, Y. C., & Chiu, Y. W. (2012).
Seed, B., Lang, T., Caraher, M., & Ostry, A. (2013). Integrating food Rethinking the food security debate in Asia: Some missing ecolog-
security into public health and provincial government departments ical and health dimensions and solutions. Food Security, 4(4), 657–
in British Columbia, Canada. Agriculture and Human Values, 30(3), 670.
457–470.
Soula, P. J. J. (2012). Global governance of food and agriculture: Current
review and outlook. Gouvernance mondiale de l‘alimentation et de
l’agriculture: État des lieux et perspectives, 165(4), 365–368.
Stone, D. (2012). Policy Paradox: The Art Of Political Decision Making
(3rd ed.). New York/London: W.W. Norton & Company. Jeroen Candel MA is a Ph. D.
Stripple, J., Rayner, T., Hildingsson, R., Jordan, A., & Haug, C. (2009). candidate at the Public Adminis-
Governance choices and dilemmas in a warmer Europe: Exploting tration and Policy Group of
the future? In A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, T. Rayner, & F. Wageningen University, The
Berkhout (Eds.), Climate change policy in the European Union: Netherlands. He obtained a Mas-
Confronting the dilemmas of adaptation and mitigation? (pp. 229– ter’s degree in public governance
251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. cum laude at Utrecht University,
Termeer, C. J. A. M., Dewulf, A. R. P. J., van Rijswick, H., van Buuren, The Netherlands. In his current
A., Huiteman, D., Meijerink, S., et al. (2011). The regional gover- research, he focuses on controver-
nance of climate adaptation: A framework for developing legitimate, sies in the global food security
effective, and resilient governance arrangements. Climate Law, 2(2), debate and on how policy-
159–179. makers, particularly at the Euro-
Termeer, C. J. A. M., Dewulf, A., Breeman, G., & Stiller, S. J. (2013a). pean Union level, deal with these
Governance Capabilities for Dealing Wisely With Wicked controversies when developing
Problems. Administration & Society policies targeted at contributing
Termeer, C. J. A. M., Dewulf, A. R. P. J., & Breeman, G. (2013b). to food security. In his last publication, he analysed how the debate about
Governance of wicked climate adaptation problems. In J. the reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy was characterized by
Knieling, & W. Leal Filho (Eds.), Climate Change Governance six fundamentally different and conflicting frames on the relationship
(pp. 27-39). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. between European agriculture and food security. His interests and areas of
Thomson, A. M. (2001). Food security and sustainable livelihoods: The publication include food policy and governance, theories of the policy
policy challenge. Development, 44(4), 24–28. process, and EU decision-making.