In figure 1 we have drawn the production possibility frontier PP. The slope of PP equals -γ 2 ∕γ1 .
Suppose that the crisis menu is given by XM = (X1M , X2M ) marked as A in the figure. The
land requirement for producing X M is denoted LM , and the production possibility frontier given this
land requirement is the solid line MM.
Assume that we choose a level of land use that is not sufficient to guarantee complete food
security, thus we are only able to produce a share, λ, of the crisis menu. Define X=(X1,X2)= λXM . For
the moment we abstract from stockpiling and aid, and imports of the two commodities, μi, is treated as
uncertain. (1) can then be written as:
Pr(X+μ≥XM) ≥π; μ≥0,
where μ=(μ1, μ2). Pr(λXM+μ≥XM)< 1 for λ<1, and the probability is 1 when λ≥ 1.
The point of departure for Gulbrandsen and Lindbeck is an inefficient agricultural sector. This
means that the net cost per hectare land, NCHi, is positive:
(3)
NCHi
≡ Pl - Pw ɪ > 0
l xi
i γi
for both commodities. Without support nothing will be produced. Food security is an argument for
agricultural support, i.e. land must be available when a crisis arises.
Assume that it is more costly (per hectare) to produce X1 than X2, so NCH2<NCH1, and assume
that we require complete food security (λ=1).

More intriguing information
1. An Attempt to 22. Self-Help Groups and Income Generation in the Informal Settlements of Nairobi
3. Imitation in location choice
4. Correlation Analysis of Financial Contagion: What One Should Know Before Running a Test
5. Testing Gribat´s Law Across Regions. Evidence from Spain.
6. Text of a letter
7. The name is absent
8. Short- and long-term experience in pulmonary vein segmental ostial ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation*
9. Fighting windmills? EU industrial interests and global climate negotiations
10. The name is absent