There is a problem with the logic of question 2 for video Sen#3. It asks which of two options are not a reason for expecting democracies to experience fewer famines. Under a democracy, the incentives facing a politician who needs voters' support, and the role of opposition parties are BOTH arguments in favour of Sen's hypothesis. So the correct answer would be "neither" of the options presented..

How does Sen disentangle the effects of democracy reducing or eliminating famine and the effects from a country just being wealthy and having fewer famines? (Of course it is not entirely clear that democracy only follows wealth; it could cause wealth and thus indirectly reduce famine.)

There is a problem with the logic of question 2 for video Sen#3. It asks which of two options are not a reason for expecting democracies to experience fewer famines. Under a democracy, the incentives facing a politician who needs voters' support, and the role of opposition parties are BOTH arguments in favour of Sen's hypothesis. So the correct answer would be "neither" of the options presented..

There is a problem with the logic of question 2 for video Sen#3. It asks which of two options are not a reason for expecting democracies to experience fewer famines. Under a democracy, the incentives facing a politician who needs voters' support, and the role of opposition parties are BOTH arguments in favour of Sen's hypothesis. So the correct answer would be "neither" of the options presented..

There is a problem with the logic of question 2 for video Sen#3. It asks which of two options are not a reason for expecting democracies to experience fewer famines. Under a democracy, the incentives facing a politician who needs voters' support, and the role of opposition parties are BOTH arguments in favour of Sen's hypothesis. So the correct answer would be "neither" of the options presented..