The statement that "Famine is a social phenomena rooted in institutional and political economic arrangements, which determine access to food by different classes and strata" represents a profound shift in the understanding of famine, moving away from simplistic explanations centered solely on food availability. This perspective, largely popularized by Amartya Sen's 'entitlement approach,' highlights the complex socio-political and economic dimensions that underpin food crises.

Historically, famine was often attributed to natural disasters like drought or floods, leading to a direct shortage of food. However, this view fails to explain why famines can occur even when there is sufficient food available in a region or country, or why certain groups starve while others do not. The modern understanding emphasizes that famine is primarily a problem of access to food, rather than just availability.

Here's how institutional and political economic arrangements determine access to food:

1. Entitlement Failure: Amartya Sen argued that people starve not because there isn't enough food, but because they lack the 'entitlements' to acquire it. Entitlements refer to the set of alternative commodity bundles that a person can command through legitimate means, such as owning land to produce food, selling labor for wages to buy food, engaging in trade, or receiving state transfers. Famine occurs when these entitlements fail for specific groups.
2. Institutional Structures: Institutions, including property rights, market mechanisms, legal systems, and social safety nets, play a crucial role. For instance, land ownership patterns dictate who can produce food. Market failures, such as speculative price hikes or disruptions in supply chains, can make food unaffordable for the poor. Weak legal frameworks might fail to protect vulnerable populations from exploitation.
3. Political Economy: The political and economic system profoundly influences food access. Government policies related to agriculture, trade, subsidies, and food distribution can either alleviate or exacerbate food insecurity. Conflict and war, often driven by political motives, can destroy food production, disrupt supply routes, and displace populations, leading to widespread starvation. Power imbalances mean that certain groups (e.g., urban elites, large landowners) can secure their food access even during crises, while marginalized groups (e.g., landless laborers, nomadic pastoralists, ethnic minorities) are left vulnerable.
4. Class and Strata Differentiation: Famine rarely affects everyone equally. Different social classes and strata have varying capacities to command food. For example, landless agricultural laborers are highly dependent on wage labor, which can disappear during a crisis. Small-scale farmers might lose their crops and assets, forcing them into distress sales. Urban poor, reliant on market purchases, are hit hard by price inflation. These pre-existing vulnerabilities, rooted in socio-economic hierarchies, determine who is most susceptible to starvation.

Examples like the Bengal Famine of 1943, where food was exported from India despite widespread starvation, or the Ethiopian Famine of the 1980s, exacerbated by civil war and government policies, vividly illustrate that famine is a human-made disaster, a consequence of systemic failures and power dynamics, rather than an inevitable outcome of natural scarcity. Therefore, addressing famine requires not just increasing food production, but fundamentally reforming the institutional and political economic arrangements that govern access to food.