I think his point is stealing food redirects it those who need it and can afford it.

So the problem shifts from corruption to affordability. The free food program exists because they can't afford it. If we can fix the affordability problem, there won't be a need for a free food program and there by corruption related to it won't exist.

These people need to get jobs. But since they don't have it. You may by all means fix corruption and give them free food, but they will hungry again in the next six months. Where will you get free food from, then and till when?

It redirects food to people who have the buying power.

IIRC Mr. A. Sen won the nobel for showing that people starved not because of lack of food, but because of lack of purchasing power.

The wiki page suggests that his findings are being debated though, to be fair.

My google foo is also a bit literal at the moment, and I wasn't able to produce a result which explained what he won his nobel for.

How does it shift the supply curve? The food is getting bought from farmers anyways, for cash, they don't give a damn about if it is going to be sold to people in shops, distributed for free, or stolen.

Hmm.

The subsidy/pds is supposed to shift the price of goods down, so corruption does affect the intended price of goods by making them unavailable at the subsidized rate.

That's why I chose the supply curve. Correct me if I got it wrong.

There is no relation to the supply curve. Because there is no change in the price at which the product is purchased from producers.

Demand shifts of course (the overall price of the product drops because the stuff that wasn't supposed to make it to the market gets there, but free stuff disappears -> structure changes).

Ah yes, got it, you are correct. Thank you.

The supply curve is the amount of goods produced at x price.

Since x isn't being changed here for sellers, it doesn't move.

The demand curve does move because of the distorting effects of the subsidy/PDS, and then again because of corruption.