You are here: IE »   Story

Change the PDS, don’t save it

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • Discount UK Shopping

    A new food security law, with as-yet unknown details, is supposed to empower the poor with a right to food. Supposedly, this will provide a statutory basis for a framework that assures food security for all: families below the poverty line (BPL) will be entitled to 25 kg of rice or wheat monthly, at Rs 3 per kg. Making food security a right is laudable. But the law, as structured today, leaves open the possibility of disastrous consequences for the poor, both consumers and producers of grain. The eagerness to get this done in the first 100 days is understandable. But a proposal with such far-reaching consequences must be debated adequately.

    There are four important aspects of the law which could potentially harm the poor.

    First, the existing public distribution system is still the channel for distribution. But the PDS is broken. Recent National Sample Survey data reveals that 70 per cent of the poor cannot access it at all. This is inevitable; creating a separate grain market for subsidised food offers alluring opportunities for black marketers. The greater the price difference, the more the incentive for leakage. Providing grain at Rs 3 will thus further increase leakage; and BPL beneficiaries might end up getting less than what they get at present.

    Ads by Google

    Second, supplying cheaper wheat and rice through the PDS is unfair to producers of coarse, local cereals — jowar, bajra, ragi and such — which are in many parts of India grown by the poorest of the farmers. In Maharashtra, the home state of the Union agriculture and PDS minister, almost all grain farmers are also producers of jowar and bajra. In hilly tribal areas, local cereals are mostly finger millets. These coarse cereals are rain-fed crops; producers of these cereals work under harsh conditions, deprived of the benefits of electricity or fertiliser subsidies. (The lack of irrigation makes pumping redundant and fertiliser use minimal.) Supplying ever-cheaper wheat and rice through the PDS sucks demand away from these cereals, lowering their prices. (The fact that PDS grain is diverted to the open market does not change the effect.) Supplying grain at Rs 3 will further hurt these poor farmers.

    ... contd.

    Next123
    response to MILIND MURGUKAR article dated 17-06-2009 on food securityBy: rajiv sharma | 18-Jun-2009 Reply | Forward why can't the govt. pay markit price of wheat/rice minus 3ruppees in cash in place of food grain to BPL families.payments can be directly credited to bank account of the concerned in order to root out any malpractice. this will not only check leakages/corruption but also stop fall of price levelof wheat and rice. moreover,more liquidity with the BPL families may create demand for other articles and check recession or create employment.
    Response to RohitBy: Milind Murugkar | 17-Jun-2009 Reply | Forward Rohit,if we try to keep food prices low, then the rural economy in general is adversely affected.Majority of the poor in India are directly or indirectly dependednt on agriculture. Suppressing the food prices hurts them. So the government should protect the poor consumers by providing them effective food subsidy cover and then allow the farmers to benefit from rising food prices.Milind
    Subsidy = more avenues for cheatersBy: Rohit | 17-Jun-2009 Reply | Forward The author is right in saying that this scheme will hurt more than heal. Better would be to have a price differential that's too small for racketeers or no subsidy at all (sell rice/wheat to all irrespective of rich/poor at a single low price - there won't be any hoarding by the rich or by shopkeepers who simply won't be able to sell it at a different price). However given our country's history the govt. has always created a rich-poor divide by way of subsidies. It basically asks the poor to remain poor by making things cheap, opens avenues for black marketing, and fundametally gets it wrong every time - it attacks the symptom rather than the cause. What's wrong with having flat food prices so cheap that even the poor can afford it? Will the rich eat more? No - in fact this will result in every one getting food and reduction in black marketeering.
    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.