Sign In / Register
Make This My Home Page | Feedback |RSS
You are here: IE »   Story

Change the PDS, don’t save it

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • Personal Loan

    Third, the proposed scheme increases the government’s role in the grain market, as it has to procure more; which is bad news in the sense that the distortions created by such a market player inevitably harm competition. Farmers, thus, might have no option but to remain satisfied at the support price the government offers. They will also have to bear the brunt of the Food Corporation of India’s inefficiency. Besides, whenever grain prices rise in the market, the government will be tempted to impose curbs and bans to cool the market so that it can procure cheaply. Farmers will never receive unfettered access to world markets.

    Four, if the legislation makes it mandatory for the government to physically delver 25 kg foodgrain to the poor, then hopes for reforming the food delivery system through smart cards, food stamps, or direct cash transfer, are shattered. The vested interests in the present system will make use of the same law to thwart attempts to replace it. Direct transfer of subsidy to the poor through these mechanisms has great anti-leakage advantages; it is essential that the law leaves scope for these measures to be implemented.

    Ads by Google

    One can imagine what would happen if such a law were passed. The difficulties of implementation would lead to litigation from civil society organisations pleading for the court to uphold the right to food; judicial intervention will result in the formation of monitoring committees at different levels. The conflict and litigation will, however, amount to nothing for the poor; the Supreme Court and its monitoring committees cannot materially alter the incentives that drive corruption in the PDS. If the government is serious about ensuring the food security of the poor it should first convert the PDS into a system of direct subsidy transfer. At current market prices, providing 25 kg rice at Rs 3 per kg amounts to a subsidy of Rs 300 per month, per family. This could instead be transferred directly, through various mechanisms, such as smart cards or food stamps. The subsidy amount can be indexed to the inflation in grain price, thus ensuring poor consumers continue to receive the same amount of food as they would from the supply of 25 kg grain at Rs 3 per kg. By eliminating dual markets, the problem of leakages is also eliminated. The system of cash transfers is also non-distortionary, as it does not discriminate against producers of coarse cereals.

    ... contd.

    PreviousNext123
    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.