Food Security

Does the Food Security Act Really Offer Food Security?

food

In late June 2016, the food minister Ram Vilas Paswan, said that by July 2016, the entire country would come under the ambit of the National Food Security Act. As he said: “National Food Security Act is in force in 33 States/UTs, and in states of Tamil Nadu and Nagaland it will be implemented in next month.”

The National Food Security Ordinance (NFSO),8 2013 was promulgated on July 5, 2013. A little over two months later, the National Food Security Act (NFSA) was enacted on September 10, 2013. Given this, it has taken the states nearly three years to implement the Act.

The Food Security Act offered food security by freezing the price of rice, wheat and coarse cereals at the central issue prices of Rs 3, Rs 2 and Re 1, respectively, for a period of three years, up to July 2016. The targeted public distribution system forms the largest component of the Food Security Act.

In fact, there are two types beneficiaries under the targeted public distribution system. There are those who come under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) and then there is something termed as priority households. The AAY was launched in December 2000 and it aims to reduce hunger among the poorest of the poor. Priority households on the other hand includes all families which come under the below poverty line. The broader definition of the priority households has been left to the state governments.

As far as entitlements go, every AAY household is entitled to 35 kg of food grains every month. Those coming under priority households are entitled to 5 kg per person of food grains every month. Close to 12.2 crore individuals come under AAY whereas 69.3 crore individuals come under priority households.

Nearly three years after the Food Security Act was passed, a question worth asking is, does it really offer food security to the citizens of this country?

The Food Security Act largely focusses on making food grains available to the citizens of this country at a rock bottom price. In order to support the ambitious coverage of the Act (nearly 81.5 crore individuals or two-thirds of the country’s population as per 2011 Census), the government has to acquire a large amount of rice and wheat through the Food Corporation of India as well as other state procurement agencies.

This has led to the defacto nationalisation of the grain trade. As Shweta Saini and Ashok Gulati write in a working paper titled The National Food Security Act 2013—Challenges, Buffer Stocking and the Way Forward: “Such large-scale public procurement also has the impact of strangling private trade (as has been the case in Punjab, Haryana and now Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh) (CACP, 2014). Of the total market arrivals of wheat and rice in these states, 70-90 per cent is bought by the government, indicating a de‐facto state take‐over of grain trade.”

This has an unintended consequence. Simply stated, the law of unintended consequences refers to a situation where economic decisions have unexpected effects.

In this context Saini and Gulati point out that “the monopolisation of the grain market by the government, where increasingly lower quantities of grains are available in the open market, also leads to the problem of support reversal.”

And what is support reversal? “The average cereal consumption in India is 10.6 kgs per person per month (NSSO, 2011), and NFSA supplies nearly half of it (5 kgs per month per person, except for those under the AAY who have a family entitlement of 35 kgs per month). People go to the open market to buy their remaining cereal requirements. However, with the government mopping up the supply of cereals, the open market is left with less causing an upward stickiness in prices,” write Saini and Gulati.

Even for those coming under AAY, the NFSA doesn’t supply enough food grains. Assuming five people per household, the average individual entitlement comes to 7 kgs per month, which is lower than the average cereal consumption of 10.6 kgs per month.

The point being that even though the idea behind the Food Security Act is to provide food security by selling food grains at a very low price, it makes things a little difficult by pushing up prices of food grains. Further, one needs to take into account the fact that food grains are not the only thing that people are eating in order to survive.

The government offers a minimum support price at which it buys rice and wheat from farmers. This helps on two counts. One is that it encourages farmers to grow rice and wheat, knowing well in advance what price they can sell it at. Further, the government buys rice and wheat to create a buffer stock in order to support the food security programmes, as well as maintain food security of the nation.

But this leads to other issues. As Shweta Saini and Marta Kozicka write in a research paper titled Evolution and Critique of Buffer Stocking Policy of India: “The buffer stocking policy of food grains has become the one tool with the government to fulfil the interlinked objectives of supporting food producers and food consumers, and of ensuring food availability at the national level. Buffer stocking is used to simultaneously tackle the problem of volatility in the price of food grains, provide food security and incentivise high production. Using the same instrument to achieve the objectives of ensuring remunerative price to farmers and providing the food grains so procured to the poor at highly subsidised prices creates conflicts.”

One clear problem is the fact that farmers end overproducing rice and wheat, given that the government buys all the rice and wheat that is brought to it. This discourages farmers from growing fruits, vegetables and dal. As the Economic Survey of 2014-2015 points out: “High MSPs result in farmers over-cultivating rice and wheat, which the Food Corporation of India then purchases and houses at great cost. High MSPs also encourage under-cultivation of non-MSP supported crops. The resultant supply-demand mismatch raises prices of non-MSP supported crops and makes them more volatile. This contributes to food price inflation that disproportionately hurts poor households.”

This essentially means that even though the Food Security Act wants to help people by selling rice and wheat at a low price, it ends up creating a difficult situation because prices of other crops tend to go up, as farmers tend to concentrate on buying rice and wheat. Food inflation in June 2016 was at 7.79 per cent. Within food, vegetables, pulses and sugar, saw an increase in price of 12.72 per cent, 28.28 per cent and 12.98 per cent, respectively. Spices went up by 8.13 per cent.

Hence, the unintended consequence of the Food Security Act is to make things more expensive on the whole. What is the way around this? I shall discuss some solutions in the weeks to come.

The column originally appeared in Vivek Kaul’s Diary on July 21, 2016

Food Security – The biggest mistake India might have made till date

250px-Gandhisonia05052007Vivek Kaul 
Historians often ask counterfactual questions to figure out how history could have evolved differently. Ramachandra Guha asks and answers one such question in an essay titled A Short History of Congress Chamchagiri, which is a part of the book Patriots and Partisans.
In this essay Guha briefly discusses what would have happened if Lal Bahadur Shastri, the second prime minister of India, had lived a little longer. Shastri died on January 11, 1966, after serving as the prime minister for a little over 19 months.
The political future of India would have evolved very differently had Shashtri lived longer, feels Guha. As he writes “Had Shastri lived, Indira Gandhi may or may not have migrated to London. But even had she stayed in India, it is highly unlikely that she would have become prime minister. And it is certain that her son would have never have occupied or aspired to that office…Sanjay Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi would almost certainly still be alive, and in private life. The former would be a (failed) entrepreneur, the latter a recently retired airline pilot with a passion for photography. Finally, had Shastri lived longer, Sonia Gandhi would still be a devoted and loving housewife, and Rahul Gandhi perhaps a middle-level manager in a private sector company.”
But that as we know was not to be. Last night, the Lok Sabha, worked overtime to pass Sonia Gandhi’s passion project, the Food Security Bill. India as a nation has made big mistakes on the economic and the financial front in the nearly 66 years that it has been independent, but the passage of the Food Security Bill, might turn out to be our biggest mistake till date.
The Food Security Bill guarantees 5 kg of rice, wheat and coarse cereals per month per individual at a fixed price of Rs 3, 2, 1, respectively, to nearly 67% of the population.
The government estimates suggest that food security will cost Rs 1,24,723 crore per year. But that is just one estimate. Andy Mukherjee, a columnist with Reuters, puts the cost at around $25 billion. The Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices(CACP) of the Ministry of Agriculture in a research paper titled National Food Security Bill – Challenges and Optionsputs the cost of the food security scheme over a three year period at Rs 6,82,163 crore. During the first year the cost to the government has been estimated at Rs 2,41,263 crore.
Economist Surjit Bhalla in a column in The Indian Express put the cost of the bill at Rs 3,14,000 crore or around 3% of the gross domestic product (GDP). Ashok Kotwal, Milind Murugkar and Bharat Ramaswamichallenge Bhalla’s calculation in a column in The Financial Express and write “the food subsidy bill should…come to around 1.35% of GDP, which is still way less than the numbers he(i.e. Bhalla) put out.”
The trouble here is that by expressing the cost of food security in terms of percentage of GDP, we do not understand the seriousness of the situation that we are getting into. In order to properly understand the situation we need to express the cost of food security as a percentage of the total receipts(less borrowings) of the government. The receipts of the government for the year 2013-2014 are projected at Rs 11,22,799 crore.
The government’s estimated cost of food security comes at 11.10%(Rs 1,24,723 expressed as a % of Rs 11,22,799 crore) of the total receipts. The CACP’s estimated cost of food security comes at 21.5%(Rs 2,41,623 crore expressed as a % of Rs 11,22,799 crore) of the total receipts. Bhalla’s cost of food security comes at around 28% of the total receipts (Rs 3,14,000 crore expressed as a % of Rs 11,22,799 crore).
Once we express the cost of food security as a percentage of the total estimated receipts of the government, during the current financial year, we see how huge the cost of food security really is. This is something that doesn’t come out when the cost of food security is expressed as a percentage of GDP. In this case the estimated cost is in the range of 1-3% of GDP. But the government does not have the entire GDP to spend. It can only spend what it earns.
The interesting thing is that the cost of food security expressed as a percentage of total receipts of the government is likely to be even higher. This is primarily because the government’s collection of taxes has been slower than expected this year. The Controller General of Accounts has put out numbers to show precisely this. For the first three months of the financial year (i.e. the period between April 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013) only 11.1% of the total expected revenue receipts (the total tax and non tax revenue) for the year have been collected. When it comes to capital receipts(which does not include government borrowings) only 3.3% of the total expected amount for the year have been collected.
What this means is that the government during the first three months of the financial year has not been able to collect as much money as it had expected to. This means that the cost of food security will form a higher proportion of the total government receipts than the numbers currently tell us. And that is just one problem.
It is also worth remembering that the government estimate of the cost of food security at Rs 1,24,723 crore is very optimistic. The CACP points out that this estimate does not take into account “additional expenditure (that) is needed for the envisaged administrative set up, scaling up of operations, enhancement of production, investments for storage, movement, processing and market infrastructure etc.”
Food security will also mean a higher expenditure for the government in the days to come. A higher expenditure will mean a higher fiscal deficit. Fiscal deficit is defined as the difference between what a government earns and what it spends.
The question is how will this higher expenditure be financed? Given that the economy is in a breakdown mode, higher taxes are not the answer. The government will have to finance food security through higher borrowing.
Higher government borrowing by the government as this writer has often explained in the past crowds out private borrowing. The private sector (be it banks or companies) in order to compete with the government for savings will have to offer higher interest rates. This means that the era of high interest rates will continue, which will not be good for economic growth.
Also, it is important to remember that the food security scheme is an open ended scheme. As Nitin Pai, Director of The Takshashila Institution, writes in a column “The scheme is open-ended: there’s no expiry date, no sunset clause. It covers around two-thirds of the population—even those who are not really needy. This means that the outlays will have to increase as the population grows.”
This might also lead to the government printing money to finance the scheme. It was and remains easy for the government to obtain money by printing it rather than taxing its citizens. F P Powers aptly put it when he said that money printing would always be “the first device thought of by a finance minister when a large quantity of money has to be raised at once”. History is full of such examples.
Money printing will lead to higher inflation. Prices will rise due to other reasons as well. Every year, the government declares a minimum support price (MSP) on rice and wheat. At this price, it buys grains from farmers. This grain is then distributed to those entitled to it under the various programmes of the government.
The grain to be distributed under the food security programme will also be procured in a similar way. But this may have other unintended consequences which the government is not taking into account. As the CACP points out “Assured procurement gives an incentive for farmers to produce cereals rather than diversify the production-basket…Vegetable production too may be affected – pushing food inflation further.”
And this will hit the very people food security is expected to benefit. A discussion paper titled Taming Food Inflation in India released by CACP in April 2013 points out the same. “Food inflation in India has been a major challenge to policy makers, more so during recent years when it has averaged 10% during 2008-09 to December 2012. Given that an average household in India still spends almost half of its expenditure on food, and poor around 60 percent (NSSO, 2011), and that poor cannot easily hedge against inflation, high food inflation inflicts a strong ‘hidden tax’ on the poor…In the last five years, post 2008, food inflation contributed to over 41% to the overall inflation in the country.”
Higher food prices will mean higher inflation and this in turn will mean lower savings, as people will end up spending a higher proportion of their income to meet their expenses. This will lead to people spending a lower amount of money on consuming good and services and thus economic growth will slowdown further. It might not be surprising to see economic growth go below the 5% level.
Lower savings will also have an impact on the current account deficit. As Atish Ghosh and Uma Ramakrishnan point out in an article on the IMF website “The current account can also be expressed as the difference between national (both public and private) savings and investment. A current account deficit may therefore reflect a low level of national savings relative to investment.” If India does not save enough, it means it will have to borrow capital from abroad. And when these foreign borrowings need to be repaid, dollars will need to be bought. This will put pressure on the rupee and lead to its depreciation against the dollar.
There is another factor that can put pressure on the rupee. In a particular year when the government is not able to procure enough rice or wheat to fulfil its obligations under right to food security, it will have to import these grains. But that is easier said than done, specially in case of rice. “Rice is a very thinly traded commodity, with only about 7 per cent of world production being traded and five countries cornering three-fourths of the rice exports. The thinness and concentration of world rice markets imply that changes in production or consumption in major rice-trading countries have an amplified effect on world prices,” a CACP research paper points out. And buying rice or wheat internationally will mean paying in dollars. This will lead to increased demand for dollars and pressure on the rupee.
The weakest point of the right to food security is that it will use the extremely “leaky” public distribution system to distribute food grains. As Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya write in India’s Tryst With Destiny – Debunking Myths That Undermine Progress and Addressing New Challenges “A recent study by Jha and Ramaswami estimates that in 2004-05, 70 per cent of the poor received no grain through the pubic distribution system while 70 per cent of those who did receive it were non-poor. They also estimate that as much as 55 per cent of the grain supplied through the public distribution system leaked out along the distribution chain, with only 45 per cent actually sold to beneficiaries through fair-price shops. The share of food subsidy received by the poor turned out to be astonishingly low 10.5 per cent.”
Estimates made by CACP suggest that the public distribution system has a leakage of 40.4%. “In 2009-10, 25.3 million tonnes was received by the people under PDS while the offtake by states was 42.4 million tonnes- indicating a leakage of 40.4 percent,” a CACP research paper points out.
Bhagwati and Panagariya also point out that with the subsidy on rice being the highest, the demand for rice will be the highest and the government distribution system will fail to procure enough rice. As they write “recognising that the absolute subsidy per kilogram is the largest in rice, the eligible households would stand to maximize the implicit transfer to them by buying rice and no other grain from the public distribution system. By reselling rice in the private market, they would be able to convert this maximized in-kind subsidy into cash…Of course, with all eligible households buying rice for their entire permitted quotas, the government distribution system will simply fail to procure enough rice.”
The jhollawallas’ big plan for financing the food security scheme comes from the revenue foregone number put out by the Finance Ministry. This is essentially tax that could have been collected but was foregone due to various exemptions and incentives. The Finance Ministry put this number at Rs 480,000 crore for 2010-2011 and Rs 530,000 crore for 2011-2012. Now only if these taxes could be collected food security could be easily financed the jhollawallas feel.
But this number is a huge overestimation given that a lot of revenue foregone is difficult to capture. As Amartya Sen, the big inspiration for the jhollawallasput it in a column in The Hindu in January 2012 “This is, of course, a big overestimation of revenue that can be actually obtained (or saved), since many of the revenues allegedly forgone would be difficult to capture — and so I am not accepting that rosy evaluation.”
Also, it is worth remembering something that finance minister P Chidambaram pointed out in his budget speech. “There are 42,800 persons – let me repeat, only 42,800 persons – who admitted to a taxable income exceeding Rs 1 crore per year,” Chidambaram said.
So Indians do not like to pay tax. And just because a tax is implemented does not mean that they will pay up. This is an after effect of marginal income tax rates touching a high of 97% during the rule of Indira Gandhi. A huge amount of the economy has since moved to black, where transactions happen but are never recorded.To conclude, the basic point is that food security will turn out to be a fairly expensive proposition for India. But then Sonia Gandhi believes in it and so do other parties which have voted for it.
With this Congress has firmly gone back to the garibi hatao politics of Indira Gandhi. And that is not surprising given the huge influence Indira Gandhi has had on Sonia.
As Tavleen Singh puts it in Durbar “When she (i.e. Sonia) refused to become Congress president on the night Rajiv died, it was probably because she knew that if she took the job, she would be quickly exposed. In her year of semi-retirement she learned to speak Hindi well enough to read out a speech written in Roman script, and studied carefully the politics of her mother-in-law. There were rumours that she watched videos of the late prime minister Indira Gandhi so she could learn to imitate her mannerisms.”
Other than imitating the mannerisms of Indira Gandhi, Sonia has also ended up imitating her politics and her economics. Now only if Lal Bahadur Shastri had lived a few years more…
The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on August 27, 2013
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek) 
 

Why does UPA want to feed 67% if only 21% of India is poor?

congress-party-symbol1
Vivek Kaul
Poverty in India has fallen between 2004-05 and 2011-12, or so suggests data recently released by the Planning Commission. The poverty ratio was 37.2% in 2004-05 and fell to 21.9% by 2011-12.
The Congress led United Progressive Alliance(UPA) has been quick to claim credit for this fall in poverty. The opposition parties from the left and the right have slammed the government, and questioned the numbers put out by the Planning Commission.
So who is right on this occasion? The government? Or the opposition? Before we get around to answering these questions, it is first important to understand how the Planning Commission decides who is poor and who is not.
A poverty line separates the poor section of the population from the non poor section. Those below the poverty line are deemed to be poor and those above it are deemed to be not poor. And what exactly is a poverty line? As S Subramanian writes in The Poverty Line “A poverty line is identified in monetary units as the level of income or consumption expenditure required in order to avoid poverty.”
So how is the level of income or consumption expenditure required in order to avoid poverty decided on? An essential criterion for avoiding poverty is the availability of adequate nutrition, writes Subramanian. Hence, a calorie norm is identified. The amount of money required to consume the identified number of food calories becomes the cut off point, or the poverty line. Those who consume less than that are deemed to be poor.
This criteria was first clearly addressed by the Indian planners in 1979 in a Planning Commission Report of the Task Force of Minimum Needs and Effective Consumption Demand. As Subramanian writes “In identifying consumption expenditure poverty norms for India, the Task Force employed a nutritional norm of 2,435 (rounded off to 2,400) kilocalories per person per day in rural areas, and a norm of 2,095 calories (rounded off to 2,100) kilocalories per person per day in the urban areas. These were average figures based on calorie allowances recommended by a Nutrition Expert Group in 1968…The Task Force was able to come up with an ‘average’ requirement of calories for what one might call a ‘representative’ Indian, in each of the rural and urban areas of the country.”
So what does this mean? It means that anyone in rural India consuming less than 2,400 kilocalories per day was deemed to be poor. For urban India this number was at 2,100 kilocalories. Through a statistical regression the total expenditure necessary to consume either 2,400 kilocalories or 2,100 kilocalories was estimated.
The Tendulkar Committee formula, a new formula to estimate the poverty line, came into effect in 2009. This formula, other than considering the expenditure on food, also took expenses on education, health and clothing into account.
When Professor Suresh Tendulkar changed the formula he argued that the old formula did not take into account the fact that calorie intake had dropped to 1770 kilocalories in urban areas. Despite this change the influence of the old calorie norm on the new formula is considerable, feel experts.
And how much is the expenditure as per the Tendulkar Committee formula ? As the Press Note on Poverty Estimates, 2011-12, released by the Planning Commission points out “for rural areas the national poverty line…is estimated at Rs. 816 per capita per month and Rs. 1,000 per capita per month in urban areas. Thus, for a family of five, the all India poverty line in terms of consumption expenditure would amount to about Rs. 4,080 per month in rural areas and Rs. 5,000 per month in urban areas.”
Assuming 30 days in a month, this expenditure comes to Rs 27.5 per day for the rural areas and Rs 33.33 for urban areas. Hence, anyone whose expenditure per day is less than these amounts is categorised as poor.
How adequate is this poverty line of Rs 27.5-Rs 33.33 per day? If one were to believe film star turned Congress politician Raj Babbar, this amount is more than enough. “Even today in Mumbai city, I can have a full meal at Rs 12. No no not vada paav. So much of rice, dal sambhar and with that some vegetables are also mixed ,” he told reporters today (i.e. July 25, 2013).
Of course, this clearly proves that Mr Babbar has not stepped onto the streets of Mumbai for a very long time. His days of struggle in the film industry having been long over.
Even if we believe that one can get a meal for Rs 12 in Mumbai, eating is not the only expenditure that a man needs to incur in order to survive.
Given this, it is easy to prove that the poverty line in India has been set at a very low level. There have been a spate of comments criticising this. Shivraj Singh Chouhan, the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh called the Planning Commission figures a cruel joke on the poor. “I would like to ask the Prime Minister and Congress president whether they could have their meal in just Rs 32(if one divides Rs 1000 by 31 days, it comes to Rs 32.25),” Chouhan said.
This is something that Praful Patel of the Nationalist Congress Party, which is a part of the UPA, agreed with. “The ceiling set by them (Planning Commission) is totally wrong. In today’s time, Commission should set a new ceiling keeping in mind inflation and high cost of living. We do not agree with this data,” Patel said. Brinda Karat of the CPI(M) said that the Planning Commission figures were “dubious” and “discredited” and added “salt to the wounds of the poor”. Similar reactions came in from other political parties as well.
So, the poverty line in India is at a very low level and hence needs to be increased is a conclusion that can be easily drawn from. As N.C. Saxena, member of the National Advisory Council, who headed a Planning Commission panel on poverty told The Hindu “the narrow definition of poverty we have been using, where the line is really what I call a ‘kutta-billi’ line; only cats and dogs can survive on it.”
But raising the poverty line is not simple and has serious implications. As Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya write in India’s Tryst with Destiny “While reasonable people may differ on whether it is reasonable to further raise the poverty line, the subject is far more complex than commonly appreciated.”
And why is that the case? “The dilemma in raising the poverty lines is best brought out by considering the implications of poverty lines that are significantly higher than those currently in use and are advocated by many of the current critics of the Planning Commission. Thus, for example, suppose we raise the rural poverty line to Rs 80 and the urban one to Rs 100 at 2009-10 prices. What would these lines imply?” ask Bhagwati and Panagariya.
This would designate 95% of the rural population and 85% of the urban population to be poor. The impact of this would be that the money that the government spends to tackle poverty would be spread over a much larger number of people and thus would have less impact in tackling poverty. As Bhagwati and Panagariya point out “With tax revenues still relatively modest, significant redistribution in favour of the destitute requires limiting such redistributions to the bottom 40 percent or so of the population. Spreading them thinly over a vast population will give too little to the destitute to make a major dent in poverty.”
Lets understand this through an example. Let us say there are 100 people. Of this 20 are deemed to be poor. The government decides to spend Rs 100 to help them. Hence, on an average each one of them benefits to the extent of Rs 5.
Now lets the definition of poverty is changed and 90 out of 100 people, are deemed to be poor. The government still spends Rs 100 on them. The benefit per person comes down to a much lower Rs 1.11 (Rs 100/90). Hence, the more poor lose out at the cost of the less poor.
In fact, this is not the first time such a situation has arisen. In 1962, the Perspective Planning Department (PPD) of the Planning Commission had discussed a similar dilemma. As Subramanian writes partly quoting a PPD document “’The balanced diet recommended by the Nutrition Advisory Committee together with a modest standard of consumption for other items would cost approximately Rs 35 per head (per month). But at present less than 20% of our population can afford it’…The implication is quite clear. A poverty line of Rs 35 per person per month would have plunged 80 per cent of the Indian population into poverty: wiser counsel advocated a more modest norm of Rs 20 per person per month.” This brought down the poverty rate to 60%.
Hence, there is no point in pushing up the poverty line without having the resources to tackle it. If resources are limited they should be deployed to help those who need it the most.
But the Congress led UPA government has done exactly the opposite by getting the President to sign on the Food Security Ordinance. The food security scheme aims at providing subsidised rice and wheat to nearly 82 crore Indians or 67% of the total population.
This effectively means that the government thinks that 67% of the Indian population is poor and cannot afford to buy rice and wheat at market rates. But as per the current poverty line only 21.9% of the population is not getting adequate nutrition. So which is the right number? 21.9% or 67%? The Congress led UPA government needs to answer that question.
It seems the government is working on a new poverty line to justify the massive expenditure that it will incur on the Food Security scheme. As The Hindu reports “economists advising the Ministry of Rural Development have told The Hindu that the exclusion criteria to be derived from the ongoing Socio-Economic and Caste Census are likely to leave out the top 35 per cent of the population while the bottom 65 per cent will be considered below poverty line.”
Meanwhile, it will claim that the poverty has come down on the basis of the current poverty line and numbers put out by the Planning Commission because of the social programmes it has launched over the last few years.
As the old saying goes “heads I win, tails you lose”.
The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on July 25, 2013
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek) 
 

How the government makes you pay more for food

 food

Vivek Kaul


“God,” they say, “is in the details”. And so is the devil.
The wholesale price inflation(WPI), one of the ways to measure the rise in prices, touched 4.86% for June 2013. In May 2013, WPI had stood at 4.7%.
The worrying factor was that food inflation increased to 9.74%, due to an increase in price of onions, cereals and rice. During May 2013, food inflation was at 8.25%.
While an overall inflation of less than 5% sounds like a good situation to be in, it clearly is not, because of the high food inflation that prevails (I bought tomatoes at Rs 60 per kg yesterday evening and that hurts).
The point to remember here is that overall inflation is a theoretical construct where various goods and services have a certain weight attached to them. Food articles comprise of around 14.34% of the WPI basket. What this means in simple English is that if an individual were to spend Rs 100 on goods that comprise the WPI basket, he would spend Rs 14.34 on buying food.
But for most people the proportion of money they spend on food is higher than 14.34%. A discussion paper titled Taming Food Inflation in India released by the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices(CACP), Ministry of Agriculture, on April 1, 2013, makes the point. “An average household in India still spends almost half of its expenditure on food, and poor around 60 percent (NSSO, 2011), and that poor cannot easily hedge against inflation, high food inflation inflicts a strong ‘hidden tax’ on the poor…In the last five years, post 2008, food inflation contributed to over 41% to the overall inflation in the country,” write the authors Ashok Gulati and Shweta Saini. Gulati is the Chairman of the Commission and Saini is an independent researcher.
This means that rising food prices are a huge problem for most Indians. Vegetable prices went up by 16.47% in June vis a vis 4.85% in May. Onion prices went up by a whopping 114% against 97.4% in May. Price rise in cereals and rice was 17.2% and 19.1% respectively.
While each food product has its own reasons for the price rise, there are some broad generalisations that can be made. Take the case of rice and wheat. Their price rise can be directly attributed to hoarding by the government.
In a research paper titled Buffer Stocking Policy in Wake of NFSB (National Food Securities Bill) Ashok Gulati and Surbhi Jain of CACP point out “The country is currently loaded with large stocks. On July 1, 2012, e.g., it had 80.2 million tonnes, and is likely to have similar or even higher amount this year, despite emerging as the largest exporter of rice (around 10 million tonnes in calendar year 2012) and exporting about 5.6 million tonnes of wheat in FY 2012‐13.”
The situation seems to have continued this year as well. The food grain stock as on April 1, 2013, stood at 59.8 million tonnes against the norm of 21.2 million tonnes, that the government needs to maintain as on April 1, of every year.
One explanation for the hoarding is that the government was building up stocks to implement the food security scheme. But even after taking that into account, the government is hoarding onto more rice and wheat it requires to sell at subsidised rates. The CACP report estimates that anywhere between 41-47 million tonnes, would be a comfortable level of buffer stocks. This would be enough to take care of the subsidised grain that needs to be distributed to implement the food security scheme. At the same time it would also take care of the strategic reserves that the government needs to maintain, to be ready for a drought or any other exigency.
As on July 1, 2013, the government is expected to have around 82 million tonnes of rice and wheat. What this means that the government has an excess stock of nearly 30-40 million tonnes. As Gulati and Jain point out “The value locked in these “excess stocks”, evaluated at their economic cost, ranges from Rs 70,000 crore to Rs 92,000 crore. This infusion of “excess” money into the economy without corresponding flow of goods is evident in the paradox of rising prices of rice & wheat amidst overflowing stocks in government godowns.”
The excess storage by the government causes inflation in two ways. There is lesser rice and wheat available in the open market, and this pushes up prices. In the last few years, the government has been buying and hoarding more and more of rice and wheat produced. In 2006-2007, the government bought 32% of the total rice paddy produced. In 2011-2012, this had shot up to a massive 54%. During the same period the procurement of wheat more or less doubled, from 18% to 35%. As a a report brought out by the Comptroller and the Auditor (CAG) General of India points out “The total food grains stock in the Central Pool recorded an increase of 45.8 million tonnes between 2006-07 and 2011-12.”
In some states the procurement of grains has more or less been quasi nationalised. In states like Punjab, Haryana and now Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, around 80‐90% of the rice and wheat produced is bought by the government. This means the amount of rice and wheat available in the open market has come down dramatically and which in turn has pushed up prices.
The second reason for inflation is the fact that the farmers have already been paid anywhere from Rs 70,000-92,000 crore for the excess stocks that the government chooses to maintain. When this money is spent it leads to more money chasing the same number of goods and products, and thus adds to inflation.
In fact, high food inflation isn’t a recent phenomenon. It has been a regular part of our lives since 2008, when the Congress led UPA government decided to get ready for the 2009 Lok Sabha elections and go on a spending spree. During the period 2008-2009 to December 2012, the food inflation averaged at 10.13% per year. It has more or less continued at same levels since then.
The rise in expenditure of the government hasn’t been met by a rise in revenues and has thus led to an increase in fiscal deficit. Fiscal deficit is the difference between what the government earns and what it spends. The fiscal deficit of the Indian government in 2007-2008 (the period between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2008) stood at Rs 1,26,912 crore. This jumped by 230% to Rs 4,18,482 crore, in 2009-2010 (the period between April 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010). It has since jumped to even higher levels and for the 2013-2014(i.e. The period between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2014) it is projected to be at Rs 5,42,499 crore.
And it is this increased expenditure(reflected in the burgeoning fiscal deficit) of the government that has led to inflation. As Gulati and Saini point out “Indian fiscal package largely comprised of boosting consumption through outright doles (like farm loan waivers) or liberal increases in pay to organised workers under Sixth Pay Commission and expanded MGNREGA(Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act expenditures for rural workers. All this resulted in quickly boosting demand.”
The sudden increase in government expenditure meant more money landing up in the pockets of citizens. And this money was spent leading to an increase in demand for goods and services. But this increase in demand could not be met with an increase in supply because of several infrastructure bottlenecks. As Gulati and Saini write “But with several supply bottlenecks in place, particularly power, water, roads and railways, etc, very soon, ‘too much money was chasing too few goods’. And no wonder, higher inflation in general and food inflation in particular, was a natural outcome…This study finds that the pressure on prices is more on protein foods (pulses, milk and milk products, eggs, fish and meat) as well as fruits and vegetables, than on cereals and edible oils, especially during 2004-05 to December 2012. This normally happens with rising incomes, when people switch from cereal based diets to more protein based diets. ”
Food inflation has now become a way of life for Indians, and is unlikely to go away any time soon. Even with that the government can look to at least control the rise in price of rice and wheat by trying to sell the excess stocks that it is hoarding onto. In fact, the irony is that the government doesn’t have enough space to store all the rice and wheat it is hoarding. The total storage capacity available is around 71.9 million tonnes. Now compare this to the total expected food grain stock of around 82 million tonnes as on July 1, 2013. What this means is that nearly 10 million tonnes of food grain is rotting in the open.
It is not rocket science to suggest that at least this stock can be sold off. It is always better if people eat rice and wheat, rather than the government letting it rot.
The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on July 16, 2013

(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

 

 

Five questions govt needs to answer on food security

 sonia-maino-la-fidanzata-italiana-di-rajiv-gandhi-29-gennaio-1968-ap2Vivek Kaul 
Sonia Gandhi wants the chief ministers of fourteen states in which the Congress party is in power to role out the food security scheme in letter and spirit, and in quick time. Some media reports suggest that the scheme will be rolled out on August 20, which also happens to be the birth anniversary of Sonia’s late husband Rajiv.
While there seems to be a great hurry to launch the scheme there are some basic questions that the government needs to answer.
a) It has been pointed out time and again that the right to food security is likely to benefit 82 crore Indians. It seeks to cover 50% of the urban population and 75% of the rural population. The trouble is that no clear eligibility criteria for identifying the intended beneficiaries has been specified. It has been left to the state governments. As Jean Drèze wrote in a recent column in the Business Standard “For instance, the identification of eligible households is left to the discretion of the government. In the absence of clear eligibility criteria, no one is really entitled to anything as a matter of right; this defeats the law’s purpose.”
So the question is how will be the intended beneficiaries be identified.? The lack of a mechanism already seems to be causing problems. A report in the Daily News and Analysis points out that a presentation being made Sheila Dikshit, the chief minister of Delhi, was cut short by food minister KV Thomas. As the report points out “Dikshit’s presentation was cut short by food minister, when she mentioned that 32  lakh beneficiaries of existing schemes would be covered by the food security ordinance. She was reminded that in Delhi 72 lakh people are estimated to gain from the food security scheme. She had mentioned that Delhi had 2.62 lakh BPL card holders and 2.21 lakh are in the rehabilitation colonies and other 40,500 are in slums. Even these figures made just 26 lakh persons. Delhi CM then added another 10 lakh beneficiaries covered under the Antyodaya Ann Yojana and Anna Shri Yojana. She was told to undertake a fresh survey and draw the list of beneficiaries.”
Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda was in a similar situation. “Similarly, Hooda also come out with a figure of just 39 lakh beneficiaries.  He was also told that as per the population of his state, he needs to draw a list of not less than 1.69 crore,” the DNA reports.
So the calculations of the Delhi chief minister tell her that there should be 36 lakh beneficiaries(26 lakh + 10 lakh beneficiaries under the Antyodaya Ann Yojana and Anna Shri Yojana) of the food security scheme in Delhi. The food minister feels that there are 72 lakh estimated beneficiaries. Dixit has been asked to do a fresh survey and draw up a list of beneficiaries. The gap of 36 lakh (72 lakh minus 36 lakh) need to be filled.
Hooda needs to fill in an even bigger gap of 1.3 crore (1.69 crore minus 39 lakh). Both Hooda and Dixit want to launch the scheme on August 20, which is a little over a month away. How are so many people going to be identified in such a short period of time? And the bigger question is why has no method for identification of intended beneficiaries be prescribed? Sheila Dikshit plans to distribute food security cards to those eligible for the scheme. 
b)What is the food security scheme going to cost every year? The finance minister P Chidambaram in the budget speech he made earlier this year said “I have set apart Rs 10,000 crore, over and above the normal provision for food subsidy, towards the incremental cost that is likely under the Act.” The total food subsidy in the government budget for 2013-2014(i.e. The period between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2014) is set at Rs90,000 crore. Chidambaram’s estimate will be lower for this year simply because the scheme will be launched in large parts of the country only during the second half of the year.
Economist Surjit S Bhalla writing in a column in The Indian Express puts the cost of the food security scheme at Rs 3,14, 000 crore. Bhalla’s calculations are fairly simple and straightforward to understand and put across the likely cost of the scheme more than clearly.
The Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices of the Ministry of Agriculture in a research paper titled National Food Security Bill – Challenges and Options puts the cost of the food security scheme over a three year period to Rs 6,82,163 crore. During the first year the cost to the government has been estimated at Rs 2,41,263 crore. Andy Mukherjee, a columnist for the Reuters, puts the total cost of food security at $25 billion or Rs 1,50,000 crore (assuming $1 equals Rs 60).
And if all these numbers aren’t enough there is the original estimate of Rs 27,000 crore when the idea of the Right to Food Security was first mooted in the National Food Security Bill tabled in the Parliament in December 2011. As Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen write in An Uncertain Glory – India and Its Contradictions “The additional resources required to implement the Bill were officially estimated, at that time, at Rs 27,000 crores per year.”
So how much is the food security scheme eventually going to cost the government and in turn the taxpayers? The estimates as one can see vary anywhere from Rs 27,000 crore to Rs3,14,000 crore. Can the government at least provide us a clear estimate of that? Or would that even be possible for the government to do, given that it has specified no method to identify the intended beneficiaries. Hence, it has no idea of how many people it will eventually end up covering under the scheme. So how does it calculate the cost? 
c) The food security scheme aims to provide subsidised wheat and rice to nearly 82 crore people. In order to procure the required rice and wheat the government already has an elaborate procurement system in place. It uses the Food Corporation of India and various other state agencies to buy rice and wheat directly from the farmers. The rice and wheat thus bought will be later sold at a subsidised price by the government.
What does the government plan to do in bad years when the production and/or procurement of rice and wheat are hit? In the current year the procurement of wheat by the government has declined by 33 per cent to 25.08 million tonnes. This has been attributed to aggressive buying by private traders. As of now this is not a reason for worry for the government primarily because of the excess wheat that it had bought during the previous years.
But what happens in a year during which production of rice or wheat is hit. As the CACP research paper cited earlier points out “With 60 percent of India’s farmland dependent on monsoon rains, drought years can slash production and force the country to import large quantities. The government already procures one-third of the cereals production and any increase in procurement will have enormous ramifications on the cereal economy/markets and would crowd out private sector operations with a consequent effect on open market prices.”
The government has the option of importing grains. But that is easier said than done, specially in case of rice. “Rice is a very thinly traded commodity, with only about 7 per cent of world production being traded and five countries cornering three-fourths of the rice exports. The thinness and concentration of world rice markets imply that changes in production or consumption in major rice-trading countries have an amplified effect on world prices,” the CACP paper points out.
Andy Mukherjee of the Reuters explained the consequences of what would happen during a year of bad harvest, a lot more clearly, in a recent column. “When the domestic Indian crop is insufficient, the programme may destabilize a thin global rice market…Once the bulk of Indian consumption bypasses the local open market – where prices can and do rise in years of bad harvest – the full brunt of the country’s demand will have to be met by supply from Thailand, Vietnam, Pakistan and the United States. That will in turn cause prices to surge for countries dependent on imports, such as Nigeria, Senegal, Bangladesh, Indonesia and the Philippines,” he writes. Not only is the price of rice going to go up in India, the world prices will go up as well. We will start exporting food inflation in the years to come.
d) Are the states really ready to launch the food security scheme? Of the fourteen Congress governments in the country only two have committed to launch the scheme on August 20, 2013, the birth anniversary of Rajiv Gandhi.
The government plans to use the public distribution system (PDS) to distribute rice and wheat. Estimates made by CACP suggest that the currently the system has a leakage of 40.4%. “In 2009-10, 25.3 million tonnes was received by the people under PDS while the offtake by states was 42.4 million tonnes- indicating a leakage of 40.4 percent,” the research paper points out. This is a marked improvement from 2004-05 when the leakage was around 54.1%.
Drèze and Sen in their book An Uncertain Glory – India and Its Contradictions divide the PDS into ‘old-style’ PDS and ‘new-style’ PDS. “Basic features of the old-style PDS include narrow coverage, large exclusion errors, erratic supply of food and massive corruption. The new-style PDS is based on a focused effort to tackle these interrelated problems, and to achieve broad coverage, low exclusion errors, regular supply, and relatively small leakages,” write the authors.
States like Tamil Nadu, Chattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha and Rajasthan, are a part of the new style PDS, Drèze and Sen point out. But large states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are still on the old style PDS. This will ensure a tremendous leakage of rice and wheat that is distributed at a subsidised price in these and other states which still have old style PDS. 
e) The government ultimately plans to move food security onto the cash transfer system from the current PDS. So beneficiaries will be paid in cash which they can use to buy rice and wheat from the open market. But what will happen to the elaborate grain procurement system that the government has built through the Food Corporation of India in that case? As Drèze and Sen write “If the PDS were to be replaced with cash transfers, the government would have to devise good ways of using all the rice and wheat it procures every year. The procurement system has a momentum of its own, and is unlikely to be dismantled any time soon. Upbeat estimates of massive ‘food subsidy’ savings in the event of a transition to cash transfers effectively assume a discontinuation (or at least a sharp reduction) of foodgrain procurement, but this assumption is rarely discussed. Nor is the political feasibility of discontinuing food procurement given any room in these calculations.”
These are important questions for which the government needs to answer or they will comeback to haunt us in the time to come.
The article appeared on www.firstpost.com on July 15, 2013
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek)