Food security Bill: Instead of subsidies to food grains, policy should aim to increase purchasing power-28 Dec, 2011

28 Dec, 2011, 04.25AM IST,

Food security Bill: Instead of subsidies to food grains, policy should aim to increase purchasing power(...WELL EVEN I HAVE WRITTEN EARLEIR THAT ITS ALWAYS BETTER TO MAKE PEOPLE SELF-SUFFICIENT,SELF-DEPENDANT TO CONTROL FOOD SCARCITIES AND VOICE FOR ITS EQUAL AND FAIR DISTRIBUTIONS.ATLEAST VOCATIONAL TRAINING,IF ONE CAN NOT AFFORD OR PROVIDE HIGHER STUDIES,ONE OR IS THAT TALENTED.GOVERNMENT MUST ADD A CLAUSE TO CONTROL OVER-POPULATION BY MAKING HUM DO,HUMARE DO LAW'S IMPLEMENTATION STRICTLY HERE!!....IN THIS CONTEXT TELL THEM NO ONE WILL GET BENIFITS,WHO HAS MORE THEN 2 KIDS.AS AWARE PEOPLE CAN DEMAND AND VOICE FOR THEIR RIGHTS AND CAN TAKE CARE OF EVERY SITUATIONS EFFECTIVLY!!...VT

ARVIND PANAGARIYA IS A PROFESSOR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

While some may view the food security Bill as the instrument of combating poverty, this distinction belongs to the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, the flagship anti-poverty programme of the United Progressive Alliance government. The proponents of the food security Bill at the National Advisory Council have promoted it as the instrument of fighting widespread and rising hunger, instead.

But what is the empirical basis of the claims of widespread and rising hunger in India? Surely, we cannot go bythe claims of the Food and Agricultural Organization, World Bank and many NGOs who themselves prosper from propagating the view that India and Africa suffer from ever-rising hunger and poverty.

It so happens that successive expenditure surveys of the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) have asked Indian households whether they have had enough to eat throughout the year. The proportion of those replying in the negative was a high 19% in rural and 7% in urban areas in 1983. But the proportion has steadily shrunken, dropping to less than 3% in rural and less than 1% in urban areas in 2004-05.

In what sense then does India suffer from widespread and rising hunger? In their support, the proponents of the food security Bill point to the decline in calorie and protein consumption intake and rise in fat consumption over the years. According to the NSSO, the per-capita calorie consumption across all individuals fell from 2,266 to 2,047 between 1972-73 and 2004-05 in rural India, and from 2,107 to 2,020 in urban India over the same period. Asimilar trend has been observed in protein intake while the reverse trend has obtained in fat intake.

This decline in calorie consumption is, however, reconciled with the sharp decline in the proportion of individuals reporting lack of food once we recognise that economic development has reduced the need for calorie consumption. Thus, increased mechanisation in agriculture and construction improved means of transportation and the shift away from physically-challenging jobs has reduced physical activity.

Simultaneously, better absorption of food following improved epidemiological environment means that less calories must be consumed toproduce a given amount ofenergy. Improvements in adult height and all other vital health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and child nutrition reinforce this argument.

Even so, let us be generous to the proponents for a moment and accept that hunger, as they wish to measure it, has risen and is widespread. The million-dollar question then is whether the food security Bill will provide the necessary correction. A moment's reflection shows that the answer is an unequivocal no.

The Bill entitles the poor to 7kg of grain per person per month at prices of 1, 2 and 3 per kg for coarse grain, wheat and rice, respectively. So, if I were someone living in abject poverty in Rajasthan, what will be my response?

Each month, I will claim 35 kg of rice from the ration shop for five members of my family at the total cost of 105. I will then sell this rice at 25 per kg for 875 in the open market, buy the usual 25 kg of coarse grain my family consumes in the open market for 250 (at 10 per kg) and net the handsome profit of 520.