ECONOMIC HIGHLIGHTS

New Delhi, 20 February 2008

Strengthen Agricultural Sector

WHERE IS THE SURPLUS FOODGRAIN?

By Dr. Vinod Mehta

(Former Director (Research) ICSSR)

While the Government is planning sops for the farmers in the coming Budget, reportedly wheat output might fall in the coming months as the farmers are said to have reduced the area under wheat crop.  This is likely to affect the availability of wheat as well as the Public Distribution System (PDS).  Besides, the international prices of wheat are very high and importing wheat in such a situation to boost wheat stocks could be a very expensive proposition for the country.

The Economic Survey and the budgetary proposals (2007-08) rightly drew the attention of the country to the lopsidedness in our economic growth.  The manufacturing and the service sectors are doing relatively very well while the agricultural sector is lagging.  Now we are getting ready for the budgetary proposals for the next fiscal but the agricultural sector continues to remain sluggish. 

The import of grain can at best be a temporary solution for a big country like India. The real solution, however, lies in increasing the productivity of food grains along with the other essential commodities.  Productivity of our agricultural products is ridiculously low by world standards.

If we compare the productivity of the Indian agriculture to that of the productivity in other countries, we will find that our agriculture is way behind them. Take for instance China, which can be our competitor in the international agricultural market. With only 100 million hectare of agricultural land, China is producing 400 million tonnes of grain while India with its 146 million hectares of agricultural land produces on an average only 108 million tonnes of food.

If we take the production per hectare of individual crops too we will find that the country is way behind other countries. The average production of rice per hectare in India is around 1,756 kgs compared to 5,475 kgs of North Korea; we are harvesting only 2117 kgs of wheat per hectare compared to 7,716 kgs by the Netherlands. Similarly, India produces only 1606 kgs of corn per hectare compared to 9091 kgs of corn per hectare by Greece.

It is the same story when it comes to soyabean and groundnut. The production of soyabean per hectare in India is 804 kgs compared to 3,453 kgs in Zimbabwe. As for groundnut, the country harvests only 929 kgs per hectare compared to 4,600 kgs per hectare harvested by Israel. In other words, Israel is getting five times the groundnut per hectare as against India. Similarly, India produces 15,817 kgs of potatoes per hectare compared to 45,349 kgs produced by Belgium. As for sugarcane we produce 65,382 kgs per hectare as against 135,448 kgs per hectare produced by Peru.

If we take these comparisons seriously, which we as a nation should, then India has a lot to explain and lot to do. The feel good factor will not deliver results here. It may be all right to have a record harvest occasionally and overflowing granaries in a relative sense. But we are just able to meet the domestic demand for foodstuff and may have surplus to see us through one or two bad harvests.

For a country, which also looks forward to entering the international agricultural market in the near future this is not enough. It is necessary to have a substantial surplus of agricultural products every year on a fairly continuous basis if we are to emerge as one of the important exporters of agricultural products in the world like Australia, USA or the European Economic Union countries and also meet our own domestic demand.

The figures also show that the potential of increasing the agricultural productivity is immense. If other countries can get three to five times the production per hectare of any agricultural product why can't India at least double its output per hectare of the agricultural produce?  The potential for such an increase exists and there is no reason why the country cannot achieve this. 

Additionally, in spite of the fact that we are spending so much on agricultural research, the country has not yet been able to produce seeds of high yielding varieties of international standards --- seeds which can change the face of Indian agriculture. There has to be some match between the funds we spend on agricultural research and the actual results we get in the form of produce per hectare.

The figures also reveal that India is not using its agricultural inputs to the optimum level.  A country like China which has less cultivable land than India has developed one of the best water management systems to get the maximum advantage. Similarly, Israel has turned the desert into an arid land, again mainly through its water management system.  A country like Netherlands which can grow only one crop a year because of the cold weather and snow makes the best use of its inputs to get the maximum output per hectare.

The lessons which the experience of other countries in the agricultural sector holds for us are that we have still a long way to go to tap the full potential of our agricultural sector. Moreover, by following an appropriate strategy we can increase the produce of our agricultural products several-fold.

There is no getting away from research in the agricultural sector. All efforts need to be put in to develop the high yielding varieties of various kinds of agricultural products which go well with the kind of weather conditions we have in the country. Also, this research would have to be extended to other allied activities like animal husbandry, fishing and plantation. 

However, the kind of bureaucratic environment that exists in our agricultural research institutes is not conducive to research that is needed for the development of the high yielding varieties of crops or milch animals. The number of suicides in the ICAR in the past goes to show how callous we are towards the agricultural research scientists. 

Therefore, as a first step we must revamp the setup of our agricultural research institutes and agricultural universities and fix some goals for the development of high yielding strains of food crops, edible oil seeds, sugarcane etc. Increasing allocation for agriculture research is not enough. We have to deliver results.

But pending the development of our own high yielding strains, we should make the best use of the available high yielding seeds of various crops that are available in the international market. If the seeds being sold by the multi-national companies can substantially raise the agricultural productivity per hectare, why should not the country go in for the use of such seeds immediately, even if they are expensive?  The use of such seeds would also increase the earnings of the farmers. 

What the agricultural research institutes can do is help identify the seeds being sold by multi-national companies which would be more suitable to the Indian climatic and soil conditions and would yield the maximum produce per hectare.

In fact, Professor M.S. Swaminathan, the architect of India’s Green Revolution, has been expressing his concern for a long time over the trends in the agricultural sector. He is disturbed by the fact that there are no real policies in the agricultural sector except for subsidies.  His observations need to be taken seriously.

This fiscal the growth rate is estimated to be between 7 and 8 per cent, but the Prime Minister speaking at the 80th AGM Meeting of the FICCI recently stated that he was confident that the country would realize a growth rate of 9 per cent during the Eleventh Plan period. The manufacturing and the service sector are doing relatively well and therefore to realize such a high overall growth rate we will have to push up the growth of the agricultural sector by focusing on increasing the productivity not only of food crops but also of commercial crops. ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

ECONOMIC HIGHLIGHTS

New Delhi, 14 February 2008

Research Holds Key

CHINA TO OVERTAKE AMERICA

By Dr. Vinod Mehta

(Former Director, Research, ICSSR)

China is being billed to replace the US as a powerhouse of scientific research and development of new technologies in the coming years. As acknowledged by even the Americans.  A new study of worldwide technological competitiveness in the US suggests that “China may soon rival the US as the principal driver of the world's economy - a position the U.S. has held since the end of World War II. If that happens, it will mark the first time in nearly a century that two nations have competed for leadership as equals.”

Thus China will overtake the US in the critical ability to develop basic science and technology, turn these developments into products and services and then market them to the world. “Though China is often seen as just a low-cost producer of manufactured goods, the new ‘High Tech Indicators’ study done by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology clearly shows that the Asian powerhouse has much bigger aspirations.”

The US researchers have also noted that in 2007 China had a technological standing of 82.8, compared to 76.1 for the US, 66.8 for Germany and 66.0 for Japan. Just 11 years ago, China's score was only 22.5. The US peaked in 1999 with a score of 95.4.

Again, Israel, a nation of just 6 million people, is also fast becoming a world leader in high technology. With 135 engineers per 100,000 people, it has the highest number of engineers per capita in the world, a proportion double that of the US. Numerous American and Silicon Valley firms have set up research and development facilities in Israel like Microsoft, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Sun Microsystems and IBM. And the country, home to some 2,000 technology start-up companies - has the world's greatest concentration of such firms outside of Silicon Valley.

Where does India stand in terms of scientific research and development of technologies?  We are a nation of one billion plus and one of the fastest growing economies. Can we sustain this growth rate without scientific research and development of new technologies?  Some of our business houses are taking over businesses in other countries including developed countries but what do we have to contribute to technological innovation of these businesses?

Frankly, speaking except for a few areas like space we are duds as far as scientific research and development of new technologies are concerned.  We have spent large funds over the years on developing a main battle tank and a light combat aircraft and yet we are still nowhere. 

Given the situation in our neighbourhood, our defence preparedness requires that we are battle ready with the latest technologies. Sadly, since we are unable to develop critical technologies the country is spending huge sums on importing defence equipments.  If we were to make these equipments with our own technologies we would not only be generating jobs in the manufacturing sector but also saving a lot of money.

India has one of the largest railways networks in the world but the country is dependent upon nations like France and South Korea for reliable signaling system, on Germany for designing of ultra modern passenger coaches. This is true of many other areas like machinery for the manufacturing and the construction sectors.  Yes, India is way ahead in the development of IT software but we cannot design and manufacture a pen drive or flash cards for use in the computers, digital cameras and mobile phones. Scandalously, all these are being imported from China!

Sometimes while purchasing equipments from foreign companies the powers-that-be insist on the transfer of technology. But in most cases, the so-called transfer of technology is a mere eyewash. No country or foreign company which has spent millions or perhaps billions of dollars on scientific research and perfecting technologies is going to transfer it to India. And why should they?

If India wishes to be counted among nations like the US, Russia, UK, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea and China it has no option but to rely on its own basic and applied scientific researches. It needs continuous development and perfecting of new technologies in every field be it defence, space, industry or agriculture. To achieve this we have to attract talent and reward them handsomely.  At times even hire foreign talent for critical technology.

Remember, what set the US apart from other countries as an economic power after World War 1 was its scientific research and the technologies it developed and used in various fields like space, defence, medicine, industry, agriculture et al. The strong point of European countries particularly UK, France and Germany along with Japan too was the same.

However, the Soviet Union directed all its energies to develop defence and space technologies, given the Cold War Era. And, Long after World War II, South Korea concentrated on scientific research and development of new technologies and today stands close to Japan in terms of research and technology in the industrial sector. Israel, like the Soviets, has concentrated on defence technologies. Except for the US and erstwhile Soviet Union most of the other countries are smaller or much smaller in size than India.

However, unlike India, where researchers are paid peanuts, other countries reward their researchers handsomely. In the Soviet Union scientists engaged in defence and space research are paid salaries and perks which are much higher than the salaries and perks of the Politburo members. In the US those engaged in scientific research are not only highly paid but it faces no problem in hiring the best foreign researchers.  However, post 9/11 hiring of foreign scientists has become strict leading to the US losing ground to other countries in the development of new technologies.

On the heels of the US, China too is following suit. It is single-mindedly concentrating on training scientists and engineers who conduct researches needed to maintain the country’s technological competitiveness. And if China persists as it will, India by comparison will become a weak economy.

Clearly, if the country has to maintain its growth rate at around 10 per cent to be counted as a developed nation and stand up to others, we must strengthen our research base, develop our own technologies and stop looking up to other nations for joint researches or transfer of technology.  Attract talent and reward them handsomely.  There is no short cut to this. ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Economic Highlights

New Delhi, 7 February 2008

More Economic Reforms

CHANGE MINDSETS PLEASE

By Dr. Vinod Mehta

Former Director, Research, ICSSR

The process of economic reforms has taken roots in the past 15 years. The CPM too cannot deny its necessity. Deng Xio Ping was the first Chinese communist to have understood the importance of market economy and economic reforms. He knew these could catapult China into a major economic power and put the economy on the reform path. It was in the 80s, much earlier than India did. Look where the Chinese economy stands today.

And, if we even after these long years were to ask: what is the greatest hurdle in the way of economic reforms the answer would be the bureaucracy. Yes, even today. That is to say, those who are responsible for liberalizing the economy have still somewhat outdated mindsets and are unwilling to implement the reforms in spirit.  But they are a hurdle not by any design but by a mindset, which has been nurtured over the past six decades i.e to say the least anti-developmental.

But, when you put such administrators to take economic or business decisions they would in all probability mess up the whole situation by applying the same yardstick as in basic administration.  A person good at maintaining law and order or in running a good system of schools will not necessarily run economic enterprises with same efficiency.

This is because the Indian Administrative Service produces general administrators, who are rotated throughout their tenure in various departments or ministries. An officer could well be posted one day in the Law Ministry, the next day in Commerce Ministry, the next in the department of animal husbandry (Ministry of Agriculture), or the next to the Department of higher education (Ministry of Human Resource Development) and eventually retire in the Department of surface transport.

Therefore, when such people are asked to man economic enterprises majority of them would mess up. One can list a number of examples, but let’s take the case of Air India and Indian Airlines, which stand merged today. While the world over, airlines are run by professionals, it is in India that the bureaucrat has been given the day-to-day charge of Air India; elsewhere airline companies have expanded at a feverish pace, whereas Air India and Indian have yet to grow (of course some have closed down). Airlines such as Singapore or Thai are popular with travelers, however, Air India is opted by those who have no other option or when the Government forces its employees to fly only this carrier.  

So, bringing untrained bureaucrats to man business-related units will not only mess up the whole unit but may also bring a bad name to bureaucrats. Thus, the best way out for the Government would be to get out of the business of running economic enterprises and concentrate on governance alone. If this is not possible in the immediate future, the Government could consider at least retraining them. It would help change mindsets so that they are capable of running economic units. 

At the same time, the Government needs to re-look the structure of ministries; a comparison with other countries would show that some of the ministries existing here don’t exist elsewhere.  For instance, countries such as the U.K. and Thailand have no ministries as Civil Aviation, Information and Broadcasting, Food Processing. Further,  many countries do not have like us the department of banking under the Ministry of Finance as commercial banks come under the supervision of the central bank.

On the question of mindset, it is equally, if not more important to change the mindsets of people at the junior level – say of directors, deputy secretaries, undersecretaries and section officers. This is because it is they who put up the cases before their seniors --joint secretaries, additional secretaries and secretaries. In all likelihood, the senior officers do not have the time to go through all details and to quite an extent would accept  opinions and take a decision on the notes put up by their junior staff.

Tragically, the ministry of finance, which is supposed to be pioneering the economic reforms, is too a victim of this mindset.  Ask staff in the autonomous bodies under various ministries whether the babus in the finance ministry have forced them to have sleepless nights over questions which could pass off as irrelevant. The answer may well be a resounding yes. 

This apart, it needs to be emphasized that most of the ministries have their fingers in every pie. Though there are autonomous bodies, statutory bodies or special organizations created under an act of Parliament, at the end all would ultimately be controlled by the babus in ministries. Unless we make efforts to change mindsets, which don’t go well with the philosophy of economic reforms we shall not be able to implement economic reforms, even if we seriously wanted to.

Given the developments of the past 15 years, it is clear that unless we spell change the process of implementation of economic reforms is going to be tardy. Outdated mindsets, which we have inherited, shall unintentionally continue to put spokes in the wheels of economic reforms.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

ECONOMIC HIGHLIGHTS

New Delhi, 31 January 2008 

PDS Should Be For Poorest

EXCESS FOOD, NO MORSEL TO EAT

By Dr. Vinod Mehta

(Former Director, Research, ICSSR)

Over four years ago, the then Prime Minister Vajpayee admitted that the implementation of the Public Distribution System (PDS) had not measured up to the public’s expectation. He observed that the targeted PDS did not seem to be working well in many places especially in the rural North and North-Eastern States. He confessed this while inaugurating a seminar on “Towards a Hunger Free India” organized jointly by the Planning Commission, World Food Programme and the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation.

At another forum he expressed his concern over the peculiar dilemma the country faced: of excess food and low consumption. Recall, in 2002 some of the NGOs had reported tribal deaths due to starvation in Rajasthan’s Baran district and Kashipur in Orissa. Primarily because the people could not afford to buy the grains even at the subsidized rates.

Not only that. Many of them did not even possess the Below Poverty Line (BPL) cards that entitled them to purchase foodgrains at subsidized rates in ration shops. Some of them even mortgaged their BPL cards to money lenders or local traders.

Though no starvation deaths have been reported in recent times yet it is also well known that food is not reaching the targeted poor people. It is in this context that the functioning of the PDS needs a closer look, is suitably revised and revamped so that food reaches the really needy people.

Look at the irony. Despite surplus food stocks, reportedly at least 50 million Indians are on the brink of starvation and over 200 million Indians are under-fed. Scandalously, about 60 million tonnes of surplus foodgrain is rotting in various Government warehouses in the country.

Clearly, the fact that people are starving when there is a surplus of grains is an indictment of the Government’s Public Distribution System. The PDS has a network of about 4,60,000 ration shops across the country through which grain, sugar, cooking oil etc are sold at subsidized rates.

It is reported that at the national level leakages from the PDS amount to nearly 1.5 times the actual amount of grain needed. A Planning Commission report on the PDS states: “In the year 2003-04, out of 14.07 million tonnes of foodgrain issued to 16 States at BPL prices from the Central pool, only around 5.93 million tonnes were delivered to the poor families.”

Also remember, the need for the PDS was felt in 1958 when the food production had dropped. Prior to that there was the rationing system which was introduced during the Second World War to manage the limited food stock but this was discontinued in 1943. It was again introduced in 1950 to regulate the public distribution of foodgrain as a deliberate social policy.

The main idea behind the public distribution system was: a) to provide foodgrain and other items of daily necessities to the poorer sections of the society at affordable (subsidized) price; b) to influence the market prices of cereals to keep them under control and c) to ensure equity in the matter of distribution of essential commodities. In other words, the PDS from rationing evolved into a national food security system.

The PDS was established during the period when India was facing shortages of essential agricultural commodities. For a number of years it served the purpose well for which it was introduced. However, today we have reached a situation where there is no shortage of foodgrain etc. but still some of the poorer sections of the society are not getting the foodgrain they need.

This has been attributed to various factors. One, the PDS itself leaves much to be desired. The grain, though available in godowns, is unable to reach those sections of the society which need them the most. The district Administration has been found wanting in transporting the grain to the poorest of the people.

Two, even after subsidies, the price of grain is so high, due to the increase in the procurement price of grain along with the rising components of cost of the Food Corporation of India, that many poor people in the target group cannot afford to buy it. It is common knowledge that approximately 36% of the population live below the poverty line which means that their income is not sufficient to buy adequate quantity of food. Also, about 80% of the poor people live in rural and tribal areas.

Three, the poorest sections of the society are not able to meet their food requirements because our PDS concentrates heavily on rice and wheat and leaves out coarse grain like maize, barley, millet and sorghum.

Moreover, the Government’s support to rice and wheat has led to the neglect of these grains which are not only relatively cheaper but the staple diet of many of the rural people. Since there is no support price for them the farmers are shifting to wheat and rice production. Hence, we have a situation where the Government policy has favoured wheat and rice production at the cost of the poor peoples’ staple diet.

However, as the things stand, there is a surplus of grain but people do not have the sufficient purchasing power to meet their requirements from the market. Undoubtedly, the country needs to approach this problem at various levels.

First, the employment opportunities for the BPL people will have to be increased so that they can earn enough to buy their grain requirement from the market. Plainly, they need remunerative employment on a regular basis. The food-for-work programme is not enough. It needs to be strengthened. 

Second, we should look at the institutional arrangements to distribute the foodgrain directly to the starving people. In such cases there is no need of selling them any grain as they can’t afford to buy. But at the same time, institutions like the Panchayats should see to it that these people do not go hungry. The district Administration should help the Panchayats organize community kitchens and the cost for giving food to them should be borne by the Government itself.

Third, the emphasis should be shifted from the production of rice and wheat to the production of coarse grain which is cheaper and affordable for many of the poorer sections of the society. Unlike rice and wheat, coarse grains do not need a lot of water and fertilizer and are cheaper to grow in areas of scarce water.

That apart, since the output of grain has reached a comfortable level, questionably is it essential to keep large quantities of grain in state godowns beyond a certain level? The cost of storing so much grain is also responsible for keeping the prices very high. We may have to think of alternative ways of storing grains so that the costs become lower. Keeping in view the costs involved, it is uneconomical to store grain by the State beyond a certain level.

One way could be to issue food coupons so that the poorest people may buy their food requirements from the market and the State reimburses the money to the shopkeeper. But it will be difficult to implement this in tribal and remote areas.

However, the nation must find a way out to balance the grain storage requirement of the nation from the security point of view and the need of the poorest people to get food. The money saved on storage costs could perhaps be used to give free grain to the poorest people in times of distress.

The long term solution however, is to generate jobs and give adequate purchasing power to the poorest of the people so that they can purchase their own food from the market.---- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)