Misplaced Hopes on MSP

Misplaced hopes on MSPs

V Kumaraswamy

There is some growing frustration over governments procurement of key grains under its Minimum Support Prices (MSPs) not being to lift the open market prices of those commodities and benefit the farmers. What the policy makers and economists forget is that our MSP procurement is not an end in itself but has to be studied with its end use – distribution of such procurement under our PDS programmes and how they work at cross purposes.

Effect of MSP procurement

It is generally assumed or hoped that once the MSPs are increased the open market prices would also rise in sympathy. There is insufficient realization that such procurements hardly create incremental demand. The government has limited flexibility in increasing the quantities procured under MSP which may be a surer way of enhancing prices and how increasing farm productivity from the current levels only harms the farmer interest not help them.

The effect of procurements under MSP is quite often overestimated. It is necessary to visualize the impact of procurement operations to separate reality from hope and wishes. Lets try and understand the impact through graphical exhibits. Picture 1 orders the demand from the buyers at various prices in decreasing order of prices. The thick ridge line at the top forms the demand curve as is depicted on the left side. Any procurement by government agencies at any price leads to a kink (drawing on right side) in the normal demand curve as is shown on the right picture. It shifts the demand curve horizontally in proportion to the quantity bought (dd’ in Picture 1) at the price point equal to the MSP for the crop.

 

demand supplyIn Picture 1 due to the governments initial extra demand the total demand increases but as we will see later once the government supplies the same though PDS, the effect is neutralized.

mspdsinterplay

Picture 2 studies the combined effect of demand and supply of the same commodity as in Picture 1. The normal (without intervention) demand curve DD’ is represented by the solid blue line which shifts to Ddd’d” (partially dotted line) after procurement.

The supply curve is shown as SS’ (in solid Red line). The market price without any government intervention settles at P(free).  When the Government intervenes and procures dd’ from the market at the MSP price indicated it will move the market price of independent sellers or buyers which will not be

equal to the MSP: it will settle at lower levels. Where it will settle depends upon the elasticity of the supply curve; the flatter it is, the lesser will be the price increase. In agricultural markets there are many tiny suppliers whose cost structure hardly differs from one to another since many inputs come heavily subsidized or free to most players. Hence supply curve is often flat and highly elastic. The market price will settle at P(MSP) which is way lower than MSP but higher than the free market price of P(free).

It is a fallacy to think that hiking MSPs from the current levels will result in higher open market prices. Unless the quantities procured are increased from year on year (which will keep pushing the dotted d’d” segment further and further to the right), mere yearly MSP increases will have nil or negligible impact on open market prices.  Where P(MSP) settles will depend more on the width of dd’ than where it is above the P(free) levels. (MSPs below the free market prices are useless anyway). That’s the reason why formulas like 50% over all-in cost of farmers will prove innocuous, except benefitting those fortunate to sell their crops at MSPs directly by the Government.

Given the current levels of buffer stock in FCI go-downs, any significant increase in procurement quantities will be a hazardous exercise.

Effect of PDS distribution on prices

The crops procured under MSP are used in supplying them at cheaper (than free market prices) cost through the public distribution system to end consumers. This has the effect of changing the supply curve from SS’ (without PDS operations) to Sss’s” (partially in red dotted line in Picture 2 right side). This will lower the open market price which may even settle at levels lower than the initial free market price, as is the case in Picture 2. Will the total quantities bought and sold expand as a result of these operations? It will since production will increase due to price support and so will consumption since people more people at lower levels could afford to buy more due to lower PDS prices.  The difference between procurement and PDS supplies will be accretion/depletion to buffer stocks.

Way Out

The production of agri commodities has been surplus to requirements for several years running. The buffer stocks with FCI is far more than norms and the credit to FCI from banking system at uncomfortable levels. One way would be to export the surpluses and not supply the same back in home markets through PDS. Or sell it to private sector for food processing. Alternatively, it can allow food processors and exporters to procure crops at MSPs and reimburse the difference between market price and MSPs to them. At least the handling/storage loss can be reduced. Simultaneously, the govt should reduce the size of PDS physical distribution and reimburse the consumers through Direct Benefit Transfers even if the consumers buy their requirement in open market.

A method to tweak the supply curve by partial rationalization of subsidies on inputs to increase the market prices and thus benefit the farmers was also explored in this paper (How the Agrarian Crisis can Be Eased, June 24, 2019).

It is time we realized the areas where MSPs and PDS can be effective and where they can’t be and not be fooled by misplaced faith and theories.

Selective Rationalization of Subsidies might solve the Agrarian Crisis

 

Link to Businessline: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/how-the-agrarian-crisis-can-be-eased/article28128069.ece

The current agrarian crisis in India is a product of two factors (i) failure to recognize when Green Revolution started giving diminishing returns and taking steps to come up with alternatives and (ii) economic impact of subsidies, which this article examines – both man made and policy failures.

The current crisis can be summed up as diminishing soil fertility, sinking water table, increasing costs (all effects of green revolution) and poor returns to farmers, periodic unaffordable spikes in key commodities, periodic excess production which are dumped on the roads ruining several farmers and a huge burden on the government.

The policy failures have arisen due to not recognizing the nature of demand and supply curves for agricultural commodities. The demand is highly inelastic – in a market which consumes 100 kg tomato if one supplies 125 kgs the prices collapse, since not much demand is there for the excess. Contrarily, where it is supplied 75kgs only, the prices skyrocket since everyone wants to garner their daily supplies.

The Graph plots the demand and supply of a typical agri crop. The cost buildup of various suppliers is arranged from lowest to highest and its ridge on top becomes the supply curve. In agriculture the demand curve is steep and supply curve is relatively flat. Where this is the case the market price is closer to supply curve. This leaves a huge consumer surplus (excess of what the people are willing to pay and what they actually end up paying) and thin profits. Where the demand curve is flat but supply curve the price line stays closer to demand and hence smaller consumer surplus and higher profits for producers.

Many people have argued for breakup of cartelization of middlemen and dismantling or reforming APMCs as the panacea for better farm gate prices.  This is as naïve as it can get. The middlemen are performing important functions like taking immediate delivery of perishables, financing farmers, storage, connecting with customers and markets, inventory holding etc. which we forget. If left to government agencies they would mess it up.

Sure most farmers are small (crops from 2-3 acres to sell) and their reach is at best the village boundaries or at best 4-5 kms. How do they perform all the functions the middlemen do? At the Mandies of course it is a case of ‘many sellers’ versus a ‘fewer buyers’. But it is foolish to think that fewer numbers by itself creates usury pricing power.  Most markets should have at least 40-50 buyers (or middlemen) versus may be 500-1000 sellers. But this is statistically enough to create conditions of undistorted trade. Imbalance might creep in if there are only 3-4 on one side and can collude overtly or covertly. Most suggestions on ‘reigning in’ middlemen for tackling agrarian crisis is bound to be ineffectual.

But the real problem is the supply curve‘s flatness. This is largely the result of governments ill-advised subsidy policy which makes no discrimination whatsoever on the various input subsidies to agriculture. When everything from electricity, water, seeds, fertilizer, interest, MSPs, are given free or subsidized without any limits of land holding or size, it leads to similar cost structures for most suppliers and hence the supply curve becomes flat as shown in Graph (Before segment). Even if all mandies are handed over to the farmers, with such a curve, their profitability is unlikely to improve much.

The solution should revolve around exploiting the inelasticity of demand. The sure fire solution is to make the supply curve more elastic and harvest a huge ‘consumer surplus’ (which is what the middlemen do – they don’t take away farmers’ profits; they take away consumers’ willingness to pay).

This can be achieved by rationalizing subsidies. This can be done by restricting subsidies to only those holding 2-3 acres or to the first 2-3 acres only for even for larger farmers. With precise targeting through DBT, it is possible in the current scenario. Or it can be graded like 100% of current levels for 2-3 acres, 50% for 4-8 acres and nil thereafter, like in the graph. This will increase the cost for larger farmers (all units with ‘L’ label on x axis) and induce a steepness (as shown in the After situation in the graph).

Rationalization of Subsidies

Effect of rationalizing subsidies

The prices as is seen in the graph will raise (in the illustration from Rs 69 to 84). This shifts a portion of consumer surplus to producer profits. This will mostly benefit the small and marginal farmers. This transfer is perhaps much needed. We cannot have a society where 55-60% of people get a share of 15% of GDP.

The quantities bought and sold will fall. But given the inelasticity of demand, it will be relatively much less.

The larger units which lose a part of their subsidies will become uncompetitive in their traditional crops. They will diversify into other commercial crops or crops for which there are no subsidies now so that they won’t suffer in relative terms versus subsidy supported small farmer.  This is an important necessity. Our food grains production is in surplus and for increasing its income, diversification is a pre-requisite.

This will also partially address the rural income inequality problems.

Governments finances

The Government will save a lot by curbing subsidies going to larger farmers. It can reduce the crops procured under MSP since the market prices would have substantially moved to enhance their incomes. This would have come from consumers who were willing to pay, hence may be without much pains (other than a onetime price adjustment as inflation). The Government may have to spend a part of its savings on covering some poorer marginal sections (who are net buyers of food) through higher PDS subsidies.

A portion of PDS procurement can be reserved for organic farming by larger farmers. With the promising growth for organic products the world over, it could give an early mover advantage.

The Government need not do this rationalization for all products. It can start with those where there are surplus buffer stocks. If prices of those products move up, consumers will diversify their consumption basket to other products and their prices of unsubsidized products will also start moving up. Larger farmers would gravitate towards such products.