Author
Abstract
The lop-sided production with an unwarranted surplus in wheat and rice and deficit in oilseeds and pulses may be largely attributed to biased agricultural price policy (APP). Wheat and rice are regularly purchased at minimum support price (MSP) by Food Corporation of India (FCI) without any cap whereas NAFED purchases a maximum of 25 quintals per farmer and not more than 25 per cent of pulses and oilseeds production in the year concerned. FCI is also reimbursing taxes and arhatia commission in wheat and rice procuring states, while states purchasing pulses and oilseeds have to forego all taxes. Since the 1970s, Punjab and Haryana have been the main beneficiaries of MSP and some big farmer-cum-traders in Punjab have formed strong Farm-Unions (FUs) to bargain for the waiving of quality norms, waivers of loans, and declaring farmers’ deaths as suicides. Now, these unions are spearheading the agitation against the three farm laws of 2020. The paper attempts to link these farm-laws with the issues thrown up by the APP. Besides regional bias, the other negative outcome of procurement at MSP is non-participation of stockiest and processors in purchases at the time of harvest. It is due to the known stocks of NAFED and FCI, from where they purchase at prices below MSP. Government of India is losing on both counts by purchasing at a higher price and selling at a lower price than the market. Perhaps, Government of India may have introduced the laws as Ordinances before passing them as Acts to reduce purchases from the kharif of 2020 itself. The easing of stock limits under ECA, bringing in the concept of ‘trade area without any tax" and non-mention of MSP as a reference price may be linked to this problem of APP. But after the protest by the Punjab dominated FUs, most of the apprehensions have been addressed, except for legalising the MSP.
Suggested Citation
Sangwan, Sher Singh, 2021.
"Farm-Laws 2020 in the Perspective of Agricultural Price Policy,"
Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), September.
Handle:
RePEc:ags:inijae:345171
DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.345171
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:inijae:345171. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isaeeea.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.