IMF, LSE Studies Differ On Benefits From Modi Government Farm Reforms
A recent study by the London School of Economics (LSE) and remarks by the IMF on Indian farm acts reach contradictory conclusions about their efficacy and impact. The first concludes that the long-term implications are against the farmers. The latter states that for them to reap benefits later, they need to be protected from the initial shocks.
The LSE research (February 2020), which looks at the case study of Kenya, which initiated India-like reforms in 2004, thinks that the responses by the croppers to the entry of private sector depend on their initial social and economic powers. The IMF feels that the effects largely depend on how the government implements the laws.
According to the LSE, in the first few years, farm incomes went up as the new private players were willing to pay more than the state-led market mechanism for the farm produce. However, as pressures on profits of the firms grew, and as corporate managements vied to hike returns, farm incomes dwindled. The losses were more in the case of crops that were directly affected by the new policies in Kenya, compared to those that were not. More importantly, the overall losses of the farm community were almost equal to the higher profits of the firms.
Recently, the IMF maintained that the three Indian “farm bills do have the potential to represent a significant step forward for agricultural reforms”. It added, “The measures will enable farmers to directly contact with sellers, allow farmers to retain a greater share of the surplus by reducing the role of middlemen, enhance efficiency and support rural growth.” And then came the caveat, “However, it is crucial that the social safety net adequately protects those who might be adversely affected during the transition to this new system.”
Hence, while the IMF talks about the problems during the “transition” period, i.e. the phase immediately after the introduction of the new farm laws, the LSE’s study on Kenya reflects on the negative impact on most of the farmers after the initial few years.
Similarly, the research on Kenyan farm reforms states that how the farmers fare depends on their individual comparative advantage. This implies that whether they are big, rich and powerful enough to engage with the new private players and invest to enhance productivity. If the former does not enjoy such comparative advantages, they suffer.
Those with high advantages saw their incomes go up over a longer period of time. The ones with medium advantages continued to deal with the middlemen and, unlike the IMF comment, do not retain a larger share of the income surpluses. Those who are poor and marginalised end up shifting to other crops that are not affected by the new policies.
But the IMF insists that state of the farmers, or their landholdings and socio-economic status do not matter much. What is crucial is the “effectiveness and the timing of their (the policies') implementation”, and the government needs to pay attention to these issues.
Women Farmers: From Raising Livestock To Growing Food In Backyards
Mar 08, 2021
Study Says Women Farmers Can Increase Yield 20- 30%: UN Body
Mar 08, 2021
Why This Distress Sale Of Tomato, Potato In Kendrapara
Mar 05, 2021
How Commercial Production Of Hemp Can Benefit Other Sectors
Mar 04, 2021
Empowering Story Of A Woman Who Followed Her Dream
Mar 01, 2021
Grit, Determination: Inspiring Story Of A Woman Farmer
Feb 16, 2021
Rhizome With Health Benefits; Growing Ginger In Kitchen Garden
Feb 20, 2021
5 Tips To Start Your Terrace Garden
Jan 21, 2021
Avian Flu In India: What Should You Do To Stay Safe?
Jan 16, 2021
Desert Agriculture Can Be The Answer To Food Security
Mar 07, 2021
Why Farmers In Germany Are Against A New Law?
Feb 23, 2021
‘Agricultural Production Model, Trade Need Urgent Action’
Feb 22, 2021