Introduction:

• EXTREME volatility in the prices of some food commodities has, in recent years, been hurting producers as well as consumers, while also disrupting certain economic activities. The reason for this appears to be the waning influence of non-price factors (technology, irrigation, extension) in driving growth, and the role of prices having become stronger.
• There is clear evidence at the global level to show that till mid-2000, the trend in output growth drove price trend (higher growth associated with lower price) but during the last 10 years, price trends have driven output growth.
• The so-called Cobweb phenomenon is becoming more apparent, leading to a price-production spiral.
• In this context, it is important to look at the price stabilisation policy and measures adopted by India from time to time, and draw lessons to maintain a stable price environment that benefits both producers as well as consumers.

Price instability:

• Price instability at the macro-level is caused by supply shocks. Trading and stocking up are the two options to stabilise supply and by extension, prices.
• India has historically relied heavily on buffer stock to maintain price stability in staple food, though this policy has come under attack from supporters of free trade, who feel stocking up is a costlier option for price stabilisation.  
• It was due to its policy of maintaining buffer stock that India ensured remarkable price stability during the global food crisis, when almost all countries, including the developed ones, faced a steep price rise.

Should India then use a similar option to achieve price stability in pulses?

• Some gains from the steps taken by the government to create a buffer stock of pulses are already visible.
• The buffer stock, mainly aimed at stabilising consumer prices, has made it possible to procure pulses.
• Last year, India recorded an unprecendented 40 per cent increase in total pulses production over the previous year. 
• This kind of spike in production would have led to a serious crash or even a collapse in prices had the government not intervened.
• Based on the experience of rice and wheat, the pragmatic approach appears to be to use the buffer stock option along with the trade option to stabilise the price of pulses.

Price Volatility:

• Regulation and competition in the market also affect price volatility.
• If there is an Essential Commodities Act with stock limits on traders, it will rule out the possibility of the private sector mopping up more than the normal marketed surplus, forcing prices to go down.
• When there is a glut, there is a disproportionate price spread between retail and farm. This is particularly true in the case of vegetables.
• Price spikes are also sometimes created by cartels of traders, especially at the local level.
• The reason for such price fluctuations is poor market integration across regions/states over time. 

Measures:

• Remove various restrictions under the APMC Act,
• facilitate private sector participation and investment in agri markets,
• promote storage, and link the processing industry to the farm through contract farming etc.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, price volatility and low and unremunerative prices for farm produce can be addressed to a large extent through competitive markets. In most cases, a competitive market will fetch the farmers higher prices than MSPs. This requires carrying out long-pending reforms in the agricultural market. Due to the delay and reluctance on the part of states to implement market reforms, it looks imperative to bring agricultural marketing into the Concurrent or Union list and implement a national-level model market act with all the required reforms. Bringing marketing under the Concurrent or Union list is also justified on the ground that a large proportion of farm produce is sold and consumed outside the states they are produced in. Still, strategic intervention by the government in the form of buffer stock will be needed in a few cases.

Source:Indian Express