Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
that subsidies are not necessarily highly beneficial for the smallholders for
whom they are often intended. However, perceptions can be as important as the
reality. This dilemma calls for a concentrated effort to lay all the evidence on
the table, debate it openly, identify differences, and then see if all parties can be
reconciled.
The sequence in which activities are undertaken often becomes very im-
portant in the planning process. Some policy changes may be more controver-
sial than others. This problem calls for a concentrated effort to identify who ad-
vocates what and why, identify differences in their expectations, and then see
how best one can bridge these differences. As with most approaches that seek
to encompass a system in a holistic manner, the numbers of factors that have
to be investigated in the agricultural sector are large indeed. Everything cannot
be done everywhere at the same time. Resources—financial and human—are
scarce. Necessary changes in some policies that are not possible immediately
may be possible after other changes have been undertaken. The dilemma can
be remedied by focusing on key activities. F. F. “Frosty” Hill, former vice pres-
ident of the Ford Foundation, recommended searching out the key log in the
jam and attacking it first. If the key log is immovable, he advised, it is best not
to waste effort on it but move to the second log. It is not wise to dissipate all
available energy on one log in the jam, for others also need attention (F. F. Hill,
personal commun. with authors). With so many stakeholders, parastatal-led
price policies represent such a logjam.
Thus, the changes, although analytically compelling, will be challenging
to implement. The success will critically depend on meeting two challenges in
particular: understanding and responding to the concerns of various stakehold-
ers and adjusting the government's role as the policies change.
UNDERSTANDING AND RESPONDING TO THE CONCERNS OF VARIOUS STAKE
-
HOLDERS
. Over the years, parastatal-led food policy has created very large
groups of stakeholders, including employees of the parastatals, law-enforcement
agencies, politicians, and the beneficiaries of various intervention programs. If
one has to change the current system, politically, it is important to understand
the concerns of various stakeholder groups and respond to them to the extent
possible. Clearly, the nature of the stakeholder groups differs from country to
country and so do their dynamics. And herein lies a challenge to the policy-
maker, who has to navigate the reforms politically before they can yield eco-
nomic dividends, which is indeed a difficult task. Reiterating the Indian exam-
ple can better illustrate the situation.
In the Indian case study, we find at least three stakeholder groups: (1) the
consumers and fair-price shop owners benefiting from the subsidized PDS;
(2) the farmers and rice millers in surplus states that sell their wheat and rice to
government procuring agencies under the open-ended procurement system; and
finally (3) the employees of procuring agencies, such as FCI and state-level civil
supplies corporations that carry out the procurement, stocking, and distribution
