Search

Using case materials from four major cereal growing countries in Asia (Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan), the article analyzes key aspects of agricultural input policies in Asia. Results suggest that Asian policies differ from the current wave of African input subsidy programs in three important ways: (i) instead of focusing mostly on seed and chemical fertilizer, input promotion in Asia involved a package approach involving investments in agricultural R&D, irrigation, promotion of domestic fertilizer, and investments in rural roads; (ii) farmers in three of four countries paid higher prices (net taxed) for fertilizer during the height of the green revolution, suggesting that it was the profitability, not the subsidy, that was central to increasing fertilizer use; and (iii) Asian countries did not target input subsidies, but given leakage and diversion estimates of targeted programs, it is unclear whether targeting would have been more cost-effective. Both continents have two challenges in common: degradation of soil health and increasingly larger shares of public spending on input subsidies. The first challenge calls for paying attentions to improving fertilizer use efficiency, which is an achievable target, with high pay off in the long run. The other challenge is now a historical fact-that is, once introduced, subsidies are hard to eliminate, even if they no longer contribute to agricultural productivity growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Using case studies from six Asian countries, this paper assesses the relevance of underlying rationales for public intervention in food grain markets, documents the existing policies and regulatory supports to grain marketing parastatals, examines benefits and costs of parastatals, and summarizes lessons from reforms and reduced interventions. The results suggest that commonly cited rationales for food market intervention are no longer convincing, the costs of parastatals-led price stabilization are staggering, and the price policies are being dictated by special interests. The evidences from the early reformers indicate that reduced intervention can promote competition, reduce subsidies, and release funds for development and anti-poverty programs—all without jeopardizing price stability. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Governments in most Asian countries used grain price stabilization as a major policy instrument when they embarked on promoting the Green Revolution. The art of public policy-making is to know when to introduce government interventions and when to withdraw. The common mistake is to forget the withdrawal part, leading to unsustainably high costs – a dilemma that most Asian countries are confronted with today. Analyzing case studies of six Asian countries, which have tried to tackle the task in different ways with varying degrees of success, eight key lessons can be learned from the more than three decades of food price stabilization in Asia. Times have changed: policies and public agencies that may have been appropriate 30 years ago are not optimal today. Private institutions have strengthened significantly – or could be strengthened significantly – and should be entrusted for many of the functions that parastatals, or other government agencies, have traditionally performed. Holding on to old practices delays reaping the benefits that changing current policies have to offer. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]