Protectionists dominate: Govt set to give Rs15b subsidy for wheat procurement

Relations with IMF may come under further strain.


Shahbaz Rana April 23, 2011

ISLAMABAD:


In what could be described as a victory for protectionists over free market advocates, the government is all set to quietly give Rs15 billion subsidy for wheat procurement, an approach likely to further strain relations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) during talks in May.


Finance ministry sources told The Express Tribune that continuous wheat procurement, apparently for the benefit of landlords, would cost the government Rs15 billion this year on account of loan mark-up, storage cost and depletion of stocks. The federal government has a wheat stock of 2.5 million tons and under an agreement it is bound to pay charges of Rs5,000 per ton to the Punjab government.

The Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) of the cabinet has allowed purchase of 6.5 million tons of wheat from farmers, of which the federal government’s share is 1.3 million tons.

Sources said this would add Rs6.5 billion to the subsidy account in the new budget for 2011-12. After adding this year’s Rs15 billion subsidies, the government is likely to give a total of Rs21.5 billion.

Total subsidy from June 2010 through June 2012 may come to around Rs49 billion. In 2009-10, the federal government paid a subsidy of Rs12 billion for wheat procurement.

The provision of subsidy underscores contradictions in the federal government’s approach to policy-making. The government has again assured IMF that in next year’s budget it will completely phase out electricity subsidies except for lifeline consumers.

IMF to take up commodity financing issue

IMF has also raised the issue of another circular debt in the making in commodity operations and advised Islamabad to avoid intervention in commodity markets or at least reduce its reserves. Sources said the IMF review mission, due in May, would take up the issue of commodity financing, which was expected to touch Rs434 billion by the end of wheat procurement operations. The amount is equivalent to 2.5 per cent of this year’s national income.

The IMF’s biggest worry was the negative implications of commodity financing for the private sector, as the government had already borrowed one-third of the money available in the market to finance its budget, sources said. Commercial banks happily lend to the government at an average interest rate of 15 per cent due to minimal risks involved.

On April 9, total commodity debt stock stood at Rs348 billion, but the government needs another Rs156 billion, which will jack it up to Rs434 billion.

When the protectionists overcame the free market advocates in ECC, they gave a commitment that the federal government will slash its wheat reserves to 500,000 tons from 2.5 million tons for easing the impact on the budget. However, despite the Punjab government’s repeated reminders, the federal government is not ready to sell two million tons of stocks which will cost the taxpayers Rs10 billion on account of storage charges and mark-up.

Free market versus mixed economy

Former Finance Minister Dr Salman Shah says the agriculture sector should be deregulated as it has been proved in the world that protectionist approaches cannot sustain the economies. He believes the need for government intervention arises only when markets fail to perform and in case of agriculture the chances of collapse are very remote due to involvement of vibrant players.

Former State Bank of Pakistan governor Dr Ishrat Hussain says the economy cannot be divided into protectionism and free market, as both the market and the state have to play their roles simultaneously. However, a strong regulator is a must for a smooth functioning of the economy. He says the government should not procure wheat but only fix the support price for ensuring a reasonable return to the farmers.



Published in The Express Tribune, April 24th, 2011.

COMMENTS (3)

John | 13 years ago | Reply One (government)cannot borrow money at higher interest from shop owner (farmer who is also banker because of accumulated wealth) and also buy produce from the same shop (there by further increasing the owners profit) and give it to charity ( consumer) and tax the charity for revenue to pay for the borrowed money. The shop owner will be happy to pay the tax also, because he is paying only from the part profit of the purchase and the remaining profit and the interest the borrower paid to purchase the produce become his accumulated wealth which he now invests in bank. The borrower (government) by benevolent act of charity will eventually become bankrupt, and the shop owner will be happy to lend more money to the borrower for charity as long as the borrower purchases from his shop. All government procurement and distribution of commodity works in this model, and it benefits the producer the most at the expense of all others. The governments generally substantiates this model by saying that they are helping the poor farmers ( tenant farmers) but this model only benefits the land lord who is also benefitted from the tenant farmers work. Tenant farmers are always consumers and are never shop owners. Can the government do the same for butcher, cooking oil merchant, pot maker, wood cutter(gas supplier), milk man, and vegetable producers since they are also equally essential for making food that we consume? One can not live by uncooked wheat / rice alone. Then why the shop keeper farmer is any different? Gov should purchase the food reserve at open market price, and this brings the food prices down since there is only one market price. In shortages, now the government can release from food reserve at initial procurement price, there by can also lower the transient shortage associated price inflation. (In theory now the government can also sell the food reserve at higher market price due to shortages, but government is a benevolent charity giver, so can not make profit). If reserve is not enough, now the government can import at market price. The inflation is limited since all transactions are done at market price. Government procurement of commodity helps only the land lord, and if I were a land lord policy maker, would I vote against this system?
Ghulam Mustafa Chaniho | 13 years ago | Reply Well i have no words to condemn the writer of this article. I guess he understands nothing about our farmers. The big land lord's wheat crop is merely a wait for the cotton season to come, it is the small farmer and the agriculture labour; hari or maza'ara or kisaan, whose wheat is the main crop. You throw him out in the market and the shylocks popularly called the middle men, will eat him up raw and he'll suffer the most. The government should prioritise its subsidies. The agriculture sector, what do you give us? We get no subsidies on inputs, there is absolutely no infrastructural support for us, banks don't give us loans, we pay all sorts of different taxes apart from income tax, which once imposed on us will take away what little we save. Our children are deprived from education, we hounded by every institution of the state, from judiciary to police, from education to health department. We get no education, and then we are blamed for electing people with medieval feudal mindset. We feed the country, sacrifice our children in wars about which we know nothing about and we listen to long sermons about how illiterate we are by the you guys who just speak and do nothing to improve our plight. What is happening to the agriculture and its practitioners is the worst exploitation on the face of this earth. It is the incompetence of our manufacturing sector that we have to beg from the donor agencies, is it the fault of us the poor farmers that we suffer??
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ