Although volatility in commodity markets is nothing new, there are worrying signs that food price fluctuations are now taking place within a much higher bandwidth than ever before.
For Asia’s poor, who already spend 60 per cent of their household budget on food, even the smallest fluctuation in food prices forces unenviable choices on where best to devote their scant resources. A 10 per cent rise in domestic food prices in developing Asia threatens to push an additional 64 million people in to poverty. With food price inflation in many emerging Asian economies averaging 11 per cent in the first half of 2011 alone, the growing numbers of families facing the scourge of dire poverty is staggering.
Much of the sharp increase in the region’s food prices is due to production shortfalls caused by extreme weather events and subsequent export bans by some food producing countries. Growing appetites for grains, oil and other foodstuffs in emerging economies like the People’s Republic of China and India are exerting further upward pressure on supply. There has also been a growing trend over the past decade to ‘financialise’ commodities, turning food into an important tradable asset class, just like stocks, bonds, currencies or real estate. As a result, movement in one major asset — say, real estate prices in the US — can drive food prices in other parts of the world to levels well above what real supply and demand might dictate. The current money policy in industrial countries may have also driven the financialisation of commodities.
And then, of course, there’s the weakness of the US dollar in which most food commodities are denominated, as well as high oil prices, which raises costs at almost every step of the food supply chain from fertiliser and animal feed to fuel for bringing food from the farm to the kitchen table.
With a ‘new normal’ of persistently high and volatile food prices here to stay, what are policymakers to do?
There are no easy solutions, but when faced with bouts of soaring food prices, governments must be both pragmatic and flexible.
Tightening monetary policy is a standard tool to combat inflation and cool economic overheating. It is a fairly ineffective tool if the inflationary pressure is supply-side. Rate hikes take months to show results and, if overblown, can tighten the economic leash until it chokes growth, especially for small and medium businesses.
Inflation targeting is also of questionable value if the public does not view the measures as credible. Consumers need to know what to expect. Social programmes that target the most vulnerable members of society from the effects of higher commodity prices can be used where budgets allow — a less costly measure for the economy as a whole compared to tightening monetary policy.
There are also a broad range of supply-side policies that can reduce bottlenecks in commodity-based industries. The further reduction of trade barriers between countries — to counter local food shortages through imports from surplus producers — should be pursued through regional cooperation and other forums.
Taken together, it is clear that a globalised approach is needed to effectively address food price inflation. While acting nationally, policymakers will need to think globally and coordinate regionally. Only then can we be assured that enough resources will be available to keep growing appetites satisfied at reasonable costs.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 29th, 2011.
COMMENTS (10)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
I am Pakistani and American, well educated, and have served in US military and intelligence. Most importantly, now as a serious and devoted student of Qur'an and Hadith and geo-politics of my homeland and the world, especially in terms of the developing internationalism, I can safely say that the situation of Pakistan in rising costs and inflation are not a function of the simple supply and demand fluctuations that the bankers are citing. It is a direct consequence of allowing riba' based monetary policy and finance to take root in Pakistan, which is no longer Pak due to the infiltration of that which the Prophet of Allah described as worse than fornication with 70 harlots, ie riba'. Remove the banks from Pakistan and the nation will flourish. Otherwise, it will go bankrupt and the people will be servants to industries, the actual owners of which will be far from Pakistan.
Regional co-operation does help we had Pakistani onions now you have Indian tomatoes http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Indian-tomatoes-flooding-Pakistan-pushing-up-domestic-prices/articleshow/10520200.cms
Perhaps burning food for fuel is not such a good idea after all. Forty percent of the US corn crop goes to ethanol.
I wonder why the author doesn't talk about the problems of growing population ? Population is the primary culprit.
This is bound to happen as long as the local Mullah's advocate having 10 children for the sake of Islam. This is increasing the population in an unsustainable manner.
Here is some food for thought... raise awareness for local food growth (see Havana/Cuba for example), promote healthy food consumption and lower reliance on grains and potatoes.
I agree with author, tight monetary policy is not a medicine for all ills. There are various examples where tight monetary policy could not bring any normalcy amid high food inflation. In most of the cases it further exacerbated the demand pull inflation due to diminishing supply; resulted from lower agriculture credit off take. Pakistan until recent times is a fair example in this regard. However, I have qualm in accepting argument; “financialization of commodities” leads to high food prices. The phenomenon has provided liquidity in commodity market resulted in higher investments in agriculture sector. Corporate farming has been borne out of such financialization, as required by traders so, in more organized way and credible quality of commodities could be available. It triggers high yields and integration of technology in developing countries, so far lack of adoption a dilemma. What author refers to is “carry forward trade”, which has to happen even commodity markets are not animated. Funds flow from low return, high risk areas to high return, low risk avenues. This is what rationalization of market is meant for. The only way to keep food prices within reach of poor is to satisfy demand at lower points on supply curve. Not to mention equal distribution of income can only pull destitutes out of murky waters of poverty.
Regards
@ Saqib, I agreed what u said and thats the reason peoples commiting suicides in Devoleping world.
So you are saying that the prices are rising due to increased demand and reduced supply. Prices are rising and consumers feel it
On the other hand we hear that developing countries at WTO want US to stop subsidizing its farmers to the tune of $300M (I think) because it leads to US farmers "dumping" their product in the market. This make farmers from developing countries unable to compete. Small farmers in Pakistan are losing money farming.
How do the 2 views reconcile and who is making money in this scenario off food?
Thank you.
I am glad that you mention the "financialization" of food. I am sure there is a huge derivative market where fortunes are being made while poor people suffer.
Social programs are always afforable as long as they are well-targeted. The problem arises when they are not which is more often than not the case.
Pakistan's poor have been fortunate because of remittances and charity/donations that people give with great generosity -- far and beyond what is mandated by Islam.