IFPRI- National Food Security Bill- Reetika Khera, IIT


Published on

The presentation was part of the Food Security in India: the Interactions of Climate Change, Economics, Politics and Trade workshop, organized by IFPRI-CUTS on March 11 in New Delhi, India. The project seeks to explore a model for analyzing food security in India through the interactions of climate change, economics, politics and trade.

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

IFPRI- National Food Security Bill- Reetika Khera, IIT

  1. 1. NFSA and food security Reetika Khera,Reetika Khera, IIT Delhi
  2. 2. Five common misconceptions about  NFSA 1 “D ’t d thi f t iti ” b t it d1. “Doesn’t do anything for nutrition”: but it does  include maternity entitlements & ICDS 2 “These schemes don’t work” Recent evidence2. “These schemes don’t work”: Recent evidence  shows a revival 3 “It is anti farmer”: a large part of food subsidy3. It is anti‐farmer : a large part of food subsidy  goes to farmer as support prices!  4 “it is unaffordable”: It is approx 1% of GDP4. it is unaffordable : It is approx 1% of GDP 5. “Grain requirements are too high”: NFSA  requires same level of procurement as seen inrequires same level of procurement as seen in  past few years
  3. 3. Revival: Evidence and ExplanationsRevival: Evidence and Explanations id f i l• Evidence of PDS revival – Zero purchase households has declined – Leakages have declined – Poverty impact is substantialy p • Time to junk the Planning Commission (2005)  report! See Himanshu and Sen (2013)  instead!
  4. 4. Corruption control: some evidenceCorruption control: some evidence Diversion of PDS grain in selected states (2004-5, 2009-10 and 2011-12) 85.2 90.0 100.0 Diversion of PDS grain in selected states (2004 5, 2009 10 and 2011 12) 76.3 70.0 80.0 51.8 46.3 42.4 40 0 50.0 60.0 30.2 19.9 20 0 30.0 40.0 10.4 10.2 0.0 10.0 20.0 0.0 JH OR Chh Source: Calculated from Monthly foodgrains bulletin and National Sample Survey data from 2004-5 and 2009-10.
  5. 5. Bihar Chhattisgarh Proportion of BPL households who did not get any foodgrains from the PDS in the last 3 months (%) 35 0 foodgrains from the PDS in the last 3 months (%) Proportion of BPL respondents who said that they ‘normally’ get their full PDS entitlements (%) 18 97 Proportion of BPL respondents who agree with the entries in their ration cards (%) 25 94 Proportion of BPL households who skipped meals 70 17Proportion of BPL households who skipped meals in the last three months (%) 70 17 Proportion of BPL households who would support 54 2 the PDS being replaced with equivalent cash transfers (%) ‘Poverty-gap index’ of rural poverty 2009–10bPoverty gap index of rural poverty, 2009 10 (%) Without implicit subsidy 14.4 13.8 16.3 9.9 With implicit subsidy Percentage reduction 13.8 4 9.9 39 Drèze and Khera (2013), Rural Poverty and the PDS, Economic and Political Weekly
  6. 6. Explanations for the revivalExplanations for the revival d id f• Demand side factors – Expanded coverage, reduction in price,  diversification • Supply side factorspp y – Computerization, management of shops, official  commissions, door‐step delivery, regularity and p y g y predictability • See Khera (2011) for more
  7. 7. NFSA: Implementation Challenges (1)NFSA: Implementation Challenges (1)  • Identification of households – Criteria  • Inclusion vs. Exclusion approach (e.g., Odisha,  Chhattisgarh) • 1997 or 2002 BPL lists (e.g., Rajasthan) – Procedure:Procedure:  • SECC data based survey or self‐declaration • New cards vs old cardsNew cards vs. old cards
  8. 8. NFSA: Implementation Challenges (2)NFSA: Implementation Challenges (2) • Entitlements: Per capita or per household? – Per capita: Better for larger families, definition of  “household”household – Per household:  Clarity of entitlements, hassles  and harassment , disruptive transition?
  9. 9. NFSA: Implementation Challenges (3)NFSA: Implementation Challenges (3) • Integration with UID: Claims – Corruption control: Yes, it’s a problem, but how p , p , much can UID help? – Inclusion: Massive exclusion but what is theInclusion: Massive exclusion, but what is the  source of exclusion? Portability: Desirable but is UID necessary to– Portability: Desirable, but is UID necessary to  achieve it? No.
  10. 10. Leakages Inclusion and PortabilityLeakages, Inclusion and Portability • Leakages: Technology? Yes. UID? No. – Computerization alone helps a lotp p • Inclusion: Duplicates/ghosts are a problem,  but exaggeratedbut exaggerated.  – Mis‐classification, UID can do nothing • Portability: Requires fixing supply chain  management CORE PDS in Chhattisgarhmanagement. CORE PDS in Chhattisgarh