Grain marketing parastatals in Asia: why do they have to change now?

Using case studies from six Asian countries, this paper (a) assesses the relevance of underlying rationales for public intervention in foodgrain markets, (b) documents the existing policies and regulations that support operation of grain parastatals, (c) provides estimates of benefits and costs of p...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Rashid, Shahidur, Cummings, Jr., Ralph, Gulati, Ashok
Format: Artículo preliminar
Language:Inglés
Published: International Food Policy Research Institute 2005
Subjects:
Online Access:https://hdl.handle.net/10568/160704
_version_ 1855539184218931200
author Rashid, Shahidur
Cummings, Jr., Ralph
Gulati, Ashok
author_browse Cummings, Jr., Ralph
Gulati, Ashok
Rashid, Shahidur
author_facet Rashid, Shahidur
Cummings, Jr., Ralph
Gulati, Ashok
author_sort Rashid, Shahidur
collection Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (CGSpace)
description Using case studies from six Asian countries, this paper (a) assesses the relevance of underlying rationales for public intervention in foodgrain markets, (b) documents the existing policies and regulations that support operation of grain parastatals, (c) provides estimates of benefits and costs of parastatals, and (d) compares experiences of countries that liberalized (or reduced intervention) with the ones that continue to have significant presence of parastatals. Our results suggest that conditions in the region have improved significantly over the past thirty years; and none of the four commonly agreed rationales—that is, poorly integrated domestic markets, thin and volatile world market, promoting modern technology and the scarcity of foreign exchange reserves—for public intervention in foodgrain markets are now persuasive. Domestic foodgrain markets are integrated, international markets for both wheat and rice are significantly more robust than they were thirty years ago, High-Yielding Varieties (HYV) now cover practically all of the high potential area sown to wheat and rice; and foreign currency reserves have increased dramatically in all countries in recent years. However, although rationales have lost their significance, many countries continue to practice old policies and provide regulatory supports to parastatals, including monopoly control over international trade, preferential access to transportation, restrictions on movement of foodgrains, and cheap or interest-free credit. Relative to the private sector, the costs of the grain parastatals have been high and are increasing, as special interests and rent- seeking are increasingly dictating their operation. This is being manifested in various forms, such as excessive public stocks in India, vacillating import policies in Indonesia and Pakistan, questionable government foodgrain import decisions in the Philippines, and politically-determined ceiling and floor prices in India. On the other hand, the experiences of Bangladesh and Vietnam, both of which have implemented extensive reforms over the last fifteen years, suggest that reduced government intervention can promote competition in the domestic markets, reduce subsidies, and release funds for development and anti-poverty programs without jeopardizing price stability. The paper concludes that reforms are overdue and the delay in changing the old ways of doing price stabilization will be increasingly wasteful.
format Artículo preliminar
id CGSpace160704
institution CGIAR Consortium
language Inglés
publishDate 2005
publishDateRange 2005
publishDateSort 2005
publisher International Food Policy Research Institute
publisherStr International Food Policy Research Institute
record_format dspace
spelling CGSpace1607042025-11-06T07:21:51Z Grain marketing parastatals in Asia: why do they have to change now? Rashid, Shahidur Cummings, Jr., Ralph Gulati, Ashok food crops grain crops markets semiprivate organizations cost benefit analysis state intervention wheat rice international trade price stabilization Using case studies from six Asian countries, this paper (a) assesses the relevance of underlying rationales for public intervention in foodgrain markets, (b) documents the existing policies and regulations that support operation of grain parastatals, (c) provides estimates of benefits and costs of parastatals, and (d) compares experiences of countries that liberalized (or reduced intervention) with the ones that continue to have significant presence of parastatals. Our results suggest that conditions in the region have improved significantly over the past thirty years; and none of the four commonly agreed rationales—that is, poorly integrated domestic markets, thin and volatile world market, promoting modern technology and the scarcity of foreign exchange reserves—for public intervention in foodgrain markets are now persuasive. Domestic foodgrain markets are integrated, international markets for both wheat and rice are significantly more robust than they were thirty years ago, High-Yielding Varieties (HYV) now cover practically all of the high potential area sown to wheat and rice; and foreign currency reserves have increased dramatically in all countries in recent years. However, although rationales have lost their significance, many countries continue to practice old policies and provide regulatory supports to parastatals, including monopoly control over international trade, preferential access to transportation, restrictions on movement of foodgrains, and cheap or interest-free credit. Relative to the private sector, the costs of the grain parastatals have been high and are increasing, as special interests and rent- seeking are increasingly dictating their operation. This is being manifested in various forms, such as excessive public stocks in India, vacillating import policies in Indonesia and Pakistan, questionable government foodgrain import decisions in the Philippines, and politically-determined ceiling and floor prices in India. On the other hand, the experiences of Bangladesh and Vietnam, both of which have implemented extensive reforms over the last fifteen years, suggest that reduced government intervention can promote competition in the domestic markets, reduce subsidies, and release funds for development and anti-poverty programs without jeopardizing price stability. The paper concludes that reforms are overdue and the delay in changing the old ways of doing price stabilization will be increasingly wasteful. 2005 2024-11-21T09:51:40Z 2024-11-21T09:51:40Z Working Paper https://hdl.handle.net/10568/160704 en Open Access application/pdf International Food Policy Research Institute Rashid, Shahidur; Cummings, Jr., Ralph; Gulati, Ashok. Grain marketing parastatals in Asia: why do they have to change now? MTID Discussion Paper 80. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). https://hdl.handle.net/10568/160704
spellingShingle food crops
grain crops
markets
semiprivate organizations
cost benefit analysis
state intervention
wheat
rice
international trade
price stabilization
Rashid, Shahidur
Cummings, Jr., Ralph
Gulati, Ashok
Grain marketing parastatals in Asia: why do they have to change now?
title Grain marketing parastatals in Asia: why do they have to change now?
title_full Grain marketing parastatals in Asia: why do they have to change now?
title_fullStr Grain marketing parastatals in Asia: why do they have to change now?
title_full_unstemmed Grain marketing parastatals in Asia: why do they have to change now?
title_short Grain marketing parastatals in Asia: why do they have to change now?
title_sort grain marketing parastatals in asia why do they have to change now
topic food crops
grain crops
markets
semiprivate organizations
cost benefit analysis
state intervention
wheat
rice
international trade
price stabilization
url https://hdl.handle.net/10568/160704
work_keys_str_mv AT rashidshahidur grainmarketingparastatalsinasiawhydotheyhavetochangenow
AT cummingsjrralph grainmarketingparastatalsinasiawhydotheyhavetochangenow
AT gulatiashok grainmarketingparastatalsinasiawhydotheyhavetochangenow