NSE Ticker

Monday, August 4, 2014

India's refusal to dilute its food subsidy correct : Economic Times

 India's refusal to dilute its food subsidy correct : Economic Times


India's refusal to dilute its food subsidy and stocking policies threaten to derail progress on multilateral trade as envisaged under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. Or that is what the West would want the world to believe.  

The truth, however, is more nuanced and has to do with overwhelming national priorities, not so-called free trade. "Free trade" is a term used opportunistically when developed countries want other nations to open up markets for their products and services.


 Yet, economic historians know that both Britain and the US favoured protectionist policies to foster economic growth during their development phases. Abraham Lincoln favoured a 44 per cent tariff during the American civil war to starve the more prosperous south of industrial products and build railways in the north. And Franklin Roosevelt would go on to blame protectionism under his predecessor as one of the causal factors of the Great Depression.  India's main priority is to buy food at support prices from farmers, more than 50 per cent of the population, stock it and supply it to the poor at low prices. 

Yet, WTO rules say that these subsidies cannot cross 10 per cent of the value of food output.  This is utter rubbish, because the pricing is calculated at rates set in 1986-88, which artificially lower the food subsidy ceiling. India cannot agree to such terms. 

When Europe and the US ask India to cut subsidies and tariffs in food and agriculture markets, we should ask why they persist with high tariff and non-tariff barriers to protect their farm sector, which is also heavily subsidised.  India's stand on trade talks is correct and justified by our national priorities. Developed countries have to open up their markets to freer movement of goods, workers and services from developing ones. Pressure to cut food subsidies in India has to be matched by opening up of food and farm markets in the West.  

In any case, this story is not over as yet. India is willing to go back to the negotiating table in September when the WTO reopens, and if other nations agree to postpone curbs on India's food subsidies, talks can progress. 
support prices from farmers, more than 50 per cent of the population, stock it and supply it to the poor at low prices. Yet, WTO rules say that these subsidies cannot cross 10 per cent of the value of food output.

This is utter rubbish, because the pricing is calculated at rates set in 1986-88, which artificially lower the food subsidy ceiling. India cannot agree to such terms. When Europe and the US ask India to cut subsidies and tariffs in food and agriculture markets, we should ask  ..

India's refusal to dilute its food subsidy and stocking policies threaten to derail progress on multilateral trade as envisaged under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. Or that is what the West would want the world to believe.

The truth, however, is more nuanced and has to do with overwhelming national priorities, not so-called free trade. "Free trade" is a term used opportunistically when developed countries want other nations to open up markets for their products and ..

India's refusal to dilute its food subsidy correct



India's refusal to dilute its food subsidy correct



4 comments:

  1. If you are Looking Trading calls then you have landed right place now.please read this blog daily.
    Fill the contact form below and get daily trading calls click here

    ReplyDelete
  2. The microorganisms of the moment are being advertised on labels for everything from hot sauce to instant coffee these days.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for posting the great content…I was looking for something like this about
    Forex Signals . I found it quiet interesting, hopefully you will keep posting such blogs….Keep sharing

    ReplyDelete
  4. BUY ARVIND 330 CALL ABOVE 11.60 TG- 12.10/13.00/15.00 SL- 10.40 (CMP- 11.40). call put option tips free recommendations

    ReplyDelete