& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Food security by government not workable

Nizam Ahmad
IT is distressing to hear recommendations from our food experts, politicians, and economists on how the government of Bangladesh could determine food security for the country. They advise the restoration of TCB and BADC and. among many others, punishment of traders for price manipulation and hoarding.
The government has responded with a threat to deal severely with illegal traders to limit hoarding, and with all other market intrusions that coerce, deride, and ignore the role of the private sector in its ability, if free, to secure food for our people.
The government buys only a small portion of the total rice production. This purchase of a mere one or two percent of the total production cannot be a sufficient inventory to feed the whole population, or to change market prices upwards or downwards.
Besides, storage space in government warehouses is limited and encourages pilferage, and large rodents that fatten on it.
This depletes the stock, but the ledger books have the same figures.
Additionally, grains stored in government warehouses are often unfit for human consumption. The management and storage of surpluses in the private sector would be safer, and better, as their investments and profits depend on safekeeping.
At times of famine or high prices, the government and charities can buy items from the private wholesalers for distribution, or for feed programs, as and where required.
Amartya Sen's famous "entitlements" will only work if food stocks are available, and do not disappear, or be smuggled out due to severe government restrictions in the grain market.
In 1974, due to military crackdowns on hoarders, rice readily moved across the borders, because traders and stockists risked severe punishment and the seizure of their stocks.
Reportedly, some powerful politicians were involved in the cross-border trade then, as their big names kept the military away, but the fact remains that the
hard-line policies to arrest, search, or "shoot at sight" compelled the traders to sell across the border, to start a black market. or lose all.
Our experts can say that if the Western governments can successfully provide food, health, and electricity -- why can't we. There are a few reasons why we can't. First, the industrial wealth of the West subsidise their agriculture. They do not have to borrow or depend on aid to boost agriculture. In addition, the Western governments function under the rule of law, that checks corruption.
When the massive subsidisation program began, the West had democracy, a free media, and independent courts. These ensured transparency and accountability.
Nevertheless, the West is becoming increasingly aware of its great folly in involving governments in food and agriculture. In every rich Western country, the government is steadily dismantling subsidisation and the provision of food or health, or anything that the private sector produces better and cheaper. These are no
more economic issues but political.
Agricultural trade is the same as any other trade. The criteria for success are also the same. No trade can expand without the freedom to trade, regionally or internationally, and without a liberalised financial system.
If this simple rationale guides our agricultural policy, it can attract huge investments, since our population is large and so is the demand. Investments would boost production and guarantee food security.
Our agriculture is the biggest sector in the country, yet the most restricted. This is the major cause of rural poverty. Economic orders of the government create shortages, fear and uncertainty, and unleash needless persecution of traders.
The government's decision to ban rice exports and limit the period for keeping stock, denies the economic freedom of the farmers. It deprives them of profits. Smuggling and black markets may return, as in 1974.
The golden jute era ended due to government interference, and so has everything that governments handled. But, jute can still flourish as the world is eco-friendly, and so can agriculture, or the production of electricity, but only if market freedom is guaranteed, not government intervention, subsidisation, or the resurrection of TCB or BADC.
Nizam Ahmad is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.