Farmer in a field | Prashanth Vishwanathan | Bloomberg
Farmer in a field | Prashanth Vishwanathan | Bloomberg
Text Size:

New Delhi: Kaushik Basu, one of India’s top economists, has been critical of the three new farm laws passed by the Modi government, calling them “flawed” and “detrimental to farmers”.

But turns out, Basu, as India’s Chief Economic Advisor in the UPA government, had favoured similar if not the same reforms.

Over the last few days, Basu has trashed the reforms on Twitter and also in a newspaper article.

“Our agriculture regulation needs change but the new laws will end up serving corporate interests more than farmers,” he said in a tweet.

 

In an article published in The Times of India Friday, Basu and co-author and economist Nirvikar Singh said, the farm bills have “serious problems” and sought their withdrawal. They pointed out that the laws will hurt small Indian farmers as risk mitigation measures to protect them are absent.

But his positions contradict his earlier stance where he talked about reforms in the farm sector.

The economic surveys authored by Basu favoured freedom to farmers to sell outside mandis as well as encouraged private investment in agriculture — reforms enabled by the three farm laws enacted by the Modi government.

Basu was Chief Economic Advisor between 2009 and 2012 when the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) was in power. As CEA, he authored three economic surveys — 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 — in which he talked about the need for agricultural reforms.

Basu was chief economist of the World Bank between 2012 and 2016 and is now a Professor of Economics at Cornell University.

Basu, in an email response to ThePrint, said, “Concerning agriculture and the marketing of farm products I take the same view now as I did when I was Chief Economic Adviser. I believe agricultural markets should be liberalized and farmers should have access to many traders beyond the APMC mandis. But that innocuous word “many” is vital. Without that, the seemingly right move will backfire. The end result will be worse than where we are now. That is the concern of all Indian farmers and I cannot deny I share that concern. All advanced economies worry about monopolistic and monopsonistic capture. It is folly to ignore this while liberalizing markets.”

The Modi government enacted three farm laws in September — Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act , 2020, Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act 2020.

While the first law allows farmers to sell their produce outside of the mandis, the second seeks to ease regulations around contract farming, and the third is aimed at encouraging investments in storage infrastructure by removing limits on storage of cereals, pulses, potatoes and onion.

Most economists have favoured the farm laws but some have opposed what they call the hasty enactment without discussion with stakeholders or debate in Parliament.


Also read: 10 senior economists write to Modi govt, demand repeal of ‘fundamentally harmful’ farm laws


What economic surveys authored by Basu said

The three economic surveys authored by Basu favoured reforms in the agricultural sector to increase productivity.

The surveys pointed out how mandi governance is an area of concern and suggested that a greater number of traders must be allowed as agents in mandis and farmers should be provided the option to sell outside mandis.

“Anyone who gets better prices and terms outside the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) or at its farm gate should be allowed to do so,” one of the surveys said.

It also pointed to the need for setting up efficient supply chains so that farmers get adequately compensated.

It had also suggested ways to promote inter-state trade. “A commodity for which market fee has been paid once must not be subjected to subsequent market fee in other markets including that for transactions in other states. Only user charges linked to services provided may be levied for subsequent transactions.”

Citing the spike in inflation due to high vegetable and fruit prices, the survey had also favoured taking perishables out of the ambit of the APMC Act.

“The government-regulated mandis sometimes prevent retailers from integrating their enterprises with those of farmers. In view of this, perishables may have to be exempted from this regulation,” it noted.

The survey had also flagged the need to raise capital investment in agriculture both by the private and public sector.

“Higher levels of investments are required for not only increasing farm productivity but also creating adequate infrastructure for transport, storage and distribution of agricultural produce.”

It had also favoured organised trade in agriculture and foreign direct investment or FDI in multi-brand retail. “Considering significant investment gaps in post-harvest infrastructure of agricultural produce, organised trade in agriculture should be encouraged and the FDI in multi-brand retail once implemented could be effectively leveraged towards this end.”


Also read: Modi govt gave an unwanted gift to farmers. Now it can’t even handle rejection


Economists recommended ‘similar reforms’ earlier

In a column in The Times of India, Arvind Panagariya, Professor at Columbia University and former vice-chairman of the NITI Aayog, said that both Basu and his successor Raghuram Rajan had “recommended reforms similar to those just enacted” and have “now come down heavily on them.”

He went on to cite instances from the economic surveys authored by Basu and Rajan and pointed out that both not only favoured entry of private investment in agriculture but also foreign multi-brand retailers in agricultural marketing.

“Yet both have now argued that the new laws open the door to the exploitation of the farmers by private companies,” Panagariya said.


Also read: Research shows intermediaries’ role is misunderstood. Local market realities more at play


Rajan’s stance on farm laws

Rajan, in his interaction at ThePrint’s ‘Off the Cuff’ show in October, had maintained that the intent behind the farm laws is ‘right’ but also stressed that reforms can’t be treated as ‘fire and forget’ and have to be constantly worked upon to address concerns.

Rajan, who had a brief one-year stint as the CEA before he was appointed as the governor of the Reserve Bank of India, had authored the economic survey for the year 2012-13 in which he had flagged the need for urgent reforms in the agricultural sector.

“Yet India is at a juncture where further reforms are urgently required to achieve greater efficiency and productivity in agriculture for sustaining growth. There is a need to have stable and consistent policies where markets play a deserving role and private investment in infrastructure is stepped up. An efficient supply chain that firmly establishes the linkage between retail demand and the farmer will be important,” it argued.

“Another critical issue is supply-chain management in agricultural marketing in India. It is necessary to evolve mechanisms for linking wholesale processing, logistics, and retailing with farm-production activities so as to generate enhanced efficiency, better farm prices, etc. Recently the government allowed FDI in retail, which can pave the way for investment in new technology and marketing of agricultural produce in India,” it added.

In an email response to ThePrint, Rajan, a professor at University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, said there is a need to build greater competition as well as price information, logistics support, and credit for lifting farmer produce.

“Each state is different in the institutions it has and the gaps it has. So, while it is important to remove the compulsion on the farmer to sell in the mandi (the long-standing need to amend the APMC acts which many of us supported and still support), we should acknowledge this is not a problem in every state, and ensure that useful institutions that help the farmer do not simultaneously disappear,” he said.

The government, he added, would do well to acknowledge the diversity in situations. “That means listening to the critics and acknowledging some have a point.”


Also read: Shambles over farmers’ protest shows Modi-Shah BJP needs a Punjab tutorial


The report has been updated with Kaushik Basu’s response

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Why news media is in crisis & How you can fix it

India needs free, fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism even more as it faces multiple crises.

But the news media is in a crisis of its own. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism is shrinking, yielding to crude prime-time spectacle.

ThePrint has the finest young reporters, columnists and editors working for it. Sustaining journalism of this quality needs smart and thinking people like you to pay for it. Whether you live in India or overseas, you can do it here.

Support Our Journalism

VIEW COMMENTS

13 COMMENTS

  1. The article is a good attempt to ‘expose’ the dichotomy of these economists. The headline itself is misleading. At no point in time has Kaushik Basu gone back on his claims on the need for farm reforms. He has problems with lack of clauses/provisions in these laws and the process by which laws were enacted not with what these want to achieve. He clearly calls out that there is a need for risk mitigating measures to plug the loopholes in the current laws. Please read his article on TOI and then jump to draw conclusions. This article should be called out as opinion of the author. Of course, there is no objective analysis in any news media now. If anybody doesnt agree with Mr. Shekhar Gupta his ‘dichotomy’ needs to be called out even if he is a well-renowned economist.

  2. The writer of this article is doing “Dalali” on an economist, who is doing “Dalali” on the Government, who is doing “Dalali” of the private corporations, who in any case is a “Dalal”.
    All these “Dalals” are talking about farmers’ good! Don’t they say “Pen is mightier than the sword”!

    • Typical of the hypocrisy of netas across this land…when in opposition, oppose for opposing sake. He, along with the many others, had previously supported the very same reforms as contained in the recently passed farm bills, but because it was passed by their arch-enemy, the NDA, they’re now all against the bills, labeling them “anti-farmers”…what forked-toungue, two-faced hypocrites.

  3. These people, with their ill disguised political views, are doing disservice to their chosen field of economics. Anyone is allowed to recant and change her views, but not just because there is a different political party at the helm of affairs. No wonder when Shri Narendra Modi talks about hard work being superior to Harvard, there is a wide resonance, much to the fury of our Lutyens Liberals. Thanks to The Print for exposing these charlatans, masquerading as economists.

  4. these lutyen jnu leftist experts like dynasty politicians are more interested in politics than economic welfare of farmers. they are the ones who caused Indias 3 percent growth for 50 years. Supreme court panel of experts would be useless as all experts are political and would stick to their political stands. Government should stay firm, explain hypocricy of all these jokers.

  5. A hangover from misplaced socialism! A right to protest does not necessarily mean that the cause is right.

    Such shifting views is a fallout of the flawed conviction that to be termed an “expert” or “an intellectual” one has to necessarily be a nonconformist or antiestablishment. I know it because as a teenager in North Malabar, Kerala in the 1960s, I could feel such vibes in the society in the wake of Naxal and related activities.

  6. Like GST – everyone wanted GST . The issue with the present dispensation at the centre, is in the construct of the laws, their implementation and key elements of the changes to be brought through the reform process.

    1. The farm economy or farmer’s income needs to be improved substantially – there is a promise to double by 2022. That is no where in the picture by throwing the farm economy to the market forces. Globally the farm economies are protected including in the developed world.

    2. There is a strong need to promote diversification of crops – the laws do not promote such diversification. Contract farming has been in Punjab for about 40 years now – it has not been able to achieve that. Thus that experience needs to be appreciated and laws built to overcome the inhibitions to diversification.

    3. In 2014-15 this Government had mooted the processing of agricultural produce at the farm gate through mobile food processing units. It fot lost in electoral politics.

    4. The FCI Godowns are overflowing – so also the hunger in the country. The supply chain is missing. Establish that

    5. Give stocks from the FCI Godowns to the private players to understand the dynamics of the supply chain better for national advantage.
    Develop alternate uses of foodgrain – such as alcohol and other products.

    I am sure there could other models that may show better efficacy in the farm economy.

    • But Kanwal Paaji, to what extent can one subsidise farmers? There has to be a limit, right? They get everything free – electricity, water, loans, taxes… Even after all this, if they keep asking for more, where is the end? It is not that only farmers are working hard and all other tax payers are having it easy.

  7. Quite clearly, it’s not economics but politics at play. Deeply disappointing to see Mr.Kaushik Basu’s change in his views. He must tell us what prompted him to change his views so much. It’s as if a free marker supporting economist changed into a commie overnight. Yeh parivartan, ye badlav sirf modi laskte hain :p

    • Reforms must be seen in context. This government always backs corporate interests and thus is not trusted to protect a small farmer against Reliance or Pepsico. That’s why the opposition to these laws. Farmers are not fools to protest over nothing.

      • It is people, who decide. People trust government. They don’t trust economist of type Basu, Sen etc. they are more trusted in Bangladesh & Pakistan than India.

        • Why not let farmers have their way in the States ruled by opposition and pay for their stupidity in opposing the laws intended for their benefit.

Comments are closed.