Download as PDF, PPTX
IFPRI- National Food Security Bill- Reetika Khera, IIT
The document discusses common misconceptions about the National Food Security Act (NFSA) in India and provides evidence of its effectiveness in improving food security and nutrition. It highlights the revival of public distribution systems, the role of subsidies to farmers, and addresses implementation challenges such as household identification and entitlements. The document emphasizes the need for better management and technology to minimize leakages and improve the effectiveness of the NFSA.
More Related Content
Similar to IFPRI- National Food Security Bill- Reetika Khera, IIT
More from International Food Policy Research Institute- South Asia Office
IFPRI- National Food Security Bill- Reetika Khera, IIT
- 1.
- 2. Five common misconceptions about NFSA 1 “D ’td 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. Revival: Evidence andExplanationsRevival: 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. Corruption control: someevidenceCorruption 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. Bihar Chhattisgarh Proportion ofBPL 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. Explanations for therevivalExplanations 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. 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. 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. 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. Leakages Inclusion andPortabilityLeakages, 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