Economic Opportunity Mailing List Archive

["Dick Tinsley" <<address removed>>]

I was pleased to notice a couple comments related to price policy with 
reference to India and Zimbabwe.

I am of the opinion that there are fewer innovations that can either stimulate 
or suppress agriculture production, even for the smallholder, than price 
policy.  I think too often price policies have been based more on attempting to 
provide the urban poor with low cost food then stimulate agriculture 
production.  This has often been with imposed ceiling prices with the 
expectation the farmers will continue to produce crops in an uneconomical 
environment. Sorry but even the most remote smallholder is not that gullible.  
It is one reason many extension recommendations are "REJECTED" even after 
repeated extension cycles.

The proximity of urban populations to the "gates of Power" and potential for 
civil disobedience is the main stimulates for this bias.

While I agree the agriculture policy has to consider both urban and rural 
sectors, it has to be done in a manner the allows farmers sufficient returns so 
they can afford sufficient inputs so yield will at least provide national 
self-sufficiency, 

Assisting countries in getting that balance can be a major contribution of 
donors.  Failure to do so results in production shortfalls being offset with 
imports or donations, when the physical potential is for self-sufficiency.

Also, what are the prospects for subsidizing the marketing side rather than the 
production side. That is offer the farmers a high enough price to stimulate the 
production, but then discounting the cost to the consumers.  That would 
definitely assure all the production flows through the government silos.  It 
will also reduce the diversion of subsidized inputs and reduce opportunities 
for corruption, etc.

Dick Tinsley