India, food, and modernization
As India modernizes, farmers and public health pay the price. 20
-
Posted 5:49 PM on 20 Sep 2006
by Tom Philpott -
Posted in
Read More About
Grist food editor Tom Philpott farms and cooks at Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture nonprofit and small farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. Follow my Twitter feed; contact me at tphilpott[at]grist[dot]org.
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:52 am
23 Sep 2006
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 5:05 am
23 Sep 2006
But in adopting a strict laissez-faire approach to famine, Lytton, demented or not, could claim to be extravagance's greatest enemy. He clearly conceived himself to be standing on the shoulders of giants, or, at least, the sacerdotal authority of Adam Smith, who a century earlier in The Wealth of Nations had asserted (vis-à-vis the terrible Bengal drought-famine of 1770) that "famine has never arisen from any other cause but the violence of government attempting, by improper means, to remedy the inconvenience of dearth." Smith's injunction against state attempts to regulate the price of grain during famine had been taught for years in the East India Company's famous college at Haileybury. Thus the viceroy was only repeating orthodox curriculum when he lectured Buckingham that high prices, by stimulating imports and limiting consumption, were the "natural saviours of the situation." He issued strict, "semi-theological" orders that "there is to be no interference of any kind on the part of Government with the object of reducing the price of food," and "in his letters home to the India Office and to politicians of both parties, he denounced `humanitarian hysterics'." "Let the British public foot the bill for its `cheap sentiment,' if it wished to save life at a cost that would bankrupt India." By official dictate, India like Ireland before it had become a Utilitarian laboratory where millions of lives were wagered against dogmatic faith in omnipotent markets overcoming the "inconvenience of dearth." Grain merchants, in fact, preferred to export a record 6.4 million cwt. of wheat to Europe in 1877-78 rather than relieve starvation in India. [Emphasis added.]
I'm glad you support a "transitional" safety net for farmers to ease their eviction from the land. But I wonder how it is that you see it as natural that public policy should push Indian farmers into selling into a global market (and buying dubious inputs from a global market), and thus off the land in droves; but you find it socialistic or God knows what that public policy should work to rebuild local food-production networks, and to fortify the agricultural economy rather than to depopulate it. Even when such policies have the blessing of the voting public.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:49 am
23 Sep 2006
Do you bemoan the fact that the U.S. has evolved into a modern developed economy? If so, then ok, advocate that Indians stay poor with a 90% agricultural rural economy. I am fine with the fact that only 2% of people in the U.S. work in agriculture- that we have become much more wealthy and most of us have full refrigerators with great food. I have much respect for farmers, but I'm very happy to live in a society where people aren't forced to be farmers because they have no other options.
Glad that you will update your knowledge of economics past the 19th century. However, if you want to go back, read Adam Smith and you'll see his high moral regard for all people and that was 1776.
Where did the socialist label come from? I have always advocated social programs and a strong role for government- news flash- one can be in favor of capitalism and free markets and still want social safety nets and economic security. You are expressing a false dichotomy.
As to Indian farmers being "forced" to do anything- they are not- what they are is being exposed to the forces of globalization that can be very merciless and which is why all economists argue for a strong state that addresses their needs. Keeping 90% of Indians in low efficiency agriculture essentially relegates India to permanent undeveleoped status while helping people make the transition to a modern economy (like the one all farmers in the U.S. are part of) is a better solution.
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 6:23 am
23 Sep 2006
relies on an essentially exploited class of farmers;
produces lots and lots of really bad food;
treads quite heavily on the earth;
is highly consolidated within the hands of a few firms with outisized political clout;
and is propped up by regular infusions of government cash.
The celebrated cheapness of our food supply -- we pay for less as a percentage of income than any society in history -- can be shown to rely on a series of false economies.
How do you propose to sustainably import this model to the global south? More important: why?
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 6:25 am
23 Sep 2006
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:30 am
23 Sep 2006
Dear Jason,
"All economists" don't support programs that help ease the transition from agriculture to urbanization.
In fact many of the American free-marketeers (such as many of the famed Chicago school) oppose excessive government support and intervention to help people.
One of the reasons the IMF has been such a disaster for the poor has been the international (particularly the US (ummm, that's you and me)) insistence on reduced government spending on social welfare programs in developing countries.
patrick
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:43 am
25 Sep 2006
The celebrated cheapness of our food supply -- we pay for less as a percentage of income than any society in history -- can be shown to rely on a series of false economies.
How do you propose to sustainably import this model to the global south? More important: why?
ANSWER: I have never once said that we should import our model to anyone. Where did you get that notion? I have simply said that poor countries should modernize and develop. I have also written quite a lot about eliminating all agricultural subsidies in the U.S. (which economists have been calling for for decades) and increasing regulation of the most toxic pesticides, which would fix nost of the problems you cite above. I have also argued strongly against all forms of factory-farming. With respect to India's development, keeping 90% of the population in agriculture is a recipe for poverty- period- there is not a single historical example of a country developing without a transition OUT OF AGRICULTURE- I want it to be done well, that's all, but it needs to happen.
Patrick:
Provide a single citation or quote from any economist that says that during trade liberalization and modernization the state should not provide any services to poor people whose way of life is jeopardized. Once you find that quote (if you can, which I highly doubt)- ask yourself what % of economists say this and therefore, what the representative opinion on the matter is.
Your knowledge of the IMF is clearly superficial as you don't understand the details involved in structural adjustment programs to make such a blanket statement.
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 6:12 am
25 Sep 2006
And Jason, your zero-subsidy prescription might not work the miracles you promise. It wouldn't undo the stronghold over the food supply held by a few corporations; it wouldn't undo 50-60 years of disinvestment in local food-production infrastructure; and it probably wouldn't even compel farmers to stop overproducing a few commodities. Ag economist Daryll Ray has pretty persuasively argued the latter point; I'd like to hear your response.
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in college econ textbooks--which assume perfectly free markets and other fantasies.
Permalink
kmp Posted 6:47 am
25 Sep 2006
Clearly, the US model of modern farming is unsustainable, as you seem to agree. You say you do not necessarily want to import this model to India.
If, however, there are not to be large, centralized, (i.e. "factory") farms, how on Earth will India feed it's 1 bilion people if 90% of it's people are to move "out of agriculture?"
Indeed, if the US is to move away from factory farming, will we not need more farmers? In order to provide sufficient food supply for our nation that is also sustainable will not farming need to diversify more than consolidate? And with diversification & sustainability will come smaller farms, each growing or raising a greater variety of crops and/or livestock (in order to reduce off-farm inputs as well as maintain the integrity of the soil) and with smaller farms, each farm will produce less food, so there will have to be more farms (and hence, farmers) in order to supply adequate food.
Am I missing something obvious here? (Could easily be, as I know next to nothing about farming, and even closer to nothing about economics).
I whole-heartedly agree with you that we don't want to force people into no choice but a grueling, manual labor, scrape-by existence. But what if farming did not have to be that way? What if farming was a job, much like teaching, or being a doctor, at which one could do what they love (be outdoors, create delicisous food), accept the fact that at certain times of the year there would be long, hard days, accept all the inherent risks involved, but still at the end of the day make a decent living? Fill the fridges of America with fresh, wholesome, delicious food, and still be able to take a vacation with your family once a year, send a kid to college? Maybe buy yourself that play 1972 Triumph convertible, and have a Sunday or two to be able to tool around your country backroads.
How hard can it be to structure our nation's food policy such that farmers can make a decent living farming? More importantly, how can we afford not to do so? If we, you & I, are against factory farms, and against consolidated mega-farms, then must we not advocate for more small farms, and hence more farmers? And if we are to advocate for more farmers, don't we have a responsibilty to ensure farmers a living wage?
Kaela
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 7:28 am
25 Sep 2006
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 7:32 am
25 Sep 2006
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 7:38 am
25 Sep 2006
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 7:58 am
25 Sep 2006
Ray argues that if you take subsidies away, farmers will keep producing as much as possible to make up on volume what they're losing on price--what I call the devil's bargain of industrial agriculture.
The underlying problem here is that the grain traders--Cargill, ADM--have all of the price leverage in the market, and the farmers have little or none. Ray's plan would give farmers some leverage by organizing them to manipulate supply.
Permalink
kmp Posted 8:14 am
25 Sep 2006
But food? We buy food nearly every day. How can it be sustainable to produce 75% of the nation's lettuce in California? How can it be sustainable to then ship that lettuce thousands of miles, every day? BIG farms will necessarily produce more food than a local community can consume, even if they diversify their crops. This is why I think that small, diversified farms are the most sustainable choice.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 11:09 am
25 Sep 2006
There's a bit more contention within the dismal science on the issue of government intervention/safety nets then you let on.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 12:13 pm
25 Sep 2006
an elimination of all quotas, tariffs, and export subsidies would umambiguously lead to a huge improvement in the world
the elimination of virtually all natural resource subsidies would umambiguously lead to a huge improvement in the world
the move away from large burearcracies that require hundreds of signatures to open a business in much of the developing world would umambiguously lead to large improvements in the world
the use of prizes to spur innovation in research, specifically medical, would.... you get the picture
Meditate on this fact for a moment: Milton Friedman advocated establishing a minimum income for all people in the U.S. back in the 1970s- that's way more progressive than anything coming out of the left these days- let that sink in- he also is at the forefront of the movement to decrininalize drugs since it has led to nothing but unjust imprisonement, violent crime, and wastes of hundreds of billions...anyway...
Having the federal government micro-manage the the production of food would lead to way more problems than it would solve- just contemplate the complexities and difficulties and explain to me why you think that is a good idea- also, do you have any examples to back this up
As to your contention that producing 75% of the country's lettuce in CA doesn't make sense- I say no- it depends. If you're trying to say that there's all this energy that is "wasted" that goes into transporting it then think of what economists suggest- tax the problem directly- so tax energy or better yet- tax carbon- once the price of energy reflects the true cost then let people produce things where they want- I live in the lettuce capital and I see no reason why people shouldn't get their lettuce from us just like I have no problem getting my wheat from the Midwest- I see no reason a priori that food "should" be grown right next to everyone- computers are not produced next to everyone, cars aren't- why is food so much different? I don't see the logic.
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 12:49 pm
25 Sep 2006
Jason writes, a propos of God knows what:
Having the federal government micro-manage the the production of food would lead to way more problems than it would solve- just contemplate the complexities and difficulties and explain to me why you think that is a good idea- also, do you have any examples to back this up.
While I can think of better things the gov't can do with its $15-$20 billion in annual subsidies than prop up corn production, etc., I believe that food production should be controlled at the local level. Period. Y ya.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:44 pm
25 Sep 2006
Dear Jason,
Don't you have any classes? (smile). Where do all you folks get the time to keep up with this!!
In any case, two things. I never said that
"Provide a single citation or quote from any economist that says that during trade liberalization and modernization the state should not provide any services to poor people whose way of life is jeopardized." as you suggested (with the emphasis on "any" services").
I said ""All economists" don't support programs that help ease the transition from agriculture to urbanization....In fact many of the American free-marketeers (such as many of the famed Chicago school) oppose excessive government support and intervention to help people."
Quotes??
" Lionel Robbins (1932: Ch.6). He dismissed cardinal utility outright and argued that the Pigovian defense of "equal capacities for satisfaction" was not based on any "scientific" fact. Robbins (1932, 1938) went on to argue that, consequently, social welfare should not be a subject of economic study at all. "
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays/paretian/paretosocia...
Too old? How about Joseph Schumpeter who is quoted as arguing that "Any development tending to squeeze profits, such as growing strength of trade unions, progressive income taxes, social welfare programs, or any other government intervention designed to limit profits or to redistribute income, is tantamount to deterioration of the social climate. (Higgins)"
http://www.innvista.com/society/business/economists.htm
You might have read this book
"Steve Keen, Debunking Economics: the Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences" (see review)
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lab/84/br_11.h...
These are just for fun. Let's go back to the original disagreement. You said that "the Indian government should do a much better job of providing support during the transition. There is not a single economist or "free-marketer" I know that would disagree."
Ironically, I agree with you about the natural transition from largely rural to largely urban population (there are many reasons for it to happen).
But, you insist on making such sweeping generalizations and then distorting others replies, that you make it very difficult for me to agree even when I do!!! (ROFLMAO).
As to the IMF, please tell me how they have benefited the poor?
Are there less poor due to their policies? Are poor people generally better off due to their policies?
If you wish to affirm their greatness, please feel free to provide some links.
Critics of the IMF? How about internal ones.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/critics/stigl...
Or this
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/critics/kanbu...
Both of these are links to articles about INTERNAL critics of the effectiveness of IMF policies.
And external critics
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/louder.htm
http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/art.shtml?x=15742
After all, many people feel that the monetary crisis in Southeast Asia in the 1990's was directly as a result of IMF policies.
And of course, we haven't even gotten to the many protestors from the left!!!!
patrick
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:44 am
27 Sep 2006
Patrick- you mentioned Chicago school economists and the only quote that backs up your point is from Schumpeter- who is dead by the way- so yes, there are a few extreme views that I don't share and 99% of economists don't- but which people like you and Tom seem to think indict economists and give you license to right off a field that has done more good for the world then all wishy-washy leftist nonsense combined (and by the way I'm a liberal!)
As to the IMF- of course there are problems and I have never denied those- but structural adjustment programs happen when a country is on the verge of collapse- when there is not a single loan agency besides them left to bail them out- it is essentially when the country is in serious crisis. The IMF actually gives a lot of discretion for how to balance budgets and often it is the governments of the countries that make the hard choices. The key counterfactual is whether the countries would be worse off in there was no IMF- the answer is clearly yes. As to the SE crisis- there is lots of blame to go around and the IMF make big mistakes- many countries have done exactly the right thing, which is build reserves so that they don't need the IMF anymore!
Tom- please read up on Milton Friedman's minimum income platform some day- you may actually learn some history that you are obviously ignorant of. It will put a lot of things in perspective for you.
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:59 am
29 Sep 2006
Dear Jason,
You challenged me to find "any", so that's all I did, grabbed the first one I saw (grin). Are you changing the rules (one of your favorite tactics)?
You claim that 99% of economists don't share his views (or the Chicago school). That would be great!!! If it is true, I am very happy to hear it. Unfortunately, the MSM mainly seems to find and quote though who do (grin). Especially folks like FOX NEWS (so-called). Do you have any polls showing a breakdown of beliefs held by economists? Just to back up your numbers (grin).
You wrong me if you think I hate economists (one of my relatives is one!).
I have never called you religious, so I am not sure who you are complaining about (you do tend to create straw dogs to distract the audience from time to time).
Hmmm, let's see, you attack the left as being "wishy-washy" and nonsense, then claim to be a liberal.
I know some conservatives who claim to be liberals (traditional liberals as defined three hundred years ago). Is that what you mean?
Your IMF answer dodges the question, but no matter, you know as well as we all do that the IMF has been no friend of the poor. I wish it were otherwise!
patrick
Permalink