• Food programmes

Food programmes

What are the differences between the Public Distribution Systems (PDS) of foodgrains in India and China? This paper compares these two systems and how they have helped to improve national food security, food security of the general public, and food security of the poor.

In the 1990s both India and China reformed their PDS, but each following a different path. India has tried to make the PDS increasingly targeted to the poor, while China has tried to reduce food subsidy costs by cancelling the PDS.

The authors conclude that:

• PDS is a useful policy instrument, and subsidy on food can be a cost-effective way to help the poor. Access to foodgrains within short timeframes can be crucial for the food security
• as income levels improve, it is possible to shift from food subsidy to direct cash payments. Although India does not currently have the capacity to administer income transfers in a cost-effective manner, PDS operations should be modified to make them more flexible and better targeted
• a government controlled buffer stock is important for ensuring and improving a country’s food security, regardless of whether or not a PDS is operated.

Recommendations for India and China include:

• China needs to adopt a lesson from India in managing its buffer stock with transparency
• India would benefit by adopting a method of flexible management for its buffer stock, as is done in China
• India might consider reducing its PDS operations, the reduction needs to be done gradually. Pilot programmes to reduce PDS operation or to switch to direct income transfers could be considered in regions or states where conditions permit.

• Full text of document
• Send to a friend