Food prices
In an article by Trevor Manuel published in ANC Today Vol 8 No 18 he said "the world has generally been able to feed itself(and)eat times, surpluses in some parts of the world have had to be diverted to cover shortages in another part of the world". We agree with this observation.
We wish to argue that there is still enough food produced by the world to still feed itself. Put differently, there is no shortage of food in the world. Therefore, the problem is with the distribution of food and commodities, particularly as determined by the commodity futures system at the Chicago Board of Trade.
The Chicago Board of Trade can be a volatile platform for food commodity price formation for a variety of reasons. For example, after the sub-prime crisis, and in search of windfall profit, large funds embarked on a spate of speculation that the US wheat crop would be short of expectations. In addition to this, there has been much speculation that US biofuels demand could create a never ending cycle of fossil fuel fertiliser engine fuel food price inflation. As Manuel states, any economy that is largely dependent on imported food commodities will be in for a rough ride, especially when panic buying sets in.
For those states with more equitable land distribution, food production know-how, and large strategic grain stocks, it could be seen as quite logical to have recently imposed export taxes on their domestic grain supply, while spurring the production of a greater diversity of foods and, simultaneously, avoiding the subsequent underutilisation of grain lands.
In South Africa, we do not buy the argument that the Australian and Central Asian drought has caused a major disruption in the supply of maize or wheat, and rice or potatoes. Furthermore, and in all probability, the water quality throughout China shall be much less significant as a negative factor in food production than variations in rainfall patterns in many parts of the world, in time to come. Even if there is a negative energy or cost cycle involved in conventional high-input agriculture, the rate and magnitude of increases in input costs thus far cannot solely explain the rise in food prices.
We acknowledge the rising demand for commodities and food from China and India (accounting for approximately a third of the world's population). This should have been responsible for nothing more than a gradual and steady increase in prices, in tandem with income distribution growth among a large number of people. We don't buy an argument that this could have significantly contributed to global commodity prices reaching sky high levels, as they did after the sub-prime crisis.
Market failure
Food production by the diversity of our people in Southern Africa has long been depressed. However we are not as interested as Manuel appears to be in production incentives going to existing producers, whether through higher agricultural prices or some other form. Inequalities in access to affordable water, finance, quality land, know-how, infrastructure, appropriate technology and marketing opportunities are critical constraints to the sustainability of the economy and the absence of hunger.
In summary, our concerns centre on the speculative increases in domestic and international food prices that have arisen from the trades of large funds after the sub-prime crisis. Clearly, the price formation of key staple foods, as determined on the Chicago Board of Trade, is a reflection of market failure on a big scale. This concern about futures market failures does not seem to be shared by Manuel as deeply, and we encourage a more clearly thought through debate on the uses and abuses of certain export taxes at certain times.
We agree with Manuel that the impact of rising food prices would negatively impact on the poorest of the poor the most, mainly because they spend more than half their income on food expenditure. We agree that price plays a critical role in any trends in expenditure on food by the poor from 2000 to 2005, to now. If anything, with the persisting poverty levels, stubborn unemployment rate and widening income inequality, the gini situation has become worse than better.
Any sensible economist or government leader knows that if markets fail (or there is market failure) state intervention is warranted and justified.
An intervention on the demand side to relieve consumers from the impact of price increases without tackling the structural problems and market failure on the supply side, would be tantamount to redistributing resources away from the poor to the rich as government will be tapping from the fiscus to fund feeding schemes and food parcels while purchased food prices remain high and windfall profiteering continues.
Responses
We wish to propose, among other things:
- that the nationalisation of companies located in the value chains of staple foods and those found guilty of price-fixing should be pursued;
- setting up state-owned enterprises that would seek to influence prices downwards, through training people and producing and storing commodities in times of surplus;
- setting up a price regulatory body that should control prices from reaching levels reflecting windfall profits;
- strengthening competition authorities and reviewing competition law, such that CEOs presiding over companies found guilty of price-fixing are impeached and banned from serving as directors or employed as senior management;
On the demand side, the following measures should be introduced or
improved:
- the expansion of the value and extension of the volume of social grants. The Old Age Grant should be extended to male citizens at the age of 60 years immediately and be paid at R1,000. The Child support grant should be extended to all children up to the age of 18 years immediately and be paid at R250.
- the introduction of a basic income grant in the next financial year at R100 (2002 prices) to all citizens between the ages of 18 years and 60 years without means-testing;
- the introduction of food stamps, subject to means testing, in hot spot areas such as villages, informal settlements and townships;
- the expansion of school feeding schemes to cover a wider geography of poor communities and be extended to all schooling attending children irrespective of their age.
In conclusion, we believe that supply side intervention, including price controls, will work even in the long-run. Demand side measures, such as cash grants, without doing much rapidly on the supply side would feed windfall profiteering by food processors and retailers into the future.
** Katishi Masemola is General Secretary of the Food and Allied Workers Union (FAWU). This article is a response to an article by Trevor Manuel in ANC Today Vol 8 No 18 published on 02 May 2008. |