ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

A+| A| A-

‘One Nation, One Market’

Market integration will remain a pipedream without structural changes in agricultural markets.

In early June, the cabinet had approved two agricultural ordinancesnamely, the Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Ordinance, 2020 and the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Ordinance, 2020potentially to enable barrier-free inter- and intra-state trade in agricultural produces outside the physical premises of the (deemed) markets notified under the agricultural produce marketing legislations and to empower the farmers to engage with the buyers of their choice. Both these ordinances should be welcome steps with their perceived scope of ensuring seamless flow of farm produce across the country without regulatory restrictions and excessive intermediation, intuitively vital for raising price realisation by the farmers on the one hand, and enabling the supply of food to the consumer at competitive prices on the other, among several things. While the actual effects of these ordinances can only be comprehended during/after this years kharif harvest in September, there is already much scepticism about the usefulness of these ordinances on various grounds.

According to existing empirical evidences, a maximum of two-fifths of the agricultural marketable surplus in India passes through the regulated marketing yards/mandi. The remaining three-fifths or more finds its way outside the regulated premises and is no less fraught with the marketing bottlenecks that make price realisation by the farmers, especially the smallholders, at least as challenging as on the mandi premises. For instance, the minimum support price (MSP) frequently ends up being the ceiling price, instead of the benchmark/floor price, so much so that private traders/aggregators refrain purchasing from the farmers while the government procurement is on. However, the MSP procurement window being narrow, farmers eventually end up selling to the private buyers at much lower prices. Or, take the example of the surreptitious method of bidding for the best price between the commission agents and buyers on the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) yards, by touching hands under a handkerchief, whereby the price of the same commodity changes with every buyer. Not to forget, here is also the case of the market charges and commission rates charged to the farmers/sellers on these premises, which conveniently overshoot the officially mandated rates, thereby making the marketing costs prohibitive for them.

Dear Reader,

To continue reading, become a subscriber.

Explore our attractive subscription offers.

Click here


To gain instant access to this article (download).

INR 59

(Readers in India)

$ 6

(Readers outside India)

Published On : 13th Jan, 2024

Support Us

Your Support will ensure EPW’s financial viability and sustainability.

The EPW produces independent and public-spirited scholarship and analyses of contemporary affairs every week. EPW is one of the few publications that keep alive the spirit of intellectual inquiry in the Indian media.

Often described as a publication with a “social conscience,” EPW has never shied away from taking strong editorial positions. Our publication is free from political pressure, or commercial interests. Our editorial independence is our pride.

We rely on your support to continue the endeavour of highlighting the challenges faced by the disadvantaged, writings from the margins, and scholarship on the most pertinent issues that concern contemporary Indian society.

Every contribution is valuable for our future.