Right to Food

Economics I tutorial (draft)

Prashant Sreenivasan 211076

Introduction
The right to food is a fight on mainly a social front to ensure that humankind does not starve when there is an adequate supply to meet the needs of those who are starving. It is one of the missions of the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation). In India the right to food has its origins in the case of PUCL writ petition in the Supreme Court. This case led to a policy implementation by the Supreme Court to the effect of prodding the government into action into creating a bill for ensuring food for the poor. The main bone of contention now about the Right to food is the implementation of policy put forward. There are two versions of the National Food Security Bill one made by the National Advisory Council (NAC) and the proposed bill by the government which is an edited version of the NAC draft. There are multiple differences between the two versions, ranging from the public distribution system, emergency provisions, care for pregnant women and overall governance of the policy. The differences between the bills are in favour of the government and its financing of the policy. This essay will focus analysing the economic and social implications of the Right to Food with respect to employment with the assumption of the existing system of Public Distribution System(PDS) as the sole provider and enforcer of this right. There will also be a focus on comparing the two drafts of the proposed bill and trace the gains and losses from both the perspective of the government and citizens.

Right to Food using a Targeted Public Distribution System: Effect on Employment.

The major hurdle in implementing the right to food is the cost to the government, due to which the government has cut out many features of the original proposed draft by the NAC. The cost incurred by the government is not only the cost of subsidising the grains to be supplied but also a possible loss in production of goods and services in the country which is their main source of income. The government would like to subsidise the food only for those that it believes cannot afford food at market price. It uses a targeted system of Public Distribution system to provide those who fall below the poverty line with the subsidised food. Using game theory and Nashs equilibrium, a possible theory on the loss incurred by the government is detailed below.

Game theory: Would people work or shirk their work due to the Right to Food?
Assumptions of this game are: 1) Only gain people are concerned about is food. There is no concern about status or prestige or education. 2) Focus is only on poor and middle class people. 3) The Public Distribution System adequately subsidizes food only for those below the poverty line.

4) Employment is available to anyone who desires to be employed. 5) People will follow rational logic and try to extract most gain from least amount of work. 6) It is a sequential game where the government makes the first move by introducing the policy, and the citizens move is a reaction to the governments policy. Explanation for the Assumptions: 1) The first assumption is based on the well known and accepted Hierarchy of Needs by Abraham Maslow1. As illustrated below, the hierarchy of needs start from the lowest level of the pyramid and go upwards to the highest. Only on satisfaction of a lower level need will a person crave the higher level need. As seen below food is part of the

basic physiological need whereas employment, and status (respect from others) are seen in the higher levels of needs. Above: Maslows Hierarchy of Needs2 2) Focus is only on these two groups as they main affected parties of the Right to Food, richer classes of people will not benefit from the right as they can purchase their food needs. 3) This assumption is made based on the existence of schemes like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Scheme, which guarantees work for atleast 100 days a year. 4) This based on normal human logic as no human would work harder than the gain they are to receive. Rational human beings try to reduce work as much as possible while trying to attain maximum results.

1 2

Maslow, A.H. (1943). "A Theory of Human Motivation," Psychological Review 50(4): 370-96. Ibid.

Game theory Matrix: Citizens/ Nation Work Shirk Right to food (4,8) (3,-3) No right to food (5, 10) (0,0)

The values represented above are given in relative utility to both government and citizens. The first value (x,--) represents the value in utils to the citizen and the second value (--,x) represents the value in utils to the government. The citizens value represents the economic gain they achieve in terms of food for each situation. The governments value represents the economic gain/loss due to creation of goods and service which result in taxable income / the subsidy provided under the policy. The value of (0, 0) in the matrix occurs when there is no right to food policy and the citizens shirk their work. The government does not gain any value in this case as no work is being done and therefore no taxable income for the government. The citizens do not gain any utility either as they receive no benefits if they shirk their work under this policy. The value of (3,-3) occurs when there is a right to food policy and the citizens shirk their work. In this case the government only makes a loss in utils as economically it is providing subsidies even though there is no income from creation of goods or services. The citizens on the other hand gain from this without doing any work they are able to meet their food utility needs due to the right to food policy. The value of (4,8) occurs when there is right to food policy and the citizens do their work. In this case the government though gaining from the work done by citizens by taxes from the production of goods and services, still have to spend an amount on subsidizing food, thereby do not earn as much as capable. The citizens too do not earn their potential utility as some citizens on working, cross the Poverty Line (PL) and therefore will have to pay a higher price for their goods as the subsidies are lower for those Above the Poverty Line (APL) as per the policy3. But those whose income is still lower than the PL and are considered BPL will be able to gain more value as they can purchase food at a lower cost. The value of (5, 10) occurs when there is no right to food policy and citizens do their work. The government gains as the total income from taxes is not spent on any subsidies. The citizens too are able to earn more as they are required to work to earn their basic need of food. They are all treated equally and are given the same prices for food irrespective of their status.

Ananya Mukhurjee Reed, The Wrongs about the Right to Food, Outlook, Sep 08, 2010. Available at: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267030. Last accessed: 4th October, 2012. 23:00.

But this affects those who have a much lower income whom despite their working might not be able to afford food. The dominant strategy for the government is No right to food, as in both cases, it gains if there is no right to food. The citizens dominant strategy would be to work as they gain more if they work as compared to if they dont work. But if we take right to food as the existing policy, the possibility for citizens to shirk will be higher and therefore may not gain as much utility as a whole due to achieving their aim with a lower amount of effort. Moreover, the main catch for citizens would also be the fact that by working and earning money, they may longer fall below the BPL and be able to take advantage of the right to food in its present state which uses a targeted Public Distribution system as per the government draft. Therefore Nashs equilibrium occurs at (5, 10) where both the dominant strategies intersect. Therefore on the basis of a purely economic solution the total utility created in terms of cost savings and earnings would be if there was no right to food. However, this is a purely idealistic theory based on only economics without adding the real and social elements.

Social factors affecting Economic analysis of Right to Food

As stated above the economic analysis and choices made on purely economic decisions and assumptions of policies that are working with ideal results. The assumptions do not take in social or real factors into account. These factors are given below: 1. Inefficiency of the MNREGA and NFFWP: The MNREGA which guarantees employment at the minimum wage for atleast a 100 days in a year is sound only in policy. The real life scenario is very different. The wages are much lower than the minimum wage in the policy4 in the NFFWP. Many people employed were found to be fake as per the muster roles5 and the money is pocketed by middlemen. Therefore the assumption of employment being available to all is only by policy and not in real life. 2. Disasters and Natural disasters are not taken into account: In situations like drought and famine as described in the PUCL case6 , the economic sense in not giving people a right to food makes no sense as in a time of emergency and natural disaster it is not the fault of the people for their inability to earn and buy food. 3. Inhumane to deny food to starving persons: It is incredibly inhumane to be denying people food on the grounds of being too poor to afford it especially when there are
4

Jean Dreze, Loot for Work Progamme, The Times of India, Jul 01, 2005. Available at: Http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2005-07-01/edit-page/27850162_1_rolls-districts-public-scrutiny. Last Accessed: 4th October, 2012. 23:00 5 Ibid. 6 PUCL v Union of India. WP 196 of 2001.

buffer stocks available and rotting 7 . Every person should have a right to food to survive as they have a right to life as enshrined in the constitution under art.21. This constitutional duty of our government is one that goes beyond economic ability as laid down in Paschim Bangal Khet Mazdoor Samity v State of W. Bengal8 .

Conclusion
The PDS is the main problem with regards to the draft as proposed by the government. It effectively makes the bill almost redundant in effect as it results in the bill resembling the already existing solution of subsidizing food grains for only one target group. The revamping of the PDS in terms of procurement, inclusivity and reach is the only way to bring down hunger in India. An emergency based dispersion of grains for natural disasters is one of the main drawbacks of the government draft as compared to the NAC draft and should be included to address such a critical issue. The right to food has very different dynamics when looked at economically and socially. On an economic front, it goes against the very spirit of capitalism and a working economy by providing everyone with a basic need without working or contributing to get it. The spirit of capitalism is like the old proverb of What you sow is what you reap and government intervention to give those who have not worked the same benefits as those who have, defies the economic sensibilities of capitalists. But on a social and welfare front it is impossible to see it in this logic. It is normal human tendencies which would try to prevent starvation by ensuring food for all especially when there is a surplus of food. On a legal front it raises a simple question of, whether a right to food would mean legal responsibility of the government for every case of starvation due to lack of access i.e. would people be able to file a suit against the government for failing to prevent a loss of life due to starvation?

Ibid.

(1996) 4 SCC 37