Chapter /


 In fact, to put the argument in terms of export crops versus food crops is rather misleading.

 The evidence is that often food crops and export crops flourish or decline together.
 Government policies towards the agriculture sector as a whole are more important than
 incentives towards one type of production rather than another. If export agriculture
 flourishes, the chances are food production does as well, and vice versa. However, it is
 sometimes the case that infrastructure and research favour export crops. Governments could
 take a greater lead in encouraging and providing these services to food crop farmers.

 Valid concerns about food security being damaged as a result of dependence on food imports
 do exist. This is particularly the case where countries have access to world markets on
 distorted price terms, for example through an overvalued exchange rate or because of the
 ready availability of concessional food aid imports. Governments may be tempted to ignore
 the domestic agricultural sector, and if policy discriminates against food production, then
 this can reduce the entitlements of those who make a living from the production and
 distribution of food. If imported food does not reach the rural areas, because marketing
 channels are not adequately developed, then the price of domestically produced food may
 rise and affect access to food, for the rural poor in particular. The issues are about how the
 benefits from agricultural production are distributed and the efficiency of the marketing
System. Taking this into account it is reasonable to suggest that in low income countries,
 where marketing systems are not well developed, food security may well be best served by
 encouraging greater food production.

 4.2.2 Subsistence farming versus market integration the household level arguments

 Similar arguments, about the risks of commercialization and market dependence are often
 made at the level of the farm household. It is argued that food insecurity is increased when
 the poor become more dependent on markets for their food. One eminent economist argues
 that:

 the farther away from direct food cultivation a group is, i.e. the more markets it has to go
 through to convert endowments into actual consumption, the more liable to starvation it
 is. Thus, cattlemen of Sahel and Ethiopia, the fishermen of Bengal or tradesmen suffer
 more than agricultural labourers who suffer more than sharecroppers and peasant
 cultivators... Contrary to market intermediation bringing smooth and beneficient
 outcomes, it is those who do not have to go through a purchase or sale to convert their
 income into consumption who are least vulnerable to a decline in real grain wage. The
 direct producer of grain, either as landowner or sharecropper and the worker who
 receives a grain wage are safer than he who receives money rent or money wage.

 Desai, quoted in S. Devereux, 1993.

 This is all argument about the nature of markets in many countries, and also about the risk
 attached to different kinds of entitlement, especially for the very poor. Markets are seen to be
 volatile, vulnerable to hoarding and speculation which will result in exaggerated price rises
 when harvests are bad. In this context, the risks of depending on markets for food, especially
 in times of scarcity, are assumed to be worse than the risks of crop failure.


 24-