RA 00048.pdf - OAR@ICRISAT

interpretations can be given to the critique. On
one extreme, some may conclude that the goals
are unattainable even on a theoretical level—that
the existing market structure is such that state
intervention is not necessary and. even stronger,
that it aggravates the perceived inequities. It can
also be taken to mean that the goals are incorrect
—that other goals are more important and that
they should be redefined. There are still others
who believe that the goals are genuine and
attainable, but that the policies undertaken to
achieve them have been ill-designed.
The specific conclusion drawn depends largely
on the ideological perspective of the writer. Three
distinct points of view exist: The free marketer
believes that the market, unfettered by government
intervention, distributes goods most efficiently.
The practical free marketer prefers the
free market solution, but admits that the government,
for political and other reasons, will not
easily dismantle the elaborate grain marketing
structures it has erected. The third point of view is
that an economically efficient solution is not most
important, but that the equity goal of the government
to offer stable, fair prices to producers and
stable, affordable prices to consumers is correct.
Generally, the writers pick and choose among the
evidence to support their belief.
Two important points emerge from these
discussions." The free market perspective, alone
or coupled with institutional realities, suggests
that state intervention, for the purpose of stabilizing
prices and redistributing grain, is (a) not
necessary and (b) not practical, because of insufficient
infrastructure and trained personnel. It is not
an efficient solution to the problem. Here the first
two perspectives diverge. The second joins the
third and admits that the West African governments
have a strong political commitment to state
intervention. In the long run, these economies
may be better off with no marketing agencies, but
in the short run it may be difficult to eliminate
them. They conclude that the important questions
are: what has gone wrong up to now, why, and
11. All three perspectives are agreed that there is a role
for the state in constituting and controlling security
stocks. It is a public good—an acceptable and
desirable domain for government intervention and
one that would not be fulfilled otherwise. The free
marketer believes the government should concentrate
all its efforts here.
what, if anything, can be done (by changing their
goals and/or their methods of operation) to make
them effective and efficient.
The feasibility of trying to attain food selfsufficiency
by offering low consumer prices and
adequate producer prices must be examined. Are
they conflicting goals? If so, which is more
important and how can it best be attained? What
are the trade-offs? The role of the public sector in
grain marketing must be reassessed, and alternative
marketing arrangements (public marketing
boards, private trade, and farmers' cooperatives)
in solo, or in combination, considered.
The wealth accumulation of private traders
seems distasteful to all but the traders themselves;
however, it is also recognized that their
profit motive makes them extremely efficient, and
they are likely to continue accumulating wealth if
given the chance. Is there some way that the
private sector and entrepreneurial initiative can be
fitted into the development scheme, instead of
trying to squelch it? Can the private grain traders,
for example, be encouraged to participate in the
distribution of inputs?
The last issue deals with changing consumer
preferences. Should shifts in taste to more
western, nonindigenously abundant goods (rice
and wheat products—bread and macaroni), be
encouraged or discouraged, and how? This question
is as equally important from a production as
from a marketing perspective. Price policies,
research priorities, and the emphasis on developing
improved technologies for one grain versus
another, affect the relative quantities of different
grains produced. Irrigated rice, for example, may
be less risky, but it is also more costly in terms of
capital resources. The consumption effects of
production policies cannot be overlooked. Are
items such as irrigated rice just a substitute for a
cash crop?
Research Priorities
Future research on marketing in the WASAT must
be designed to provide the broad range of
information about both peasant and trader behavior
patterns, market structure and regional
flows of grain that is necessary to make effective
policy. Unfortunately, research that is not either
policy oriented, or motivated by policy concerns is
unlikely to meet the policy maker's needs. This
results in policy with insufficient data or necessi-
654