Equalising Primary Food Consumption in India
Context
-
NSS Household Consumption Survey (2024) published after a decade enabled fresh poverty estimates.
-
World Bank (April 2025): India’s extreme poverty fell from 16.2% (2011-12) to 2.3% (2022-23).
-
Alternative view: Using “thali index” (balanced meal as a metric) → food deprivation still significant.
Conventional Poverty Measurement
-
Based on minimum income needed for specified caloric intake.
-
Physiological approach → focuses on calories, not overall nutrition/satisfaction.
Thali as a Metric
-
Thali = balanced meal (carbs, proteins, vitamins).
-
Crisil estimate: ₹30 per home-cooked thali.
-
Findings from NSS 2024:
-
Rural India: 50% population cannot afford 2 thalis/day.
-
Urban India: 20% population cannot afford 2 thalis/day.
-
-
Indicates higher food deprivation than World Bank poverty figures.
Role of Non-Food Expenditure
-
Households must spend on rent, health, education, transport, communication.
-
Food = residual expenditure → explains divergence with income-based poverty estimates.
Public Distribution System (PDS) and Food Deprivation
-
Adjusted food consumption (including PDS/free food):
-
Rural deprivation falls to 40%.
-
Urban deprivation falls to 10%.
-
-
Still high deprivation in rural areas despite PDS.
Subsidy Distribution
-
Rural: subsidy poorly targeted → top 5–10% also receive high subsidies.
-
Urban: more progressive, but still ~80% receive subsidies unnecessarily.
-
Example: Rural 90–95% fractile gets 88% subsidy of poorest 5%, though expenditure is 3× higher.
Key Observations from NSS Data
-
Cereal consumption equalised: same for poorest and richest → success of PDS.
-
Limits of PDS: cereals = only 10% of household expenditure → cannot end deprivation alone.
-
Pulses disparity: poorest consume half the pulses compared to richest → pulses = costly, main protein source.
Policy Proposals
-
Restructure PDS:
-
Reduce excessive cereal entitlements.
-
Eliminate subsidies for upper-income groups (≥2 thalis/day).
-
-
Expand PDS to Pulses:
-
Improve protein intake for poor.
-
Address nutritional inequality.
-
-
Rationalise subsidies:
-
Target lower-income groups.
-
Free fiscal space for other priorities.
-
-
Reduce FCI stock requirements → lower storage costs, better fiscal efficiency.
Significance
-
Current PDS: unwieldy, ineffective, spreads resources thin.
-
Proposed model: compact, targeted, nutrition-focused.
-
Could equalise primary food consumption → poorest households raised to consumption levels of richest.
-
Global significance: achieving near-universal equality in basic food access.
Related Posts
