Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?

by Rishi Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:20 pm

Swaminathan Aiyar also scuttled Sen’s pretentions by taking up Sen on his own calculations. Using figures for losses in the public distribution system caused by leakages and graft, he calculates that the Food Security Bill – which Sen claimed cost 1,000 lives per week due to non-implementation, or around 50,000 lives per annum – would cost at least Rs 50,000 crore more even according to official estimates.
Asks Aiyar: “Even if the Bill saves 50,000 lives, it will cost an additional Rs 50,000 crore. Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?”

http://www.firstpost.com/economy/food-bill-amartya-sens-charlatan-economics-debunked-again-944451.html?utm_source=frontpagepicks&utm_medium=hp

>>>> What do the great intellectuals of SuCH forum think about this?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Jul 20, 2013 2:34 pm

Rishi wrote:
Swaminathan Aiyar also scuttled Sen’s pretentions by taking up Sen on his own calculations. Using figures for losses in the public distribution system caused by leakages and graft, he calculates that the Food Security Bill – which Sen claimed cost 1,000 lives per week due to non-implementation, or around 50,000 lives per annum – would cost at least Rs 50,000 crore more even according to official estimates.
Asks Aiyar: “Even if the Bill saves 50,000 lives, it will cost an additional Rs 50,000 crore. Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?”

http://www.firstpost.com/economy/food-bill-amartya-sens-charlatan-economics-debunked-again-944451.html?utm_source=frontpagepicks&utm_medium=hp

>>>> What do the great intellectuals of SuCH forum think about this?

What is missing here is the money that will be made by the Queen and Prince of India.

by truthbetold Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:55 pm

Thanks for posting this. Good web site.

by rawemotions Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:26 am

Rishi wrote:
Swaminathan Aiyar also scuttled Sen’s pretentions by taking up Sen on his own calculations. Using figures for losses in the public distribution system caused by leakages and graft, he calculates that the Food Security Bill – which Sen claimed cost 1,000 lives per week due to non-implementation, or around 50,000 lives per annum – would cost at least Rs 50,000 crore more even according to official estimates.
Asks Aiyar: “Even if the Bill saves 50,000 lives, it will cost an additional Rs 50,000 crore. Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?”

http://www.firstpost.com/economy/food-bill-amartya-sens-charlatan-economics-debunked-again-944451.html?utm_source=frontpagepicks&utm_medium=hp

>>>> What do the great intellectuals of SuCH forum think about this?
I have a question. Why are as alleged 1000 lives per week being lost, despite Congress/UPA being in power for 10 years and Congress being in power for almost 50 of the past 60 years. It is time for Congress to go to opposition and let some one else do the job, rather than bull dozing institutions like CBI for political gains.

by Merlot Daruwala Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:35 am

Rishi wrote:>>>> What do the great intellectuals of SuCH forum think about this?

The great intellectuals of SuCH forum are social liberals but fiscal conservatives. So while their hearts bleed for the unwashed, hungry masses, you won't see any support for any wasteful, taxpayer funded, election-time largesse here.

by Idéfix Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:08 am

Of all the arguments listed in that article, I find Aiyar's the weakest. The claimed benefits of the food security bill are to about 800 million people. Among the claimed benefits of the bill are: (a) preventing 1,000 child deaths a week, (b) reducing malnutrition for millions of children, which has large effects on health and education and thereby on future GDP, (c) ensuring food security for 800 million people, which also has socioeconomic benefits. Aiyar takes the total cost of the bill and divides it by the number associated with the first benefit alone. So the "Rs. 1 crore per head" phrase you chose for your thread title is wrong.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:43 am

The arithmetic apart, any scheme for redistribution, which depends on the government's dysfunctional arms to reach its beneficiaries, is doomed to failure.

Knowing how inefficiently the existing schemes run, to clamor for more of the same in the name of inclusive economics, is irresponsible and in fact, criminal. I can understand why the Congress would push for this, but to see respected economists bat for it is a sad spectacle. Surely they should know better.

by Idéfix Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:51 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:The arithmetic apart, any scheme for redistribution, which depends on the government's dysfunctional arms to reach its beneficiaries, is doomed to failure.

Knowing how inefficiently the existing schemes run, to clamor for more of the same in the name of inclusive economics, is irresponsible and in fact, criminal. I can understand why the Congress would push for this, but to see respected economists bat for it is a sad spectacle. Surely they should know better.

I thought there was an experiment being tried in AP to replace the broken TPDS with direct cash transfers to the beneficiaries. It intuitively sounds to me like the right direction to go. I wonder how that is going, and how the government can hope to justify this proposal for more money to a broken system.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:42 am

I don't think PDS has been replaced anywhere with direct transfers. In AP, they started with pension payments earlier this year. In some districts of Karnataka and HP, they started DBT of LPG subsidy. The biggest hurdle to scaling this is the incomplete enrolment in Aadhar and also the lack of Aadhar-linked, low-cost bank accounts.

by truthbetold Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:48 am

Mid day meals scheme was also riddled with implementation problems. Latest tragedies confirm that. However it is generally agreed that retention rates at elementary level have improved significantly in ap and tn and perhaps across india.
Can food security get some results despite problems?
Can India afford it? No.
which is a better subsidy? Petrol and diesel for transportation or food for people?

by yogi Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:27 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:The arithmetic apart, any scheme for redistribution, which depends on the government's dysfunctional arms to reach its beneficiaries, is doomed to failure.

Knowing how inefficiently the existing schemes run, to clamor for more of the same in the name of inclusive economics, is irresponsible and in fact, criminal. I can understand why the Congress would push for this, but to see respected economists bat for it is a sad spectacle. Surely they should know better.
I thought there was an experiment being tried in AP to replace the broken TPDS with direct cash transfers to the beneficiaries. It intuitively sounds to me like the right direction to go. I wonder how that is going, and how the government can hope to justify this proposal for more money to a broken system.

Direct benefits transfer is the experiment you're talking about. It isn't replacing pds but it aims to stop the leakages in funds by directly transferring funds to citizens. As of now it is being implemented for gas subsidy and student scholarships.

by Idéfix Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:34 pm

Yes, Direct Benefits Transfer is what I had in mind. Here is the news story announcing the launch of a pilot in AP replacing PDS subsidies with cash transfers.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/jairam-ramesh-to-launch-direct-benefit-transfer-scheme/article4237445.ece

I don't know the status of the pilot and whether it is a success. If it succeeds, I don't see why the government needs to continue administering the complex, inefficient, and graft-ridden PDS.

by yogi Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:42 pm

DBT is not a replacement to PDS.

http://www.pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=91274

by Idéfix Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:47 pm

yogi wrote:DBT is not a replacement to PDS.

http://www.pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=91274

Thanks -- that clears it up nicely. I wonder why they explicitly chose to keep food subsidies out of scope for DBT, and instead declare a commitment to the Food Security Act. I don't see a rationale provided.

by Sponsored content

Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?

Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?

Re: Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?

Re: Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?

Re: Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?

Re: Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?

Re: Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?

Re: Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?

Re: Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?

Re: Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?

Re: Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?

Re: Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?

Re: Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?

Re: Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?

Re: Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?

Re: Aren’t there cheaper ways of saving lives than Rs 1 crore per head?