Resources Research

Culture and systems of knowledge, cultivation and food, population and consumption

Posts Tagged ‘2007

The big money in India’s cities

with 3 comments

Almost seven out of ten rupees banked in India are to be found in the top 100 centres. They account for 68.5% of the total bank deposits in India.

Almost seven out of ten rupees banked in India are to be found in the top 100 centres. They account for 68.5% of the total bank deposits in India.

The concentration of the country’s bank deposits in India’s urban centres can be seen in this detail from a table I have assembled using data from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

This is the quarterly series that the RBI puts out and is called ‘Quarterly Statistics on Deposits and Credit of Scheduled Commercial Banks’.

The intriguing table which forms the image is of the top 100 urban centres ranked by bank deposits, and arranged alphabetically, for the years 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013. The city names and total deposits (in crore rupees) are seen. This is the lower end of the table, and I have coloured ten cities to show how their deposits have changed over six years.

The rate of growth has been extremely steep. We have here Panaji, Patiala, Pune, Ranchi, Shillong, Thane, Thiruvananthapuram, Udaipur, Varanasi and Visakhapatnam for no reason other than their entries for all four years are visible. The patterns for the rest of the top 100 centres is generally the same.

For these ten cities, the average growth rate of their total bank deposits over these six years is 190%! This is most significant to us, especially considering the food inflation, the cost of cultivation, wage rates of agricultural labour and allied issues I write about in this diary. Have the wage rates for agricultural labour grown over these last six years at even one-third this average rate? Not at all.

RG-bank_urban_deposits_detailFrom this small set of ten cities alone, the lowest rate of growth of total bank deposits is 88% (Vishakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh) and the highest is 249% (Thane in Maharashtra).

The progression of the size of total deposits can be seen from Shillong (in Meghalaya) from Rs 2,577 crore in 2007 to Rs 8,311 crore in 2013 (which is dwarfed by the others). In Ranchi (Jharkhand) total bank deposits have grown from Rs 6,436 crore in 2007 to Rs 21,688 crore in 2013!

That is why the top 100 centres accounted for 68.5% of the total bank deposits in India – this is a ratio that has remained roughly the same for the last six years. In addition, as the ‘Quarterly Statistics’ has noted in its highlights, the top 100 centres also accounted for 76.9% of total bank credit.

And that is why it means little for central and state governments, and for businesses and NGOs and social entrepreneurships to talk about ‘financial inclusion’ when we have proof – quarter after quarter – of the persistence of financial inequality between India and Bharat.

Advertisements

Global governance, food security? What do these mean?

leave a comment »

Vendors in Mapusa, Goa

Vendors in Mapusa, Goa. The middle basket contains 'nachne', local millet

Are the current arrangements fit for the job? This is the question posed in a current discussion on FAO’s The Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum). The Forum is set up and managed by by FAO’s Agricultural Development Economics Division and, in their words, “is a community of practitioners currently reaching more than 2800 members” around the world.

The short intro to this discussion is: one of the consequences of the 2007-08 food price crisis was the emergence of a number of new institutions and initiatives that were intended to strengthen global capacities to respond to such situations. “You are invited to share views on how an effective global food governance system should work and on what major issues are to be addressed in order to ensure an adequate and safe food supply for all humans at all times.”

Here is my contribution to the discussion on ‘Global Governance for Food Security: are the current arrangements fit for the Job?’.

‘Global governance’ and ‘food security’ are not compatible ideas in present circumstances. If we look at the idea of ‘food security’, which development agencies and social scientists tend to agree is achieved by every family/household having enough to eat – and able to find and purchase that food easily – then this is only part of a way of living. That way of living, where the production and consumption of food is concerned, has for some years now been more aptly called ‘food sovereignty’. The difference between ‘security’ and ‘sovereignty’ is a major one, and governance – as it is commonly understood by UN agencies and development professionals – may apply to ‘security’ but hardly can to ‘sovereignty’.

So there is a difficulty with how this has been framed. Global governance is I’m sorry to say neither feasible under current economic conditions nor desirable from a cultural diversity point of view. It may have been a guiding principle in the mid-1930s when the League of Nations was created, and has been re-articulated in many forms – sometimes grandly, at other times in attempts to find peace and end conflict. The idea lies at the heart of many of the multidisciplinary efforts led by UN agencies, especially concerning human development, environment, healthcare, the right to education. It is at the core of the Millennium Development Goals programme. It remains, as it was more than 70 years ago, a fuzzy notion that does more to distract than to build. FAO needs to have nothing to do with such an idea.

Rice is still planted and harvested in the coastal talukas, but fields such as these are threatened by urbanisation

Rice is still planted and harvested in the coastal talukas, but fields such as these are threatened by urbanisation

The food crisis of 2007-08 is a point of extreme stress in the steady progress of the consolidation of the factors of food production and the organisation of the consumers of food products. In many ways, the ‘crisis’ began when the first fields were harvested with Green Revolution hybrids, and that was a long time ago. It is the growing concentration of capital in the post-harvest sequence – rather than in the people and households and villages who cultivate – that has led to the extreme food impoverishment which we first recognised in 2007-08 and promptly called a ‘crisis’.

This systemic difficulty continues simply because the same forces that, in public fora, in UN agencies, in corporate-industrial circles and within national policy, call for governance are also the forces that create legislation, treaties, trade agreements and multilateral institutions designed to sabotage all expressions of food sovereignty.

I have no doubt that within the ‘number of new institutions and initiatives’ there are also a number of people with the will and intention to help solve a problem that is found in many countries, many provinces and states. However, that does not make it a ‘global problem’. Some of the forces at work are international in scope and scale, such as the reach of the giant fertilisers corporations, the impact of the world’s major agricultural commodities exchanges, the dense links between grain trading cartels and the financial markets. These operate internationally, and the effects of deprivation and food price inflation are also seen in many countries. There are common elements, no doubt, but it is useful to distinguish elements that are common from the idea of ‘global’, for there will not be an inter-agency solution.

Identification of these problems, the reform of economic systems which permit such deprivation, and the creation and maintenance of social institutions (council of village elders for example) can only form locally and work locally. At best, there may be an exchange for methods and practice, available to all to participate in. That I think is what FAO should aim for on this subject.