Price
movements are fundamentally about income distribution.
When prices of certain commodities go up faster than
others, it implies reduced real incomes of those who
sell the latter. The most obvious direct effect is
of course on real wages - because when the price of
labour, or money wages, does not keep pace with the
items that form the consumption basket of workers,
it implies reduced real wages of workers. But other
categories of workers are also affected: when agricultural
crop prices do not go up as much as input costs for
cultivation, or other goods that farmers have to buy,
it affects the real incomes of farmers. Similarly
for non-agricultural petty producers, who can also
be considered as self-employed workers.
That is why prices are also political, or rather,
why inflation can be such a hot political issue especially
before elections. The general perception is that high
inflation is unpopular, for the obvious reason that
it cuts into the real income of most people. Therefore,
in the middle of last year when the increase in prices
had become an issue of widespread concern, it essentially
reflected the concern that this was impacting on the
real incomes of most ordinary people.
The recent decline in inflation rates - on which more
below - has led many to believe that this is no longer
a concern. But in terms of political impact, what
needs to be examined is the extent to which inflation
of the past few years has affected real incomes. In
other words, do people feel better or worse off than
they did five years ago when the UPA government came
to power?
It is important in this regard to be aware of the
difference between inflation and price levels. Inflation
refers to the change in prices, and any positive rate
of inflation, however low, indicates that prices are
rising. So even if the inflation rate is coming down,
that does not mean that prices are coming down, it
only means that prices are increasing at a slower
rate than before. This is a mistake commonly made
by media commentators, who confuse a decline in inflation
rates with a decline in prices. If prices themselves
actually come down, then that is deflation.
Why does this matter? Because even if the inflation
rate slow down or comes down to zero, it simply means
that the price level stays at the level it had reached,
which may be felt to be a very high level by those
whose nominal incomes have not increased. So if prices
had risen very dramatically last year, but have now
slowed down, this may still be experienced as very
high price levels by those whose wages and salaries
have not increased much over the whole period.
The accompanying chart shows how consumer prices -
the price of the basket of goods estimated to be consumed
by different groups of workers - have moved since
April 2004, just before the last general elections.
Some points of note emerge from this chart. First,
overall inflation has been quite high for both sets
of workers over this period, with consumer prices
increasing by around 40 per cent over this five year
period. It is extremely unlikely that nominal wage
incomes for most workers in urban or rural areas have
increased by that much in this period, although we
will have to wait for large sample survey data before
we can check on this. Certainly the large sample survey
data suggested little change in nominal wage and self
employed incomes between 1999-2000 and 2004-05, especially
in the informal sector. It is likely that this trend
has continued into the past five years as well. For
a significant proportion of self-employed workers
such as home-based workers, micro case studies suggest
that nominal remuneration has even declined in recent
times, suggesting that real incomes have plummeted
quite dramatically.
Chart
1 >> Click
to Enlarge
Second, while the consumer price index for industrial
workers was increasing more rapidly until October
2006, thereafter the index for agricultural labourers
has been moving up more rapidly. The main reason is
probably the faster increase in the price of food,
since the food index even for industrial workers has
moved up more rapidly since October 2006.
But higher inflation need not always be the greater
problem - in fact, sometimes the opposite can be true!
This is not always and inevitably the case - it depends
on what is happening to nominal incomes as well. So
even falling inflation can be of concern, if the nominal
incomes of enough people fall even faster. And deflation,
if is associated with declining economic activity
and employment, can be really bad news.
That is why the news, on 19 March, that the wholesale
price index (WPI) for all commodities had barely increased
on an annual basis, increasing at the historically
low rate of 0.44 per cent, gave rise to mixed reactions.
Some welcomed it, feeling that it reflected an easing
of the inflationary pressures that seemed so marked
just a few months ago, in the middle of last year.
Others (notably the Chairman of the Prime Minister's
Economic Advisory Council) dismissed the lower inflation
rate as nothing but “a base effect” of the earlier
high prices, as the economy stabilises at those price
levels. Others were actually alarmed at this possible
sign that the economy is entering a deflationary phase,
in which output and employment may even shrink.
Yet hardly any commentators dwelt on the income distribution
aspect of the inflation, which is arguably the most
significant consequence, at least politically. To
understand the distributive implications, the overall
inflation rate has to be unpackaged into its component
parts, to understand which sectors and which categories
of producers and consumers are affected in different
ways.
An examination of the disaggregated changes in the
latest WPI numbers throws up some surprising, even
alarming, results. The accompanying table provides
information on year-on-year percentage changes (or
annual inflation rates) for different categories of
goods.
Table
1: Percentage change in prices between 8 March
2008 and 7 March 2009 |
Category
|
Per cent change |
All
commodities |
0.44 |
Food articles |
7.35 |
Foodgrains |
10.24 |
Cereals |
10.16 |
Pulses |
10.97 |
Fruits & vegetables |
5.13 |
Eggs meat & fish |
3.89 |
Edible oils |
-9.78 |
Other food articles |
21.60 |
Non-food primary articles |
-1.72 |
Fibres |
1.73 |
Oilseeds |
-5.23 |
Minerals |
-1.21 |
Fuel, power light &
lubricants |
-0.75 |
Manufactured products |
1.32 |
Food products |
6.03 |
Beverages & tobacco |
8.96 |
Drugs & medicines |
4.45 |
Textiles |
8.41 |
Wood & wood products |
10.05 |
Paper & products |
4.77 |
Leather & products |
1.82 |
Rubber & plastic
products |
2.32 |
Chemicals & products |
1.61 |
Fertilisers & pesticides |
5.13 |
Non-metallic mineral
products |
2.16 |
Cement |
1.22 |
Metals & metal products |
-11.47 |
Iron & steel |
-16.65 |
Non-ferrous metals |
-10.49 |
Machinery & machine
tools |
2.56 |
Transport equipment |
2.69 |
Table
1 >> Click
to Enlarge
SWhile overall inflation has indeed slowed down to
almost no change in the aggregate price level, food
prices have continued to increase. Food grain prices
have gone up the most - by more than 10 per cent -
and this cannot be blamed on higher procurement prices
alone, since the prices of pulses, which are not covered
by public procurement, have also gone up just as much.
The prices of fruits and vegetables and eggs, fish
and meat have also increased, even if not by as much
as for food grains. The only food category for which
prices have fallen is edible oils, which reflects
the decline in oilseed prices as world prices have
crashed. Other food articles' prices have increased
by more than one-fifth in this one year.
So all householders who wonder how inflation could
be falling when they keep facing higher prices when
they go to the market are right in one important respect
- food prices are indeed still rising, despite the
stability of the overall price level. And this will
obviously affect household budgets, especially among
the poor for whom food still accounts for more than
half of total household expenditure. It is worth remembering
that food prices have always been politically sensitive:
there are elections that are supposed to have been
won or lost over the price of onions...
Another major item of essential consumption has also
increased in price: that of drugs and medicines has
gone up by 4.5 per cent, which obviously impacts upon
the entire population, but especially the bottom half
of the population who may find it extremely difficult
if not impossible to meet such expenditures in times
of stringency.
But these are not the only disturbing things about
the disaggregated data. A remarkable feature is how
non-food primary product prices have moved. The prices
of fibres - mainly cotton, jute and silk - have barely
increased at all. Oilseed prices have fallen by more
than 5 per cent. This immediately affects all the
producers of cash crops, who will be getting the same
or less for their products even as they pay significantly
more for food. They are also paying more for fertiliser
and pesticides, whose prices have increased by more
than 5 per cent.
Meanwhile, several manufactured goods have also declined
in price over the past year. Some of the sharpest
price declines have occurred in iron and steel (a
decline of nearly 17 per cent) and non-ferrous metals
(a decline of nearly 11 per cent). This has happened
mostly in the very recent period, as the impact of
the global recession fed into trade prices. Indeed,
the sheer rapidity and extent of the price changes
for traded goods is remarkable.
For example, the price of fibres rose by 12.1 per
cent between 8 March 2008 and 10 January 2009, and
then plummeted by 9.3 per cent in just the past two
months. While some of this can be explained by seasonality
(such as the cotton harvest that comes around December-January)
the decline this year is much sharper than previous
years and reflects international prices as well. Overall,
the price index of manufactured goods increased slightly
by 2 per cent until 10 January, and subsequently fell
by 0.65 per cent to 7 March 2009.
What does all this add up to? What it suggests is
a worrying combination of falling prices faced by
agriculturalists who produce cash crops as well as
petty producers and others who produce manufactured
goods, even as the prices of essential items like
food and medicines continue to rise. These groups
and their families alone account for the majority
of the population in the country. The latest figures
ought to worry the government that is still in power,
for this combination could amount to electoral dynamite.