Dhu owns the fruit and has the right to sell the fruit to whomsoever he seems right. Kus can pay the highest price and should get to buy the fruit. Dhu can charge a “Rae surcharge” to fund Rae’s fruit given Rae is incapable to grow/pay. With the balance money, Dhu should should grow fruit for self consumption.

Mostly Economics

A superb paper by Srijit Mishra of IGIDR.

The question of hunger, more often than not, is not due to non‐availability of food; it rather is a question of how to make the available food accessible to all (1). Again, provisioning of food for the hungry is not just to ensure that people eat. It also matters to look into issues of how much and what food people eat ‐ an adequate, balanced and nutritious diet matters. Concerns with regard to the recent global food crisis brought into focus spiralling prices and some reduction in availability (2‐3), but there also one cannot keep it independent from the concerns of accessibility and nutritional adequacy (4‐5). Bringing together these divergent issues is a challenge for economic thinking, public policy and ethics.

It is in this context that the current write‐up proposes to raise issues on food security of vulnerable sections of the population, crisis in Indian agriculture, inadequate storage…

View original post 1,167 more words


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s