Food first Takeaways from global hunger report

The Indian economy is typified by dualism. We can take credit for being the fastest growing
economy. Our potential is vindicated by the large flows of foreign investment over the years. India
will remain probably the top three fastest growing nations for at least another decade.
But we also have witnessed growing inequality where the disparity between the haves and have nots
has exacerbated over time. The trickle-down theory has not quite worked.
There is impatience when it comes to achieving something new — roads, technology, high speed
trains and the like. In this haste we tend to ignore the concept of quality of life. This is what is
reflected in the Global Hunger Report.
The indignation expressed over the GHR (an index where India has been ranked 107 out of 121 with a
‘serious’ malnutrition score) is probably justified. The report is based on a survey of 3,000 people
which may not be representative of the true picture. But then even the Ease of Doing Business ranking
(which has been withdrawn due to methodological issues), that gave us a big promotion to 63 in 2019,
had a sample of less than 100. So clearly all these methodologies have limitations.
Need for introspection
But we need to do some introspection to address the issue, as a country that has made remarkable
strides in growth numbers, the trickle down effects are weak. The silver lining is that with effective
policies we can tackle the problem.
It has been counter-argued that the government has been spending a lot on welfare which is true.
There is the PM Kisan scheme where cash is transferred and the PMGKAY scheme which has
provided support to over 800 million people in the last two years and continues to do so. The
challenge is to make this money work better.
The GHR looks at the level of malnutrition (across population) and associated height and weight of
children besides infant mortality. A theorist would question the criteria as these variables are related
to each other and hence involves multiple counting. Yet the question to be asked is whether we can do
better.
The onus is really on all three levels of government — Centre, States and local (municipals or
panchayats) to ensure that delivery of a food package is available to all children. This is important
because the country does have the advantage of a favourable demographic composition. A
prerequisite for earning any dividend from this transition is a healthy young population. We do have
some effective templates which are already being implemented in some States.
Mid-day meals 
First, States such as Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh have been running a mid-day meal
scheme for children which have made an impact. The idea is to spread this scheme to all States. In
fact, it may make sense for the Finance Commission to specify a proportion of the Budget to be
allocated for mid-day meal schemes.
Alternatively if it is Centrally sponsored, it can be earmarked for this purpose. The meals must adhere
to strict quality norms linked with calorie intake, where the frequency can be increased to twice a day.
Second, the Centre can consider revamping the PM-Kisan Scheme where annual outlays are around
₹60,000-68,000 crore. Around half of this allocation should be set aside for promotion of nutrition for
children through a meal scheme that covers all government-run schools. The panchayats can be
assigned the task of providing meals in the homes of the children who do not go to school.
Third, it is mandatory for corporates to keep aside 2 per cent of profits for CSR. They usually
channelise funds to schools where water coolers or computers are provided. This has added value for
sure.
As part of this exercise of improving nutrition levels of children, an alternative could be to map all
corporates involved in schools to deploy this 2 per cent of profits to specific schools in remote areas
and tie up with kitchens which provide the meals.
The government would also be helping to set up kitchens formally across the country that would cater
to these requirements. Despite the methodological short-commings, there may, after all, be some
useful takeaways from the GHR.
The writer is Chief Economist, Bank of Baroda. Views expressed are personal
Why was Liz Truss' tenure so short and now what
British Prime Minister Liz Truss took office last month with hopes and promises of reinvigorating the
British economy and putting it on the path to long-term success.
It didn't go to plan.
Instead, Truss' tenure was scarred by turmoil as her economic policies threatened the country's
financial stability, driving the pound to record lows, sparking chaos on bond markets and increasing
mortgage costs for millions of people.
Though Truss took office amid a cost-of-living crisis, the war in Ukraine and the lingering effects of
the Covid-19 pandemic, her decision to announce £105 billion ($116 billion) of tax cuts and spending
increases without providing details on how she would pay for it unnerved investors, who warned of
soaring public debt.
That undermined confidence in the government's ability to pay its bills and raised questions about the
economic credentials of a new prime minister who took office after a deeply divisive contest for
leadership of the governing Conservative Party.
The disarray surrounding the economic plan weakened Truss's authority as Prime Minister, and
ultimately led to her decision to resign on Thursday.
What happens now
The party says it will select a new leader and prime minister by October 28. Truss will remain prime
minister until then.
To avoid the need for a lengthy election campaign that could have left the country without an
effective government for weeks, party leaders decided that lawmakers would have greater say in the
choice and without weeks of hustings around the country.
Graham Brady, senior Conservative lawmaker, said each candidate must secure 100 nominations from
legislators to run in the race that will conclude by next Friday
Under the expedited process, challengers for the leadership must garner the support of 100 other
Conservative lawmakers — out of a total 357 — by Monday afternoon. That means a maximum field
of three for lawmakers to vote on. The last-placed candidate would then be eliminated and the top two
candidates will face an online vote of the party membership.
Conservative leaders are hoping that this lightning contest will produce a consensus candidate who
can unite the party behind the tax and spending priorities Treasury chief Jeremy Hunt has already
outlined.
What are the big hurdles
The first challenge will come just days after the new prime minister takes office, when Hunt delivers
his fiscal plan to the House of Commons on Oct. 31.
Truss triggered the crisis that led to her downfall when she and Hunt's predecessor unveiled plans for
sweeping tax cuts without saying how they would pay for them and without providing independent
analysis of their impact on government finances.
Since taking office last week, Hunt has reversed most of those cuts and promised to cut government
debt as a percentage of economic output in the coming years.
He has also warned that painful spending cuts will be needed during what’s likely to be a
“difficult” winter |
Opposition parties and some Conservative lawmakers are already pushing for increased spending in
areas such as healthcare, welfare benefits, state pensions and free school lunches to shield the poorest
in society from spiraling prices.
Why doesn’t the UK have a general election
Legally, the government isn't required to call an election until December 2024, five years after the
Conservatives won a landslide victory under the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
But opposition parties and some members of the public are demanding an immediate election after the
uproar of recent months. Truss was forced out of office after less than two months on the job and she
followed Johnson, who resigned after his authority was undermined by a series of scandals.
The damage done by Truss and Johnson has cratered support for the Conservatives, with some
analysts suggesting they would lose many seats if an election were held today. Because of this, the
new prime minister is expected to resist calls for an early election, and instead try to use the next two
years to rebuild confidence before going to voters.
David Lawrence, a research fellow at the Chatham House think tank in London, said people are likely
to be focused on the cost-of-living crisis and soaring energy bills this winter, and that gives the
Conservatives time to try to change the narrative.
“I think what will matter most in the next election is how the prime minister, the government has dealt
with those challenges,” he said.
“So if the new Conservative leader believes that they can take control of the energy crisis … and that
the cost-of-living crisis is dealt with, that people feel they have more money in their pockets by the
time of the next election, I think that's the best they can hope for.”
But the pressure for an election may be difficult to resist.
“At the end of the day, the constitution doesn't require it, but … I agree with the principle that we
should test the new prime minister in reasonably short order, rather than wait until potentially January
2025,” Conservative lawmaker Mark Garnier told the BBC on Thursday.
“I think people would be furious, rightly furious” if we didn't hold an election.