Skip to content

Category: Micro

The Causes and Consequences of Food Price Volatility

From a longer IRIN article published last week:

Recent responses to high prices have increasingly tended to focus on reducing price volatility — sharp fluctuations in food prices.

G20 countries in their June 2011 ministerial declaration recommended measures such as building grain reserves, a global market information system and regulating financial transactions in commodities markets.

But economists like Brian Wright, professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Christopher Barrett, professor of applied economics at Cornell University, believe more emphasis needs to be placed on underlying policy problems.

“Volatility is a symptom of a structural problem of low stocks,” says Wright. “When supplies get to certain low levels the prices become vulnerable to volatility.”

He makes a distinction between the impact of one-off production shortfalls and low grain stocks over a longer period: “Though [price] spikes do not indicate times of large aggregate food grain production shortfalls, it is easy to check that they do indicate times when aggregate stocks were low.”

Barrett would like to see more emphasis on boosting production and improving distribution systems to increase the supply of food and bring down prices. “Food price volatility gets addressed naturally as food supplies expand, bringing down prices and encouraging expansion of price-stabilizing inventories.”

Traditional policy responses to price volatility tend to benefit large farmers in developed countries and not the poor consumer or producer in a developing country, said Barrett.

“Every dollar spent on developing expensive reserves or marketing systems is a dollar taken away from improving yields, from developing drought-tolerant rice or setting up marketing infrastructure in a developing country,” he said.

 

The FAO’s “State of Food Insecurity in the World”: A Study in Regulatory Capture?

Last week, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations released its much-ballyhooed State of Food Insecurity in the World 2011 (SOFI). If you don’t have time to read all 55 pages of the SOFI, you can find the executive summary here, but be forewarned that the link opens a .pdf document.

In honor of World Food Day 2011, and given my interest in food policy as it relates to developing countries, I wanted to spend some time discussing the SOFI’s conclusions.

Netflix’s Questionable Market Segmentation Behavior

There has been much discussion of Netflix’s new pricing system. Netflix used to offer both streaming videos and DVDs in the mail for a fixed amount. In July, Netflix changed its pricing scheme. Subscribers interested both in streaming videos and in receiving DVDs in the mail would have to pay twice the former price — once for each service.

This post is not about that, nor is it about Netflix’s multiple fumbles over the two services. Indeed, Netflix first renamed its DVD arm Qwikster so as to separate it from streaming arm Netflix. Earlier this week, Netflix sent subscribers an email that went something like “Dear Marc: Just kidding! LOL – Respectfully, The Netflix team” informing them that there would be no Qwikster after all, and that the DVD service would remain with Netflix.

Rather, this post is about the questionable market segmentation behavior Netflix has seemingly been indulging in toward its existing subscribers.