Increasing grain imports to ensure food security the real price of grain tends to go down

The issue of food security is a clich é. People of insight have long known that the Chinese are fully capable of supporting themselves. As early as when Leicester Brown came to China in 1994, many domestic scholars pointed out that there were loopholes in Brown's calculation, the most serious of which was the neglect of the rapid increase in grain production brought about by technological progress. Twenty years later, the facts came to a clear conclusion: even if there were no imports at all, China's grain production would be enough to eat.

In spite of this, Mr. Brown has caused a huge impact, profoundly affecting decisions on land and agricultural issues related to more than a billion people. This kind of influence still exists so far, and the issue of food security made the headlines of the Central Economic work Conference last year, which attracted a lot of attention and had a significant impact on the current land system reform. There is no other, the country is agriculture-oriented, food is the most important thing for the people, and food security is the "bottom line" of reform. When it comes to this "bottom line", we should be careful.

There is nothing wrong with being careful, but solving the problem should be based on facts and analysis. Otherwise, problems will arise where there are no problems. In order to make it easier to see the problem clearly, we might as well break down the issue of food security.

First, is there enough food in the world? If it is not enough, you should be careful, hurry to hoard some grain, and do not export it when you have it. Dig a cellar and bury it. Have nothing to do and open up a wasteland for a rainy day.

Second, if the world produces enough food, to what extent should we import food? Will imported grain become a hidden danger to food security? If so, it is still necessary to maintain a high degree of food self-sufficiency or even complete self-sufficiency.

Grain growth is faster than population growth

Let's look at the first question first. Malthus published the Theory of population in 1789, which had a far-reaching impact on people's thinking. On the other hand, this effect reflects the deep anxiety about food for a long time. You see, the population is growing rapidly, and the land area is given, so people will naturally ask: will there not be enough food? In the long history of mankind, this problem has been perplexing mankind, and famine and war break out from time to time, on the contrary, it is a means to passively reduce the population and achieve a balance.

However, shortly after Malthus published the Theory of population, the situation changed significantly. Around 1760-1850, the Industrial Revolution broke out. Before and with the industrial revolution, many changes have taken place in agricultural technology, such as mechanization, seed cultivation and so on. These technological advances have increased the sown area and grain yield per unit area. After a long period of accumulation, agricultural productivity has increased greatly.

What is important is that these technological advances have not only increased grain production, but also greatly increased the growth rate of food production, exceeding the rate of population growth. In this way, Malthus's population paradox loses its realistic foundation. However, the change of thinking always lags behind, and Malthus's remarks still affect people's thinking so far.

Of course, this is not to say that mankind has bid farewell to famine, and famine still happens from time to time. However, according to the research of Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate in economics in 1998, when there is a famine, the total amount of food is often enough, and the problem is the food distribution mechanism, which makes some poor people extremely short of food and face famine. At this time, the actions of the government and other agencies are particularly important-whether to straighten out the market supply, ensure basic food rations, or store food is a matter of life and death for the poor. Amartya Sen studies cases, including his own childhood famine in Bangladesh, as well as China's "three years of natural disasters." As the old saying goes, "if heaven does evil, it can still be disobeyed." Do not live for your own iniquity. " Amartya Sen seems to know the essence of this remark.

It's no good to talk more. Look at some figures. Since the end of World War II, mankind has experienced a rare and long period of relative peace, coupled with the progress of science and technology and medical treatment since the 19th century, the population has increased rapidly. It is estimated that the world's population exceeded 1 billion around 1804, 2 billion in 1927 and around 2.3 billion at the end of World War II in 1945. Since then, it has accelerated to 30, 37, 44 and 5.3 billion in 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990, respectively. The world's population exceeded 6 billion in 1999, 7 billion in 2011, and is now about 7.19 billion.

Since the end of World War II, the population has increased by about 5 billion, more than twice the total population at that time. With such an increase in population, is there enough food to eat? Figure 1 shows that world food production has increased rapidly since World War II, with total output roughly doubling from 670 million tons in 1961 to 2.75 billion tons in 2013. During this period, the world's population has more than doubled from 3.1 billion to 7.1 billion. In other words, the growth rate of grain production is much faster than the growth rate of population. Because grain production is growing faster than the population, per capita grain output has increased significantly, from 216 kg in 1961 to 387 kg in 2013, an increase of 80%.

The real price of grain tends to decline

The per capita output has increased by 80%. Is it enough to eat? What are the criteria for judging? Will there be not enough to eat because of the increase in income and the substantial increase in food consumption per capita? It doesn't seem to be. There are three reasons that can be listed right away.

First, all other conditions remain the same. If people live in the way they ate in 1961, they will have a surplus. 1961 if there is no global famine, there should not be one now.

Second, the above figures only include grain and do not include other foods, including meat, eggs, vegetables, fruits and aquatic products, which can provide nutrition for the human body and can be used as an alternative to food. or it can be "converted" into food.

Third, and the most direct reason, comes from observation in daily life. Nowadays, famine is no longer a topic of daily concern, instead, it is weight loss. The most common advertisement on TV is weight loss advertisement.

These are all reasons that can be given immediately without using economics, and economic research provides at least two additional pieces of evidence. First of all, according to the statistical law, with the increase of income, the proportion of food consumption in income decreases, which is the famous Engel's law. The underlying reason is that the human body's demand for food soon reaches biological saturation, and more food consumption does not bring more biological utility. After the increase in income, people's extra demand for food is actually very limited. Eat too much will be full, not only uncomfortable, but also lead to a variety of diseases.

Second, the best evidence that global food supply exceeds demand is reflected in the long-term changes in food prices. If supply exceeds demand, we should see a relative rise in grain prices; if supply exceeds demand, we should see a relative decline in grain prices. This is a simple analysis of supply and demand and does not require any complex assumptions and deductions.

Table 1 compares the actual prices of four major food crops in 1957 and 2014. The so-called real price means that the price index has been adjusted to eliminate the factor of inflation, and this price is roughly comparable. The price of wheat has fallen by more than half from 609 US dollars per ton in 1957 to 280 US dollars per ton now. The price of corn fell by 2/3 from 557 U.S. dollars per ton to 182 U.S. dollars per ton. The price of soybeans fell by nearly half from $863 / ton to $463 / ton. The price of rice fell from $660 / ton to $410 / ton, down more than 1/3. Taken together, world food prices have fallen by more than half in real terms, to 51%.