REGULATED MARKETS 99* local control and that for widespread standardization of transac-tional procedure. The acts do not assume the existence of efficient private markets to be preserved in that condition; rather they assume imperfections to be reduced by market regulation. Yet the commodity studies carried out with small resources from the Imperial (later Indian) Council of Agricultural Research present no-systematic quantitative material on market structure and behaviour such as to be useful for an assessment of market imperfections and the need for the bundle of controls comprising regulation.^ They tend to concentrate on the functions performed by intermediaries. The act was revised in 1959, rules were set out in 1962 and amendments made fairly continually. Ths revised act increa sed the number of notified goods under its jurisdiction though each district marketing committee could select a sub-set relevant to its own trade. Thus no provision was made for large-scale state-wide standardization of crop notification. Further, it was only the first transaction of notified goods, namely, that between the farmer and the trader, which was covered by regulation though an exception was made for tobacco where it was the cured rather than the green, highly rottabic form of the product which was notified. All trasactions under the revised act were to be supervised by the regulated market committee members or their appointees (remunerated by the local committee itself at locally determined scales of pay). Trade outside the yard was and is legally banned. The formation of regulated markets by cooperative societies was allowed (meanwhile, cooperative markets had been perceived as the goal for a developed exchange sector in India's mixed economy).7 Control over merchants was to be facilitated by licensing. This would commit them to return monthly accounts to the committee which would then levy fees on the turnover on a locally determined ad valorem basis. A large amount of petty trade was explicitly exempted from licensing and therefore from regulation. Of great significance is the state control of the investment of the funds raised through market fees. Other than the improvement of local market infrastructure and the payment of wages, the use of financial surpluses was confined to investment in state securities, the state or central cooperative banks, the post office savings bank or in National Savings Certificates.8 Any other local enterprise was out of the question. The Madras act differs from those of neighbouring states, such as Andhra and Karnataka, in a number of respects. The notifed area of jurisdiction of one committee is inflexible and large