76 SOCIAL SCIENTIST curement targets set for the grain. Although the procurement prices were lower than the open market prices, the weighted prices received by farmers, obtained by taking into account the prices of both the surrendered part and the part sold on the open market, are shown to be "at least as high as the open market prices they (the farmers) would have realized in the absence of procurement through levies". There is a slightly technical point underlying this finding, namely that in the absence of procurement the greater supplies coming into the market will depress the price levels. Despite €his,the author believes that procurement can be improved by offering th^ farmers more "realistic" prices. The failure of the levy on millers is attributed to under-reporting of stocks ranging between 60 and 70 percent. The millers thus evaded not only levies but also taxes, "since the unreported rice outturn escaped the purchase tax and sales tax". The author blames the government for fixing "unrealistic" levels (80 or 75 percent of processed rice) for the proportions of levy and very low procurement prices. The study concludes with a number of policy recommendations for "plugging the loopholes" and making implementation of levies more effective. Although the field wWk ftfcr the study was Bbn^ durfag 1968-69 the author was perceptive enough (6 note that^in times of overall food shortage in the country when the market-clearing price is far above the levy price, there is little prospect of levies being implemented anywhere" and, further, "in a scarcity situation when free market prices rule very high, fixation of levy price at a level close to the former may not serve the basic purpose of public procurement, namely public distribution of foodgrains to lowincome consumers at reasonable prices unless the Government is willing and able to bear a heavy subsidy^. Nevertheless, the author seems to believe that "realistic5 prices will promote procurement. What happened since, that is during the seventies, has made it abundantly clear that State procurement is essentially an oper" ation to ensure high prices to farmers in all seasons. Not only has the State failed to procure enough grains, at reasonable prices in years of scarcity but representatives of the trade and the big farmers have successfully prevented the government frbm lowering the procurement-prices in years of abundance, when market prices would have crashed to very low levels in the absence of purchases by the State. The string of four successive good harvests has only resulted in a huge stockpile of grains with the Stat^ The stocks cannot be released to the poor at low prices without throwing the