EWFIS-40

Market Structure and Price Determination ofFoodgrains in Bangladesh*

Naser Farid1

Dr. M. Sayedur Rahman2

________________________________________________________________1Project Director

2Agricultural Statistics SpecialistEarly Warning and Food Information System Project

Ministry of Food

September 2002* The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Government of Bangladesh.

Executive Summary

Prices play a central role in economic theory in guiding production and consumption.

Consumers are likewise influenced in their decisions by advertising, the display space given

to foods in supermarkets, personal whims, packaging and convenience as well as by prices.

The pricing decisions, whether made on the basis of market forces or political considerations

have important economic consequences. For this reason, tools of analysis that will help one to

anticipate the economic effects of pricing decisions are still important. Farmers, marketing

and supply firms and government officials have to make many decisions that require a

knowledge of what will happen if the price of a particular commodity rises or falls. Price in

terms of level and frequency of change varies with the type of market structure. Markets may

be classified as competitive (many buyers and sellers), Oligopolistic (new firms) or

monopolistic (a single firm). Another category that is sometimes used is monopolistic

competition (many firm selling similar but differentiated products. Rice is the predominant

crop, covering 75% of the cropped area and accounting for 70% of the value of crop output.

The production of supply of sufficient food is one side of food security while the other

pivotal side is entitlement of all, primarily of the poor, marginal and disadvantaged people to

available foods in a given space and time. It is essentially a match of required production and

marketable quarantines for a given population against their entitlement to such foods,

Therefore, the market played a vital role in achieving food security for the poor and marginal,

because, the market determines the availability as well as the price of food grains.

Price performance under alternative market structures is difficult to appraise.

Competitive prices are likely to change more frequently and may fluctuate more violently

than those established and maintained under conditions of monopoly or oligopoly.

Economists lend to prefer competitive pricing to monopoly pricing. There is a greater

possibility of farmers being exploited when only a single buyer or a few outlets are available

in a local area. But it is difficult to determine empirically whether or not farmers are being

charged higher prices for the things they buy or are being offered lower prices for what they

sell than would prevail with a larger number of sellers and buyers.

In forecasting production, an understanding of the prices to which farmers respond is

important. For most commodities, except those grown under contract, product prices are

uncertain at planting time. Expected future prices may be based on recent past prices, average

prices over a period of years, current prices for the distant delivery of a commodity as

ii

observed on an organized futures market, government price-support levels, or outlook

statements. For some commodities, there is considerable empirical evidence to suggest that

future production plans are based on current prices. It this relationship persist, a cycle of

alternating high and low production may develop, with corresponding changes in prices. High

prices in one year will lead to high production and low prices in the following year, which

will then induce a cutback in production the next year.

The market plays a very vital role in achieving food security, because it is the market,

which determines the availability as well as the price. Even though there is money in the

hands of the people, non-availability of foodgrains would shot the price up beyond the

consumer's reach. On the other hand, even of there are huge stocks in the market, the lack of

purchasing power would make it impossible for the people to buy. Market failure sometimes

causes disruption and such failure leads to non-availability as well as higher price. Besides

market, the distribution system also plays a vital role for enhancing greater access to food by

the poor. The market and the PFDS have important links. More research needed to identify

the appropriate role of the government in providing or facilitating the development of those

institutions that are necessary to promote agricultural markets and rural income growth. The

types of institutions needed can be classified into four main categories: (1) market related

institutions such as cooperatives, farmers and traders associations, credit clubs, contract

farming, etc., (2) institutional infrastructure such as roads, communication networks,

commodity exchanges, storage facilities, market information services, etc., (3) regulatory

institutions such as laws regarding market conduct and enforcement of contracts, ownership

rules and property rights, grades and standards, etc., and (4) government and political

institutions that have the capacity to monitor the emergence of markets and support their

development. Finally suggested to improving rural commutation for better transportation of

goods and that would certainly benefit the locality as well as community.

The study tried to explore to two interrelated areas mainly market structure and price

determination of foodgrain in relation to achieving food security for the poor and marginal

people. The study suggested policy responses for improving the market, price stabilization

and the PFDS. This study will help identify the types of public policies needed for the

development of competitive and efficient agro-based markets that can contribute in reducing

rural poverty and promoting agricultural economic growth in the country.

iii

List of Contents

Executive Summary

List of Contents

List of Tables

List of Figures

1. Introduction

2. Market Structure and Price

2.1 Agricultural Commodity Prices and Its Role in Economy

3. Spatial Distribution of the Rice Marketing System

3.1 The Scenario of Marketing Channels

3.2 Functional Variety of Marketing Process in Private Sector

3.2.1 Market Chain for Rice

3.3 Marketing System in Public Sector

4. Foodgrain Price and Its Distribution by the Public Sector

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

References

Appendix

iv

List of Tables

Table-1: Scenario of Per Capita Food Grain Production of Bangladesh.

Table-2: Structural scenario changes in rice market of Bangladesh.

Table-3: Shares of various channels in PFDS offtakes of wheat.

Table-4: Food Grain Imports and Total PFDS Intake Scenario of Bangladesh.

Table-5: Distribution Scenario and Availability of Food Grain of Bangladesh.

Table-6a: Commodity-wise Export Handled at Chittagong & Mongla Ports.Table-6b: Commodity-wise Export Handled at Chittagong & Mongla Ports.Table-7a: Commodity-wise Import Handled at Chittagong & Mongla ports.Table-7b: Commodity-wise Import Handled at Chittagong & Mongla ports.Table-8: Truck Cost Price from Dinajpur to Dhaka and Chittagong.

Table-9: Annual Cost for Truck for Mymensingh to Dhaka.Appendix Table1a: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in

Aman Season of Dinajpur, Rangpur, Bogra and Rajshahi Market during the

Period of 1980-81 to 2001-02.

Appendix Table1b: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in

Aman Season of Pabna, Kushtia, Jessore and Khulna Market during the

Period of 1980-81 to 2001-02.

Appendix Table1c: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in

Aman Season of Barisal, Patuakhali, Mymensingh and Kishoreganj during the

Period of 1980-81 to 2001-02.

Appendix Table1d: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in

Aman Season of Jamalpur, Tangail, Faridpur and Dhaka Market during the

Period of 1980-81 to 2001-02.

Appendix Table1e: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in

Aman Season of Sylhet, Comilla, Noakhali and Chittagang Market during the

Period of 1980-81 to 2001-02.

Appendix Table1f: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in

Aman Season of Rangamati, Khagrachari and Bandarban Market during the

Period of 1980-81 to 2001-02.

Appendix Table2a: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Aus

Season of Dinajpur, Rangpur, Bogra and Rajshahi Market during the Period

of 1980-81 to 2001-02.

v

Appendix Table2b: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Aus

Season of Pabna, Kushtia, Jessore and Khulna Market during the Period of

1980-81 to 2001-02.

Appendix Table2c: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Aus

Season of Barisal, Patuakhali, Mymensingh and Kishoreganj during the Period

of 1980-81 to 2001-02.

Appendix Table2d: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Aus

Season of Jamalpur, Tangail, Faridpur and Dhaka Market during the Period

of 1980-81 to 2001-02.

Appendix Table2e: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Aus

Season of Sylhet, Comilla, Noakhali and Chittagang Market during the Period

of 1980-81 to 2001-02.

Appendix Table2f: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Aus

Season of Rangamati, Khagrachari and Bandarban Market during the Period

of 1980-81 to 2001-02.

Appendix Table3a: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Boro

Season of Dinajpur, Rangpur, Bogra and Rajshahi Market during the Period

of 1980-81 to 2001-02.

Appendix Table3b: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Boro

Season of Pabna, Kushtia, Jessore and Khulna Market during the Period of

1980-81 to 2001-02.

Appendix Table3c: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Boro

Season of Barisal, Patuakhali, Mymensingh and Kishoreganj during the Period

of 1980-81 to 2001-02.

Appendix Table3d: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Boro

Season of Jamalpur, Tangail, Faridpur and Dhaka Market during the Period

of 1980-81 to 2001-02.

Appendix Table3e: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Boro

Season of Sylhet, Comilla, Noakhali and Chittagang Market during the Period

of 1980-81 to 2001-02.

Appendix Table3f: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Boro

Season of Rangamati, Khagrachari and Bandarban Market during the Period

of 1980-81 to 2001-02.

vi

List of figures

Fig.1: Changing supply-price relationships through time.

Fig.2: Wheat marketing operation channels in Bangladesh

Fig.3: Rice marketing operation channels in Bangladesh

vii

Market Structure and Price Determination of Foodgrains in Bangladesh

By

Naser Farid & Dr. M. Sayedur Rahman

1. IntroductionAgriculture is the single most important sector of the economy. The crop sector, in

particular food crops (mainly rice and wheat), plays a dominant role and represents about

76% of the value added in agriculture, although the share of non-crop agriculture, particularly

livestock and fisheries has increased steadily in recent years. Rice is the predominant crop,

covering 75% of the cropped area and accounting for 70% of the value of crop output. The

production of supply of sufficient food is one side of food security while the other pivotal

side is entitlement of all, primarily of the poor, marginal and disadvantaged people to

available foods in a given space and time. It is essentially a match of required production and

marketable quarantines for a given population against their entitlement to such foods,

Therefore, the market played a vital role in achieving food security for the poor and marginal,

because, the market determines the availability as well as the price of food grains.

The food grain marketing system has changed dramatically in Bangladesh over the

past several decades. While rice production doubled (Table-1 & 2) between the early 1960’s

and early 1990’s, the percentage of production that marketed rose from 10-14 percent to

nearly 50 percent, and market volume increased six-fold (Ninnon and Dorosh, 1998). In part,

this large increase in marketed production is due to the expansion of Boro HYV paddy, which

is harvested at the start of the monsoon season in May and June, and is thus difficult to store

(Chowdhury, 1992). About two-thirds of total farm sales take place at the farm level, rather

than in nearby markets. For small farmers, sales at farm gate are especially common in

regions with surplus per capita food grain production and / or high use of modern agricultural

inputs (Chowdhury, 1992). There is substantial evidence that private rice markets are, in

general, highly competitive (Islam et al., 1985; Chowdhury, 1992), though in some regions

which are geographically isolated during rainy season, there is evidence that small numbers

of traders collude to the detriment of small farmers (Crow and Morshid, 1990). The overall

scenario that emerges is one of robust growth and increasingly competitive rice and paddy

markets.

viii

Table-1: Scenario of Per Capita Food Grain Production of Bangladesh.

FinancialYear

EstimatedPopulation

(‘000)

Grain Production (‘000 Tons)

Net Grain Production (‘000 Tons)

Production Per Capita

(kg)Rice Wheat Total Rice Wheat Total

FY57-60 Avg 47550 7796 24 7821 7016 21 7038 148.01

FY61-65 Avg 54014 9701 36 9737 8731 31 8763 162.24

FY66-70 Avg 62777 10567 69 10636 9510 62 9572 152.48

FY71-75 Avg 71995 10700 107 10808 9630 96 9727 135.11

FY76-80 Avg 82639 12464 390 12855 11218 351 11569 139.99

FY80-85 Avg 93958 14037 1157 15195 12633 1041 13675 145.54

FY86-90 Avg 104730 15852 1018 16870 14266 916 15183 144.97

FY91-95 Avg 115000 17864 1124 18988 16078 1011 17078 148.60

1995-96 121000 17688 1369 19057 15919 1232 17151 141.75

1996-97 123000 18882 1454 20336 16994 1309 18302 148.80

1997-98 125000 18862 1803 20665 16976 1623 18599 148.79

1998-99 127000 19905 1908 21813 17915 1717 19632 154.58

1999-2000 129000 23067 1840 24907 20760 1656 22416 173.77

FY95-00 Avg 125000 19680 1674 21355 17712 1507 19220 153.76

Source: FPMU data, Ministry of Food.

Table-2: Structural scenario changes in rice market of Bangladesh.

Variable 1960’s 1970’s 1980’s 1990’

s

Production

Total (MMT) 10 12 15 18

Boro share (%) 7 18 26 37

HYV share (%) 1 23 36 58

Marketing

As share of production (%) 12 27 34 49

Total marketed (MMT) 1 3 5 9

Marketing per capita (kg) 20 41 51 78

Distribution

Public share of rice marketed (%) 30 15 11 7

Share marketed in the three largest urban centers (%) - 40 - 20

Share sold on the farm to itinerant traders (%) 28 - - 66

Number of

marketing

agents

Itinerant traders 4000 - - 48000

Millers

Automatic

Major

Small huller

6155 11592 43691 50868

0 3 66 88

106 152 251 480

6049 11437 43374 50300

Private rice

stock

No. of months consumption requirements 1 - - 3

Average storage time for trader stocks (months) 4 - - 1

ix

Source: Ninno and Dorosh (1998); Various issue of BBS; FPMU, Ministry of

Food.

The prices of agricultural commodities are important both economically and

politically because they strongly influence the level of farm incomes, the welfare of

consumers and in many countries, the amount of export carvings. The incomes of nearly half

the world's population are determined principally by the prices received for agricultural

commodities. A decline of only a few cents per pound in the prices of such internationally

traded commodities as sugar, coffee and cocoa can have serious political and economic

repercussions in such countries as Mauritius, Colombia and Ghana (Tomek and Robinson,

1995). In Bangladesh where agriculture accounts for one third of GDP and food prices are

politically sensitive.

2. Market Structure and PriceNumerous empirical studies of the relationship between farm, wholesale and retail

prices have been undertaken (Heien, 1980, Hall et al., 1981; Lamm and Westcott, 1981;

Ward, 1982; Kinnucan and Forker, 1987). These studies have focused mainly on the lags

between changes in farm prices and changes in retail prices, although Lamm and Westcott

(1981) place special attention on other input prices. Empirical studies indicate that lags do

exist in price adjustments and that the length of lag is related to the amount of processing.

Lags and shortest for commodities, which are fresh eggs and longest for fats and oils and

processed fruits and vegetables (Hall et al., 1981; Westcott, 1986). Statistical tests typically,

but do not always, are consistent with causality running from changes in farm prices to

changes in retail prices. In the short run, changes in retail prices are more often related to

changes in farm-level supply than do changes in consumer demand.

Price in terms of level and frequency of change varies with the type of market

structure. Markets may be classified as competitive (many buyers and sellers), Oligopolistic

(new firms) or monopolistic (a single firm). Another category that is sometimes used is

monopolistic competition (many firm selling similar but differentiated products. A purely

competitive market is one in which the following conditions prevail:

(1) The number of buyers and sellers is sufficiently large so that no individual can

perceptibly influence price by his or her decision to buy or sell.

x

(2) The product is sufficiently homogeneous so that the product of one firm is

essentially a perfect substitute for that of another firm.

(3) There are no artificial restrictions on demand, supply or prices, such as

government intervention or collusion among firms.

(4) Mobility of resources and products exists in the economy; e.g., a new firm should

be free to enter the industry.

Price may be determined under conditions similar to those prevailing in competitive

markets even when the number of firms is small, provided entry and exist of firms is

relatively costless. Markets in which firms can exit or enter without incurring significant

costs are referred to in the literature relating to market structure as contestable markets

(Baumol, 1982; MacDonald, 1987). In a purely competitive market, it is assumed that every

producer-seller seeks to maximize profits by selling at as high a price as possible, and that

every buyer seeks to maximize utility by obtaining the product at as low a price as possible.

The collective actions of buyers and sellers determine prices.

Monopolistic competition refers to a market in which a larger number of sellers offer

a differentiated product. These products are presumably close substitutes, but the individual

sellers are able to differentiate their product on the basis of a trade name, style, quality,

service, location, or other factors. Consequently, the firm has some influence on price, but the

number of substitutes is likely to limit the firm's discretion in pricing. The demand relation

faced by the individual firms, while not perfectly elastic, is likely to be quite elastic in the

prevailing range of prices.

In real markets, sequential, binding trades are made with the passage of time based on

imperfect information. The average of these prices may not equal the true equilibrium or even

tend toward the equilibrium. Because true equilibrium prices are unobservable, it is difficult

to test for the relationship between them and transactions prices. Some experiments have

been conducted in an attempt to simulate reality. Hess (1972) and others found that under a

few experimental situations, the average of transactions prices was a biased estimate of the

equilibrium. Actual market prices approximate equilibrium prices in a purely competitive

market. There are at least two "model" of the relationship of transactions prices to the

theoretical equilibrium price. One view is that prices within a particular time period are

distributed about the true equilibrium for that time period. Thus, the average of transactions

prices is taken as equal to the equilibrium price. This is the implicit assumption of most

empirical studies that use average prices for a month, quarter or year in the analysis. In

xi

essence, the reported average price is treated as and unbiased estimate of the true equilibrium

price. A second model views successive transactions as tending toward equilibrium.

Stockholders by storing at harvest and releasing stocks in later periods, reduce the

amplitude of price fluctuations. The agricultural commodity has and inelastic demand and a

supply that shifts from season to season. As a result, equilibrium prices for commodities such

as potatoes are highly variable from year to year. Various combinations of shifts in supply

and demand, and differences in slopes are possible. This helps explain why different

commodities have different degrees of price variability. In dynamic economy, the forces that

influence both the level and slope of demand and supply schedules are changing. Hence,

equilibrium price generally changes through time and structural changes in demand and

supply may occur as well.

Price theory in its simplest form assumes that buyers and sellers meet directly.

Equilibrium prices are determined by the aggregate demand and supply schedules of these

buyers and sellers. However, substantial research has been done in agricultural economics on

questions related to price differences between farmers and consumers. Nonetheless,

unanswered questions remain (Tomek and Robinson, 1995). The difference between the price

received by producers and that paid by consumers is a marketing margin. Both producers and

consumers are concerned about the size of marketing margins, changes in marketing margins,

and incidence of changes in margins. Among the questions frequently asked are the

following: Are marketing margins too large? Why do margins differ among products? How

have they changed with the passage of time? Are margins larger for small-sized crops than

for large-sized crops? If marketing costs increase, does this result in a higher consumer price

or a lower farm price, or both?

Marketing margins also are influenced by the willingness and ability of firms to adopt

cost-cutting techniques. In some market, supermarket operators may concentrate on sales

promotion; in others, they may seek to increase efficiency by taking advantage of inventory

management schemes and computer information technology. The net effect of changes in

market structure on pricing performance is difficult to assess. Consumers may not gain from

the potential benefits of lower-priced chain-store brands or generic foods it competition is

limited. Empirical studies indicate that prices typically average slightly higher in markets,

where concentration ratios are high (Marion et al., 1986).

A change in the marketing margin would be reflected through the marketing system in

an analogous way. Prices both at retail and at the farm would generally be affected. As an

example, let us assume that a transportation rate is reduced. The lower transportation rate

xii

initially accrues to the benefit of the middlemen. However, the assumption of a purely

competitive market structure implied that the lower rate will be passed on to producers as

higher prices, to retailers as lower prices, or in general as a combination of the two effects.

The lower cost (hence higher profit) will induce existing middlemen to do more business and

will perhaps attract the entry of new middlemen. However, as they compete with each other

for more of the farm product, the result will be higher farm prices, and as they compete to sell

more to retailers, the result will be lower retail prices. Competition among retailers, which

gives the lower price, is passed on to consumers. Thus, the lower marketing cost affects both

farm and consumer prices.

Marketing margins for some farm products are determined under conditions that more

nearly conform to the oligopolistic model than to the purely competitive model. The attitude

or strategy of individual firms in price-cutting becomes a critical factor affecting retail prices.

The reluctance of firms to cut prices often leads to non-price competition. This can take the

form of offering rebates, gifts or prizes in an attempt to increase sales. Firms also may try to

gain a larger market stare by increasing advertising and promotion expenditures and by

differentiating their product. Muller (1983) argues that large firms are able to maintain and

even increase their market share in the food industry because they can afford to spend more

on advertising and promotion. The ability to dominate the media and to spend large sums on

developing new products gives such firms a competitive edge and makes it more difficult for

smaller firms to enter the market or to increase their market stare. This type of competition

prevails in the breakfast cereal industry and in a number of other sub-sectors of the food

industry as well (Nelson, 1966; Padberg, 1968).

Price performance under alternative market structures is difficult to appraise.

Competitive prices are likely to change more frequently and may fluctuate more violently

than those established and maintained under conditions of monopoly or oligopoly.

Economists lend to prefer competitive pricing to monopoly pricing. There is a greater

possibility of farmers being exploited when only a single buyer or a few outlets are available

in a local area. But it is difficult to determine empirically whether or not farmers are being

charged higher prices for the things they buy or are being offered lower prices for what they

sell than would prevail with a larger number of sellers and buyers. The economics of scale

may be sufficiently large that marketing costs may be lower with a small number of large

firms than with a large number of small competitors. Consumers perhaps gain from having

more choices and improved products, but they pay a price for a type of competition that leads

to product proliferation and high selling costs. Also, supermarkets are forced to carry more

xiii

items, which may lead to slower turnover for individual items and higher inventory costs.

Providing comparative price information to consumers apparently can enhance Price

competition, regardless of market structure. Devine and Marion (1979) found that provision

of such information by a public agency significantly reduced the average level of prices and

the dispersion of prices and the dispersion of prices in one market relative to a control

market.

2.1 Agricultural Commodity Prices and Its Role in EconomyAgricultural commodity prices are more volatile than are the prices of most non-farm

goods and services. The Biological nature of agricultural production is, of course, one

important cause of price instability. Unlike most non-farm industries, actual production in

agriculture may exceed or fall short of planned production by a considerable margin. Yields

vary from year to year because of unusually favorable or unfavorable weather and the

presence or absence of disease or insect infestations. Seasonal variations in production

likewise contribute to price instability from month to month. Relatively high or low prices

may persist for considerable periods because of the inability of farmers to respond promptly

to a change in price signals. The short run, agricultural commodity prices can overshoot long-

run equilibrium levels in response to changes in economic forces, including responses to

macroeconomic variables (Andrews and Ransser, 1986). The long-term trend in rice

production however showed a cyclical pattern with a few years of growth followed by few

years of stagnation (Shahabuddin and Rahman, 1999). This was partly due to depression in

prices in seasons following consecutive good harvests providing disincentives to farmers to

further increase in production, and partly due to natural disasters, droughts and floods

(Mandal, 2000). Many agricultural markets have become move international in scope, thus

government policies can influence agricultural prices through their effect on both domestic

demand and trade. Production abroad also has a profound effect on the prices of food grains

in Bangladesh.

Prices play a central role in economic theory in guiding production and consumption.

Consumers are likewise influenced in their decisions by advertising, the display space given

to foods in supermarkets, personal whims, packaging and convenience as well as by prices.

The pricing decisions, whether made on the basis of market forces or political considerations

have important economic consequences. For this reason, tools of analysis that will help one to

anticipate the economic effects of pricing decisions are still important. Farmers, marketing

xiv

and supply firms and government officials have to make many decisions that require a

knowledge of what will happen if the price of a particular commodity rises or falls.

Market demand is defined in terms of the alternative quantities of a commodity that

all consumers in a particular market are willing and able to buy as price varies and as all other

factors are held constants. A market demand curve can be thought of as a summation of

individual demand relations. This includes consumers who enter the market as price declines

or who drop out at high prices. Thus a change in price influences the number of consumers as

well as the quantity each consumes. The demand for food and fiber products depends on a

host of socio-economic variables. The growing complexity and proliferation of food products

and the diversity of changes in socio-economic variables appear to have made demand

analysis more complex. Thus, much research has been done on the demands for foods and

fibers, much remains to be learned about the effects of individual variables on the demands

for specific foods (Tomek, 1985). Price theory suggests an inverse relationship between price

and quantity, but the inverse relationship by itself says nothing about the responsiveness of

quantity demanded to a price change for a commodity. This responsiveness is likely to vary

from commodity to commodity.

Quantity per unit time

Fig.1: Changing supply-price relationships through time.

xv

Very shortrun

Pric

e pe

r uni

t shortrun

time

long run

P2

P1

In very short run, once the crop is produced and harvested (assuming no reserve

stocks or imports and that the current crop cannot be stored), the supply function is a vertical

line. The quantity offered for sale can neither be increased nor decreased, regardless of the

price offered, until the next harvest comes in. Prior to harvest, the supply can be adjusted by

deciding not to harvest a part of the crop if the price is too low. As more time is allowed for

farmers to respond to price changes, production can be altered. In short run, the amount of

inputs such as fertilizer applied to crops or feeding rates for livestock can be varied, and in

the longer run, the area sown to crops and the number of livestock units can be changed. The

tendency for supply curves to become more responsive as more time is allowed for

adjustments is shown in Fig.1.

Two of the supply curves in Fig.1 have been extended to intersect the vertical axis. At

price P2, quantity supplied is positive in the short or intermediate run, but is zero in the long

run. That is the prices must cover fixed and variable costs in the long run. In contrast, price

need only cover variable costs in the short run for production to continue. Thus, the shorter-

run function intersects the vertical axis at a price (P1) below that of the long run supply

curve.

The time dimension obviously is important in specifying supply relationships in

agriculture, but it is difficult to define precisely and unambiguously what is meant by the very

short run, the intermediate run, and the long run as applied to supply. The time required for a

production response varies from commodity to commodity. For forecasting purposes, one

would like to identify separately the short-run and long-run effects of a given price change,

but in practice it is difficult to separate these effects. The ultimate consequences of a single

price change can seldom be isolated because additional price changes will occur before the

effects of the first change are fully worked out, what one observes is the combined effect of

numerous price changes with varying degrees of lagged response (Tomek and Robinson,

1977).

In forecasting production, an understanding of the prices to which farmers respond is

important. For most commodities, except those grown under contract, product prices are

uncertain at planting time. Expected future prices may be based on recent past prices, average

prices over a period of years, current prices for the distant delivery of a commodity as

observed on an organized futures market, government price-support levels, or outlook

statements. For some commodities, there is considerable empirical evidence to suggest that

future production plans are based on current prices. It this relationship persist, a cycle of

alternating high and low production may develop, with corresponding changes in prices. High

xvi

prices in one year will lead to high production and low prices in the following year, which

will then induce a cutback in production the next year.

Changes in product prices shift the demand for factors up or down and this shift, in

turn, affects both factor prices and factor use. One of the critical variables that determine

whether a given change in product prices will affect mainly the price of the factor or the

quantity used is the shape of the factor supply schedule. However, if the factor supply

schedule is relatively flat, the major effect is to change use. In some cases, an increase or a

decrease in product prices can lead to an equivalent change in factor prices, while in other

cases factor prices are unresponsive to changes in product prices.

3. Spatial Distribution of the Rice Marketing SystemMarkets vary in size and operation depending on the area in which they are situated.

Most of village markets are periodic while some of the larger semi-urban markets are open

for transactions six days of the week. The markets in the district of Barisal differ significantly

from those in the northern districts in that they are river based. Trans-actions take place

without necessitating unloading on the riverbank. Purchases are weighed on the boats and

transferred to the purchaser’s boats for shipment. In these markets head-loads and boats are

the most dominant and in many cases only means of transportation. On the other hand, the

markets ion the northern districts are usually served by head-loads and carts for arrivals and

train, trucks or carts for dispatches. The smaller rural markets do not have any storage

facilities at all.

The earliest link in the marketing chain is, of course, the farmer who sells his

commodities either in his home or at the nearest "hat". After the farmer-marketer, Baparis

and Farias, essentially traders or itinerant merchants are the most primary and basic

institution in the marketing system The intermediaries called Dalals and Aratdars, are

basically brokers and charge a fixed brokerage and commission from the transacting parties.

The Dalals usually connote a petty broker while the Aratdars are treated as large brokers

offering a variety of services ranging from storage facilities to short-term financing. Aratdars

and Dalals may operate in the same market and may even cooperate on sales. Aratdars are the

more important institution in the big urban, semi-urban and intermediate markets while the

Dalals are dominant feature in the smaller interior markets and possible in some medium-

sized distribution centers. Although the government requires licensing of all traders, the total

xvii

number in government records is not an actual representation because a large number of

unlicensed small traders also operate in the various markets.

Almost all the rice that enters into the marketing channels is processed mechanically.

The large millers usually buy paddy and sell the basket rice directly to the Aratdars or

Beparies in the urban terminal markets. The smaller husking machines that are located in the

villages usually do custom husking and very seldom engage in the same type of buying and

selling practices as the large millers do. The Kutials usually buy paddy and after getting it

husked at the small commercial huskers sell it to the local Aratdar, if any, or to the Beparies.

About 80 percent of the total assemble in the small village "hats" is accounted for by

the growers for onward shipment to the higher tier of markets. At this level of transaction, the

Dalals play a dominant role in establishing contact between the buyers the sellers. In most

village and some intermediate markets the purchase and sale of paddy assumes a circular

pattern. Some local Farias buy paddy in one market day, get it dehusked and sell it in the next

market day and suie the sales priced toward the purchase of another supply of paddy.

Once the product moves to a bigger distributing market, the method of buying and

selling becomes substantially different than those prevailing in the village markets. The larger

intermediate markets are dominated by Aratdars. In these markets the "Bideshi" Beparies

come to the premises of the Aratdars, and put an indent for the quantity of rice they would

like to purchase. The Aratdars then assume all responsibility for the supply purchase. They

also assume the responsibilities of the comfort of the Aradtars shop for them. While the

"purchasers" rest, the employees of the Aratdars shop for them. Unless there is a very heavy

indent, most of the purchases are usually made on the premises of the Aratdars. The sellers

who are usually Farias, Beparies or Farmers, bring small samples of their products in wicker

containers. The Aratdars display the samples of rice they are willing to buy. Usually the

sellers shop different "arats" to appraise the market price. Once a deal has been settled, the

sellers bring the produce inside the "arat' where it is weighed sewed and sacked by the staff of

the Aratdars.

After the indented quantity has been purchased, the Aratdars make arrangements of

dispatch, which includes transport to the railway station or the boat pier, loading it and

completing the paper work. The Aratdars will keep the purchase in their stores without

charge if there is no transportation available. For these services the Aratdars usually charge a

commission both from the purchasers and the sellers.

The wholesale terminal markets in the urban centers are more Aratdar-centered than

the intermediate ones. In the intermediate markets there is the possibility that a small

xviii

incoming trader will buy directly from another small trader who has a small establishment on

the market. Terminal markets the Aratdars perform from the consuming centers make their

purchases from the Aratdars who charge a commission both from the seller and the purchase

(i.e., retailer).

The institution of the "Aratdari" seems to be an age-old one. Most of the Aratdars

have been engaged in this business for decades and at this time, they seem to be one of the

most important links in the whole marketing chain. In recent times the Aratdars have

diversified their business by also dealing in rice trading on their own account. They get

supplies from interior markets by sending a request to fellow Aratdars there. It seems that

their own purchases and sales, and operation as commissioned agents are of equal proportion.

There is no doubt that the working relationship between the traders and the Aratdars has

shown remarkable stability over the decades and that it is deeply ingrained in the institutional

frame-work of the marketing system. The belief that such functional intermediaries are

superfluous and thrive at the cost of traders and consumers do not appear to be the real

situation.

It seems that there is a tremendous amount of trust amount the Beparies and the

Aratdars. Beparies trust that the Abraders will always try to give them the best deal;

paradoxically so do the other parties that deal through the Abraders. Success lies in the

intelligent manipulation of both and not exploitation. This is due to several factors. With the

existing facilities available in the primary and secondary markets, the Beparies would have a

hard time even in stock-pilling their purchases in order to prepare them for dispatch. The

Aratdars provide a convenient place for this purpose and even assure that in the event of

transportation bottlenecks, their purchases will have a shelter. Second, the Beparies do not

feel that they could move around with security in the unfamiliar markets because they have to

carry sums of money with them. Third, the Beparies feel that Aratdars know the local traders

and market conditions better and as such would be able to give them a better deal. Fourth,

very often the Aratdars will finance their clients' purchases if it is so required. Finally, the

Beparies enjoy the hospitality offered by the Aratdars after travelling to the market. Since the

traders depend upon the Aratdars so heavily, they are willing to pay anywhere of the gross

value of their sales/purchases in commission to the Aratdars.

Kutials are possible the most important functionaries performing the two early stages

of processing, namely, parboiling and drying. This is a group of landless laborers or some

small landholders who buy paddy from the market and parboil and dry them on the yard of

their own-household. Usually parboiling is done through the night (particularly during the

xix

peak of the season) or during the late hours. After it has been sundried the following day, hey

take it to the rice huskers. While some Kutials acquire ownership of the commodity and thus

earn all profits accruing from the truncation, other Kutials contract with some paddy-cum-

rice merchants for fixed allowances.

The large rice mills integrate all these three stage of rice processing (except for the

mills in Sylhet and Chittagong where the first two stages are skipped because of consumer

preferences). Rice millers purchases paddy and after processing they sell it to the wholesalers

at the terminal markets. In recent times there has been a very rapid growth of small husking

machines engages in custom husking. There are, however, a large number who do this, as

well as have own business of purchasing paddy and selling the processed rice. However, they

do not have the same equipment for parboiling as the millers have.

In the first stage of the marketing chain of food grain mode of transportation of small

farmers carrying their produce normally on their head load, shoulder sting, cycle, pony back,

Some place rickshaw vans and rickshaw are used to carry food grain to the market. In the

secondary markets the traders (inter mediates) carrying their produce by rickshaw, rickshaw

van, small truck, push cart and if the market is near the river the produce carrying by boat

(machine), cargo boat and also by launch to the mills and also to the godown/warehouses. In

the 3rd stage the produce carrying mainly by truck in the highway, in the waterways by boat,

machine boat, cargo vessels etc. and in the cargo train to the urban wholesale centers of the

country. Truck carried more than 50% food grain to the wholesale market. Because of lots of

limitation in the waterways the most common and usual and rather also cheaper transport was

played very important role for transportation of products has become less important in the

recent years. In the urban wholesale markets the retail traders use different type of transport

i.e. rickshaw/van, mini-truck, sometime their own van etc. to transfer products to the retail

shop. In case of ata, their are some processors who directly buy wheat from assembly

markets, processed, they have their own packaging system from the manufacturing house, the

packed products carrying mostly in their own vehicles to the selected outlets specially in the

departmental stores and retail shop.

3.1 The Scenario of Marketing ChannelsPattern of marketing channels is an over-all one and by no means universally

applicable in all the regions. Existing data do not make the computations of the proportions

passing through the various channels a realistic possibility. On an average the country rice

xx

grower relations 90 percent of his total output for his own consumption, seed needs, in kind

payments and other ouch uses. Twenty-five percent of his marketed surplus is sold on farms

(Farruk, 1970). Unless the region is in a government procurement zone, he has an option to

sell to three market functionaries: the local Bepari, Faria or the Kutial. In the village market

Dalals or broker appear as functionary. Most of the assembly is dispatched to a market in the

higher tier and approximately 10 percent are sold for local consumption by the landless

laborers and non-farm workers.

Rice assembled from the villages and village "hats" by Farias and Beparies and

brought to the intermediate markets are usually sold to the local Beparies and Aratdars.

Assembled paddy is usually sold to the rice millers or local Kutials. Aratdars make

purchased on behalf of traders from different consuming markets. Rice millers sell processed

rice either to the local Aratdars or direct to the traders from the consuming centers.

Aratdars in the urban markets act as the sales agents and stockholders for the rice

traders. Retailers, also known as Paikars, buy their supplies from the Aratdars and transport

them to their respective retail shops. On the other hand, the government stocks are released

from their godowns and retailed through Food for Work, Food for Education, VGF and OMS

run by different organizations.

3.2 Functional Variety of Marketing Process in Private SectorThe private sector is a decentralized conglomeration of a large number of institutions

each performing a variety of functions in the marketing process. It is complex process with

significant intra and inter-regional variation's a factor, which nullifies any efforts at broad

generalizations. Linkage between sources of wheat supply, mills and end products were

shown in Table-8.

1. Farias and Beparies:- This group are paying prime role in the output market.

The number of this group is still increasing in the recent years. More then two thirds of

the output now is sold at the farm gate, mostly to these Farias and Beparies as against

one third in the late sixties.

2. Small milllers:- Small millers and Busker/Crushers now directly go at the farm

gate to procure/buy one fifth of their paddy requirements.

3. Wholesaler/Arathdars:- The agents of paddy Wholesalers and Arathdars are

also now goes direct to the farmers door and collect paddy which as not common in the

past times.

xxi

In this connection it can be easily conclude that the recent years farmers are not only

in the marketing stage but also as the marketing growth center. There are also some changes

in the marketing of paddy and wheat that the farmers are getting the access to the stock and

warehousing centers like shah gudam rinm sangshta type chain in between farmers and

traders (even it is very little facility according to need).

Intermediaries

Fig.2: Wheat marketing operation Channels in Bangladesh

xxii

Wholesalers

Compact/Major Mills

Private Importers

Wholesalers of milled wheat

External Resources

Retailers

PFDS

Food processor/Manufacturers

Consumers

Beparies Roller millsWheat crushers

External Resources

FoodAid

Government Commercial importers

Beneficiariesof PFDS offtake

LocalProducers

Fig.3: Rice marketing operation channels in Bangladesh

3.2.1 Market Chain for Rice

Husker/Small Processor Cum Trader

They are the person who own a husking machine and small mills and

maintains business premises with necessary staff for running the business. They

xxiii

Seed/feelGodown/

riceRural hats

Exportsuperfine

rice

Import

Huskingrice

Millersrice

Faria

Assembling markets

Assemblingmarket

Traders/Huskersrice

Wholesellers/commission agents

Brokers/commission

agents

Retailers

FoodDepartment

Consumers

Private sector

Local Producers

Import of rice

Retailers

Millers

Storagegodown

O.M.S.

process the paddy or wheat not ably trading themselves but also give service to other

customers to process their products at a determined charges/prices.

Rice Miller

They are big trader having large investment in processing plant, godowns,

business premises and staff. They buys paddy and wheat directly and also through

agents and process the same into rice/ata and sell it to the wholesalers and retailers in

the local areas and distant markets.

Wholesalers/Arathdars

This group is operating their business in big assembling, consuming and

distributing markets. They have their premises and act as agent of both buyers and

sellers and provides temporary storage facilities to them. They charges commission

for their services to the buyers or sellers, which covers the cost of storage also, if

required.

Retailers

They are the last link in the marketing chain. They are a small trader in

between consumers and wholesalers. They own premises in the consuming markets

and sell rice/ ata usually ranging 1 kg to 20 kg maximum. Recently there are another

chain are being append for ata. The retailers (specially the departmental stores) pack

ata in one/two kg in beautiful packaging paper with different brand name and sell

them to the consumer. In the conclusion the food grain market has become thick and

that old geographical decentralization took over the concentration and comparatively

more specialized situation.

There are about eight thousand rural markets around the country (Begum, 1999). Fig.

2 & 3 showed the food grain market pattern model in Bangladesh. Most of these markets

are small and local in nature and cater to the needs of local people within a radius of 2 to 3

miles. These markets usually sit twice in a week. The rice growers bring their produce

mostly in the form of paddy in small quantities usually varying 5-15 seers and sell the same

to local consumers, kutials and other middle traders viz. farias, beparis etc. Besides rural

hats there are one or two assembly market within a radius of 5-10 miles from the premises of

growers where large number of buyers and sellers assembling on market day. The local

xxiv

growers, faria, beparies etc do the assembling of paddy, rice, wheat and all other

commodities in these markets. The buyers are also the local consumers, agents of the

stockiest, wholesalers; millers coming from distant market centers.

Another important chain is arathdars / dalals (middlemen) who arrange buying and

selling of the staff for a fixed charge known as commission. The wholesalers after a variety

of service ranging from providing storage facilities to short term financing. They are

numerous in the big urban, semi-urban important big assembling, distributing and

consuming centers. Almost all food grains rice and wheat ultimately goes to the processed

channel i.e. in the milling centers either in the small local mills or big and or automatic

mills. The raw materials husked, polished and processed in the form of rice and ata and then

go to the absolute consumers.

Grading and standardization is a very important marketing function because it affects

the process of buying, selling and price formation. However, there is no officially initiated

and implemented standardization of the different grades of food grain in the country. In the

process of marketing it is the traders, Aratdars, Dalals and Farias, who grade rice. Apparently

there are some concepts and variables, which are adopted by these functionaries in structuring

a system of grading across the country. The whole process is based on "direct" examination

of the product.

Because of the institutional and environmental set-up within which these private

traders operate it is very difficult to elicit information to quantify the actual volume of

financing done on the different accounts as mentioned above. It is difficult to find out the rate

of interest they realize from the client of their financing because most of them do not agree

that they are moneylenders. They insist that this is a part of the service they provide and a

basis for their completion among themselves. They also do not admit that they charge a

higher price than the market price, which would mean that their incomes are per unit

commission as well as the difference in prices.

Some larger Beparies in the intermediate markets occasionally advance money to

Farias are the only group of functionaries who always play the role of debtors and never a

creditor as far as cash financing is concerned. The large rice mills depend on number of

Farias and traders for their supplies of paddy. They usually advance money to those suppliers

who have been dealing with them for quite sometime and are considered trustworthy and

dependable.

The usual profit fluctuations due to the usual uncertainties in business are borne by

the Beparies, Farias, Kutuals and Millers. Aratdars and Dalals are the group which earn a

xxv

fixed amount of profit per unit of food grain handled and do not have to bear the risk related

to the trade. The institutional arrangement for the dissemination of market information in the

private trade channels seems quite efficient. The most common media, of course, is "the word

of the mouth." Telegrams and telephones, although frequently used, have not yet attained a

position of importance as dissemination of market information. Now Grameen phone actively

worked for this purpose efficient way. Personal correspondence has considerable importance

in the process. Radio and newspapers are the most unimportant sources of dissemination

among the functionaries because they consider them incorrect and biased. The area in which

market information is most lacking is the information on stock held. Private stockholders

never let their competitors know of their own stocks. Neither do they know the overall stock

position in the country. Even information on the actual stocks held by the government is not

disseminated among the traders regularly.

3.3 Marketing System in Public SectorA very dynamic and active market system can sometime enhance food security,

particularly during natural calamity as well as during lean period of cereal production

(Khaliquzzaman, 1997). Karim (1997) reported that Bangladesh had annual food deficit of

around 1.5 million metric tons, varying from year to year. The deficit is met by importing

foodgrains through both public and private sectors. Rice is the staple food, which provides

68% of the calorie and 54% of the protein intake of an individual on an average. The total

food consumption is estimated 868 gm/day/person of which 58% consists of cereals, 34%

vegetable plants foods and 8% animal food. It was also found that more than 50% of the total

population suffered from malnutrition for lack of adequate diet who live below poverty line.

The market plays a very vital role in achieving food security, because it is the market,

which determines the availability as well as the price. Even though there is money in the

hands of the people, non-availability of foodgrains would shot the price up beyond the

consumer's reach. On the other hand, even of there are huge stocks in the market, the lack of

purchasing power would make it impossible for the people to buy. Market failure sometimes

causes disruption and such failure leads to non-availability as well as higher price. The inter

seasonal and inter market aviations of price of foodgrains also cause disruption in the market

and puts handle in the way of people reaching to food supply. A very dynamic and active

market system can enhance food security particularly during natural calamity as well as lean

period of cereal production (Kohls and Joseph, 1985).

xxvi

With the gradually increasing commercialization and the application of modern

inputs, the market of food grain in Bangladesh has significantly expanded due to sale by

surplus farmers as a result of increased production per unit land. The basic agricultural

marketing policy has been sacking to promote free play of the market forces in determining

the prices, remove controls and regulation and encourage larger participation of the private

sector and provide reasonable facilities for its proper performance in recent years (Shabuddin,

Q and Dorosh, D.A, 1998).

The dominant marketing channel of paddy/rice’s beside the governments PFDS is the

private sector, which includes beparies, miller, arathdars, wholesalers, retailers and

consumers. In this chain, the marginal producers and the poor are the affected groups. Due to

the faulty market systems, once they have to sell their products at low price and again, they

have to purchase their necessary food at high price in the lean time. In such situation neither

the gradual increase of production of rice, nor the availability of food grain in the market

ensures the food security for large marginal and poor people of the country (Hossain, 1991).

Shabuddin and Dorosh (1998) showed that very often price increase is determined by the

seasonal pattern and not always by the market anomalies. They reported that spatial

difference and market anomalies did not determine the price of rice market. Rice market is

integral in nature. Price difference is not only determined by the seasonal pattern it also

depends on climatic changes.

The seasonal and annual changes in climatic conditions caused by vary agricultural

outputs, price of food commodities display wider inter-year and intra-year dispersion (FAO,

1983). Besides market, the distribution system also plays a vital role for enhancing greater

access to food by the poor. The market and the PFDS have important links. The government

food distribution systems are to be made more effective, timely and pro-poor as well as the

market situations are to be controlled, in a way that would benefit the vast majority of poor

people and the marginal farmers. There should be more meaningful interactions and

integration among the government departments and agencies dealing with PFDS and food

market with the common goal of making the market efficient, responsive and pro-people and

that way contribute to pave the way for ensuring greater access to food by the majority poor

of the country.

Table-3: Shares of various channels in PFDS offtakes of wheat.

Offtake Channels

Annual Averages

1989-90 to 1991-92 1992-93 to 1996-97

Statutory rationing (SR) 11.37 1.19

xxvii

Rural rationing (RR) 1.06 0

Essential priority (EP) 3.64 8.92

Other priority (OP) 11.21 0.37

Large employers (LE) 2.04 0.86

Open market sales (OMS) 0.46 5.53

Flour mills (FM) 16.35 3.88

Palli chakki (PC) 6.38 1.85

Auction and others 0 .90

Total priced distribution 52.50 23.51

Food for work (FFW) 29.83 39.80

Special test relief (STR) .64 .40

Test relief (TR) 4.14 8.12

Gratuitous relief (GR) 1.17 1.06

Vulnerable group development (VGD) 11.73 14.59

Food for education (FFE) 0 11.7

Others 0 .83

Total non-priced distribution 47.5 76.49

Total wheat distribution 1491.20 944.56

Source: FPMU data, Ministry of Food.

For half a century, government has played a vital role in marketing of food grains in

the country. Table-3 & 4 showed that the shares of various channels in PFDS off takes of

wheat and intake of food grain scenario of Bangladesh. The public food grain distribution

system (PFDS) is to a large extent the outgrowth of government response two famines: the

1943 Bengal famine and the 1974 famine (Ravallion, 1987). Perceived failure of markets to

ensure sufficient food at prices within reach of the poor provided the rationale for

maintaining a national food security stock of food grain.

Lack of purchasing power of the poor, even in years of normal market food grain

supply and prices, spurs the government and donors to operate various direct distribution and

employment programs. In particular, the goals of the Ministry of Food are as follows:

1. Make food grains available to poor households that would not otherwise be able to

acquire enough food;

2. Stabilize prices by distributing food grains in urban and rural areas, thus

preventing excessive food grain price increases;

3. Support food grain producers through a system of domestic procurement of

marketable surplus;

4. Supply food grains to priority groups;

xxviii

5. Arrange for the distribution of food during emergency situations, such as national

calamities.

Table-4: Food Grain Imports and Total PFDS Intake Scenario of Bangladesh.

FinancialYear

Food Grain Imports (‘000 Tons) Domestic

Procurement

(‘000 mt)

Total

PFDS

intake

(‘000 mt)

Food Aid

Per

Capita

Per Year

Aid Public Private Total

FY57-60 Avg 480 123 - 603 71 674 10.09FY61-65 Avg 330 447 - 777.8 35 813 6.11FY66-70 Avg 371 770 - 1142 27 1169 5.91FY71-75 Avg 845 511 - 1356 43 1399 11.74FY76-80 Avg 1162 409 - 1571 372 1943 14.06FY80-85 Avg 1123 641 - 1764 425 2189 11.95FY86-90 Avg 1332 578 - 1910 457 2367 12.72FY91-95 Avg 1055 179 560.5 1794.5 495 1731 9.171995-96 743.1 840.8 850 2433.9 422 2006 6.141996-97 618 112 237 967.1 615 1345 5.031997-98 549 249 1135 1932.8 617 1415 4.391998-99 1235 777 1480 3491.2 753 2765 9.721999-2000 870 0 1234 2103.8 967 1837 6.74FY95-00 Avg 803 395 987 2185 674 1874 6.42

Source: FPMU data, Ministry of Food.

4. Foodgrain Price and Its Distribution by the Public SectorMost of the imports through the Chittagong port are distributed in Dhaka, Chittagong

and other areas east of the river Jamuna while nearly 80 percent of the imports through the

Mongla port are distributed to the area lying in the western region of the country.

Interestingly, the price for government distributed rice is the same in all locations which

shows that the pricing policy does not take into account the variation of transpiration cost

between different areas. The three categories of prices of rice prevailing in the country are the

procurement price, the controlled price and the market price. With the limited data we have it

is difficult to estimate the effect of government procurement price and distribution price on

the free market price of rice in the urban and producing areas. Certain aspects of government

price policy, which deserve attention. The procurement price is always lower than the

average free market price. Since most of the procurement zones are also areas in the surplus

rice - producing districts, the impact of this pricing policy on production and reducing

xxix

districts, the impact of this pricing policy on production and resource allocation may be quite

significant (Brennan, 1995). On the other hand, procurement from border zones at an

inequitable price may fail as an anti-smuggling measure and may in reality be an incentive

for smuggling and smugglers. Another import thing to notice is that the market prices at

Dhaka are substantially higher than those prevailing in Chittagong. This leads on to ponder

about the effects government controlled price is having on the Dhaka prices, which still

accounts for the largest distribution center of government food grains.

Table-5: Distribution Scenario and Availability of Food Grain of Bangladesh.

FinancialYear

Public Distribution (‘000 tons) Targeted

as % of

Total

PFDS

Avail-

ability

per

Capita

(Kg)

Distri-

bution as

% of Avail-

ability

Non-

mone

tary

Monetary Distribution

PFDS

TotalMarket EP Ration Total

FY57-60 Avg 8 1 71 508 582 590 12.41 158.93 7.81FY61-65 Avg 7 2 80 650 733 740 13.68 175.29 7.82FY66-70 Avg 21 29 92 883 1005 1027 16.36 168.41 9.71FY71-75 Avg 393 106 72 1436 1616 2009 19.56 162.41 17.18FY76-80 Avg 298 241 95 1232 1568 1867 15.96 158.09 14.29FY80-85 Avg 563 259 102 1107 1468 2031 27.72 162.64 13.29FY86-90 Avg 967 322 127 857 1307 2274 42.52 162.32 13.38FY91-95 Avg 876 368 156 362 887 1764 49.66 164.51 9.321995-96 1147 404 180 63 647.2 1794.2 63.93 160.11 9.261996-97 1127 45 189 30 263.5 1391 81.02 157.03 7.201998-99 1874 9.1 210 26 245.7 2120 88.40 177.00 9.431999-2000 1609 55.1 210 26 291.1 1900 84.68 190.57 7.73FY95-00 Avg 1396 136 198 33 368 1765 79.09 170.38 8.29

Source: FPMU data, Ministry of Food.

Table-1, 4 & 5 gives the total supply-distribution balance sheet of the public sector for

the last decade. The highest quantity of food grain procured internally in one year was 960

thousand m.tons in the year 1989-90 where as, average of this period (1986-90) was 457

thousand m.tons. The highest quantity of food grain imported in one year was about 2917

thousand m.tons in the year 1987-88 where as, average of this period (1986-90) was 1910

thousand m.tons (Table-4). It may be noted that it was the year of devastating floods in the

country.

Table-6a: Commodity-wise Export Handled at Chittagong & Mongla Ports.

1993-94 1994-95

xxx

Commodity All ports(‘000 M.T.)

Chittagong(‘000 M.T.)

Mongla(‘000 M.T.)

All ports(‘000 M.T.)

Chittagong(‘000 M.T.)

Mongla(‘000 M.T.)

Jute 185.27 2.69 182.58 250.34 3.26 247.08Jute Goods 499.63 256.59 243.04 568.94 310.97 257.97C. Boxes - - - - - -Tea 34.27 34.27 - 41.54 41.54 -Hides & Skins 10.54 10.54 - 12.77 12.77 -Leather .171 - .171 .124 - .124Fish(dry)frozen 26.46 25.97 .490 31.78 31.48 .302Froglegs - - - .203 - .203H. Hair 235.07 235.07 - 284.89 284.89 -Naptha,molasse 275.21 275.21 - 333.54 333.54 -Fertilizer 184.32 162.33 21.99 381.24 196.74 184.50Shrimp 15.89 - 15.89 15.21 - 15.21C/Bones .587 - .587 .343 - .343Rice .051 - .051 - - -Tobacco .102 - .102 .048 - .048General cargo 2.55 - 2.55 .457 - .457Garments 166.53 166.53 - 201.83 201.83 -Others - - - - - -Total 1636.63 1169.19 467.44 2123.23 1417.00 706.23

Source: Chittagong and Mongla Port Authority, BBS.

The traders at the terminal markets do not seem to be very much concerned about the

delay in transit time. They may base their sales and purchases on the expectation that supplies

will come after certain intervals. Secondly, government regulations prohibit the storing of

rice for more than seven days but this does not apply to consignments in transit. This

government rule removes the pressure to reduce transport time and thus introduces indirectly

and additional source of imperfection. Especially after February and March, a transit delay

will surely result in a higher sale price at destination.

From the source or the surplus areas of the production, the produce mainly moved by

3 ways namely Waterway, Road (highway) and Railways. Waterway vehicles like boat,

barges, launch and so on mainly used for food grain transport in the past. This system is less

costly and the grain quality is not damaged because of smooth transportation. Railway is still

used for transportation of agricultural commodities. Special wagon is attached with passenger

train in the peak season, But from seventies roadways i.e. truck of different capacities has

been used and dominating the transport of food grains in the country. From eighties there has

been significant development of roads, approach roads in the different areas of the country.

Trucks are being used not only in the longest distance but it is also used in the local level

markets. These transport facilities are costly but it is faster and can carry big volume of

foodstuff at a time.

xxxi

Table-6b: Commodity-wise Export Handled at Chittagong & Mongla Ports.

Commodity1995-96 1996-97All ports(‘000 M.T.)

Chittagong(‘000 M.T.)

Mongla(‘000 M.T.)

All ports(‘000 M.T.)

Chittagong(‘000 M.T.)

Mongla(‘000 M.T.)

Jute 138.54 - 138.54 181.93 - 181.93Jute Goods 389.65 245.00 - 437.54 247.59 189.95C. Boxes 24.00 24.00 - 24.26 24.26 -Tea 21.00 21.00 - 21.22 21.22 -Hides & Skins - - - - - -Leather - - - - - -Fish(dry)frozen 15.00 15.00 - 15.16 15.16 -Froglegs - - - - - -H. Hair - - - - - -Naptha,molasse 89.00 89.00 - 89.94 89.94 -Fertilizer 609.45 506.00 103.45 647.20 511.35 135.85Shrimp 8.53 - 8.53 11.20 - 11.20C/Bones .343 - .343 .450 - .450Rice - - - - - -Tobacco .029 - .029 .038 - .038General cargo .457 - .457 .600 - .600Garments 265.00 265.00 - 267.80 267.80 -Others 255.00 255.00 - 257.70 257.70 -Total 1816.00 1420.00 396.00 1955.00 1435.00 520.00

Source: Chittagong and Mongla Port Authority, BBS.

Dinajpur is the main source of food grains transferred to deficit area of the country.

But unfortunately there is no direct wagon facility in the train from Dinajpur. The only mode

of transportation is truck. In the season time (specially in aman and irri-boro) the movement

of paddy and rice increased significantly and the truck is also short in supply resultant the

price/ cost of truck is increased. From Dinajpur, Rajshahi, Mymenshigh, and Bogra truck is

the main mode of transpiration. The scenario of commodity-wise export and import handled

at chittagong and Mongla ports during the period 1993-94 to 1996-97 are shown in Table-

6a&b and Table-7a&b.

Due to the development of roadways in the country, road transport by truck has been

also improved for transport of any type of commodities and products. Specially in Dinajpur

tremendous improvement has been done during last few years and the mainly organized and

maintained by Dhaka. But from eighties the local transport agencies have been developed and

now it is still developing. The transportation cost of truck for Dinajpur and Mymensingh

districts are showed in Table-8 & 9. The truck carrying 130.140 bags containing 84 kg of rice

in each bat i.e. 5 tons capacity truck usually carries 10 tons almost double food grains. The

truck cost normally increased in the Aman peak season i.e. from December to March and in

xxxii

July for Boro/Irri crop. In the season time nearly 200 trucks moved to the deficit areas. In

Mymensingh 10 tons capacity truck has been introduced from 1993, which is higher priced

than 5 tons trucks.

Table-7a: Commodity-wise Import Handled at Chittagong & Mongla ports.

Commodity1993-94 1994-95All ports(‘000 M.T.)

Chittagong(‘000 M.T.)

Mongla(‘000 M.T.)

All ports(‘000 M.T.)

Chittagong(‘000 M.T.)

Mongla(‘000 M.T.)

Foodgrain 1565.80 1326.70 239.10 2201.62 1703.30 498.32Sugar 2.96 2.96 - 9.80 3.80 6.00Salt 465.81 271.77 194.04 375.52 348.92 26.60Oil in Drum 363.24 363.24 - 466.35 466.35 -Oil - - - 2.38 - 2.38Oil seed 107.31 107.31 - 137.77 137.77 -Cement 1381.85 517.30 864.55 1771.63 664.14 1107.49Cement clinker 159.35 159.35 - 204.59 204.59 -Fertilizer 338.52 247.85 90.67 666.89 318.20 348.69Cotton 49.25 49.25 - 63.85 63.24 .61Cotton Yarn - - - - - -Iron & Steel 1.09 1.09 - 1.41 1.41 -Tobacco - - - .085 - .085Paper 1.33 1.33 - 1.71 1.71 -Wood pulp 3.02 - 3.02 2.99 - 2.99Sundries 1437.51 1437.51 - 1845.57 1845.57 -Coal 33.25 33.25 - 42.69 42.69 -Poles (in bulk) 1951.21 1951.21 - 2505.10 2505.10 -Machinery 1.99 - 1.99 11.57 - 11.57Steel pipes - - - 2.21 - 2.21Pig iron 19.87 19.87 - 25.51 25.51 -Steel-iron mat. 238.13 - 238.13 305.73 - 305.73General cargo 70.06 - 70.06 113.19 - 113.19Edible oil - - - - - -Others - - - - - -Total 8191.54 6728.12 1463.42 10758.12 8638.00 2120.12

Source: Chittagong and Mongla Port Authority, BBS.

Table-7b: Commodity-wise Import Handled at Chittagong & Mongla ports.

Commodity1995-96 1996-97

All ports(‘000 M.T.)

Chittagong(‘000 M.T.)

Mongla(‘000 M.T.)

All ports(‘000 M.T.)

Chittagong(‘000 M.T.)

Mongla(‘000 M.T.)

Foodgrain 2100.21 1526.00 574.21 2073.65 1562.55 511.10

xxxiii

Sugar 6.91 - 6.91 6.15 - 6.15Salt 30.65 - 30.65 27.28 - 27.28Oil in Drum - - - 2.53 - 2.53Oil 2.84 - 2.84 - - -Oil seed - - - - - -Cement 2828.16 1552.00 1276.16 2725.07 1589.17 1135.90Cement clinker - - - - - -Fertilizer 580.80 179.00 401.80 540.92 183.29 357.63Cotton .70 - .70 .63 - .63Cotton Yarn .098 - .098 - - -Iron & Steel - - - - - -Tobacco - - - - - -Paper - - - - - -Wood pulp 3.45 - 3.45 3.07 - 3.07Sundries - - - - - -Coal 13.00 13.00 - 13.31 13.31 -Poles (in bulk) 2384.00 2384.00 - 2441.10 2441.10 -Machinery 13.33 - 13.33 11.87 - 11.87Steel pipes 2.54 - 2.54 2.26 - 2.26Pig iron - - - - - -Steel-iron mat. - - - - - -General cargo 130.42 - 130.42 116.09 - 116.09Edible oil 366.00 366.00 - 374.77 374.77 -Others 2831.00 2831.00 - 2898.81 2898.81 -Total 11294.00 8851.00 2443.00 11237.49 9062.99 2174.50

Source: Chittagong and Mongla Port Authority, BBS.

Table-8: Truck Cost Price from Dinajpur to Dhaka and Chittagong.

Month 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995January 11,500 11,000 10,000 9,500 9000 8500February 11,000 10,000 9,500 9,000 8000 7500March 10,000 9,000 8,500 8,000 7500 6500April 9500 8,500 7,500 7,000 6500 5500May 8,500 7,500 7,000 6,500 6000 5500June 8,000 7,000 6,500 6,000 5500 4500July 9,000 8,500 8,000 8,000 7000 6500August 8,000 7,500 7,000 6,500 6000 5500September 7,000 6,000 5,500 5,000 4500 4500October 7,500 6,500 6,000 5,000 4500 4000November 7,000 6,500 6,000 5,500 5000 4500December 10,500 10,000 9,500 9,000 8500 8000Average: 8917 8167 7583 7083 6500 5917

Source: DAM, 1999

Table-9: Annual Cost for Truck for Mymensingh to Dhaka.

1990 1800-2200 Fare for 5 tons truck From December to February the cost per truck is increased around Tk. 200 for Aman and

1991 1800-24001992 1800-2500

xxxiv

in April & may for Boro/Irri season

1993 2000-3000 Fare for 10 tons truck1994 2000-30001995 2000-35001996 2000-3000

Source: DAM, 1999

Dinajpur market (Appendix Table 1a) showed that the seasonal boro price in aman

season of maximum positive changes from previous year was found 52.4% in 1983/84,

45.7% in 1985/86, 47.4% in 1998/99 whereas maximum negative changes from previous year

was found -15% in 1984/85, -13.8% in 1992/93, -21.5% in 1996/97, -15.1% in 2000/01.

Dinajpur market also showed that the maximum positive deviation of seasonal price from

moving average was found 19.7% in 1983/84, 8.8% in 1995/96, 15.7% in 1998/99 whereas

maximum negative deviation was found –17.2% in 1982/83, -17.4% in 1984/85, -14.9% in

1997/98. The price changes scenario indicated that market is not stable. The similar unstable

price scenario was found for the remaining markets (Appendix Table 1a-1f, 2a-2f and 3a-3f).

Public and private imports are the main instruments to achieve a annual stability of prices.

5. Conclusions and RecommendationsThe food grain marketing system has changed dramatically in Bangladesh over the

past several decades. While rice production doubled between the early 1960’s and early

1990’s, the percentage of production that marketed rose from 10-14 percent to nearly 50

percent, and market volume increased six-fold (Table-1&2). The purpose of this study is to

set forth the key issues that must be resolved in formulating a national food policy that can

help achieve food security. The overall targeted output of the research program is to

formulate locally based public policies and strategies for the sustainable development of

agricultural markets. Specific outputs include: (i) increased knowledge and information

about the specific institutions necessary for the development of agricultural markets; (ii)

better understanding of the role of the government and the private sector in accelerating

market development and rural income growth; (iii) increased local institutional and

professional capacity to monitor the development of markets and advise governments and the

emerging private sector in this area. In the last two decades many developing countries have

not been successful at developing private, efficient and competitive agricultural markets.

Evidence suggested that this failure is due to institutional and structural deficiencies

that have not been properly addressed by the governments. More research needed to identify

xxxv

the appropriate role of the government in providing or facilitating the development of those

institutions that are necessary to promote agricultural markets and rural income growth. The

types of institutions needed can be classified into four main categories: (1) market related

institutions such as cooperatives, farmers and traders associations, credit clubs, contract

farming, etc., (2) institutional infrastructure such as roads, communication networks,

commodity exchanges, storage facilities, market information services, etc., (3) regulatory

institutions such as laws regarding market conduct and enforcement of contracts, ownership

rules and property rights, grades and standards, etc., and (4) government and political

institutions that have the capacity to monitor the emergence of markets and support their

development. The impact of institutional, market and infrastructure development on

smallholder farmers and agricultural income also needs to be assessed.

The respondents and the stakeholders of all categories (farmers, traders, poor, women,

representatives of the local government and community leaders) felt that stabilizing the price

food in the market and continued supply of food grains in the rural markets are the best

options for increasing household food security. The second priority option for mitigation

household food insecurity was to improving PFDS by making it efficient and effective.

Finally suggested to improving rural commutation for better transportation of goods and that

would certainly benefit the locality as well as community. Due to lack of better

communication and information system on food grain price, market becomes the impediment

by sudden and sometimes artificially related high level of price, Hence, food price

information system should be make effective, timely and quickly to any sudden price-like in

any region and to take quick remedial measures. Through developing better road

communication system, inter and intra-regional markets can spatially be integrated as per

expectation and in that case, transport costs will also be lowered.

The study tried to explore to two interrelated areas meanly market and food

distribution systems in relation to achieving food security for the poor and marginal people.

The study suggested policy responses for improving both the market and the PFDS. This

study will help identify the types of public policies needed for the development of

competitive and efficient agricultural markets that can contribute in reducing rural poverty

and promoting agricultural economic growth in the country.

References

xxxvi

Andrews, M.S. and G.C. Rausser, 1986, Some Political Economy Aspects of Macroeconomic

Linkages with Agriculture. American Journal of Agriculture Economy. 68:413-417.

Baumol, W.J., 1982, contestable Markets: An Uprising in the Theory of Industry Structure.

American Economic Review. 72: 1-15.

Begum, S., 1999, Commodity report of Food grain. Department of Agricultural Marketing,

Dhaka.

Brennan, D., 1995, Policies for stabilizing rice prices in Bangladesh. Final report of the

Bangladesh Food grains Management Operations Project. TA No. 2052-BAN.

Chowdhury, N., 1992, Rice market in Bangladesh: A case study in structure, conduct and

performance. IFPRI, Bangladesh Food Policy Project, No. 22.

Crow, B. and K.A.S. Murshid, 1990, The finance of forced and free markets: merchants

capital in Bangladesh grain markets. Paper presented to the meetings of American

Economic Association and Union for Radical Political Economics, Washington DC.

Devine, D.G. and B.W. Marion, 1979, The Influence of Consumer Price Information on

Retail Pricing and Consumer Behavior. American Journal of Agricultural

Economics. 61: 228-237.

FAO, 1983, Implementation and administration of agricultural price in Asia, FAO,

Economic and Social Development Paper.

Farruk, M.O., 1970, The structure and performance of the rice marketing system in East

Pakistan. USAID Prices Research Project. Report No. 31. Cornell University, U.S.A.

Hall, L.L. et-al., 1981, Case studies in the Transmission of Farm Prices. Dept. of Agriculture

Economics, Cornell University A.E. Research. 81-12. U.S.A.

Heien, D.M., 1980, Markup Pricing in a Dynamic Model of the Food Industry. American

Journal of Agricultural Economics. 62: 10-18.

Hess, A.C, 1972, Experimental Evidence on Price Formation in Competitive Markets. Journal

of Political Economy. 80: 375-385.

Hossain, M., 1991, Agriculture in Bangladesh. Performance, Problems and Prospects,

Dhaka University Press Ltd.

IFPRI. Website, http://www.ifpri.org/textonly/themes/2mp01.ht.

Islam, A.; H. Mukarram; N. Islam; S. Akhter; E. Harun and J. N. Efferson, 1985, A

benchmark study of rice marketing in Bangladesh: BIDS and Directorate of

Agricultural Marketing.

xxxvii

Khaliquzzaman, Q., 1997. Bangladesh: Agricultural Growth and Environments and

Development 4(1): Bangladesh Unnayan Parisad, Dhaka.

Karim, A. et at., 1997, Towards sustainable food security in Bangladesh. Asia Pacific

Journal on Environmental and Development, 4(1). Bangladesh Unnayan Parishad,

Dhaka.

Kohls, R.L. and N.V. Joseph, 1985, Marketing of Agricultural Products N.Y, Machmillan

Publishing company.

Kinnucan, H.W. and O.D. Forker, 1987, Asymmetry in farm- Retail price Transmission for

Major Dairy Products. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 69: 285-292.

Lamm, R.M. and P.C. Westcott, 1981, the Effects of Changing Input costs on Food Prices.

American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 63: 187-196

MacDonald, J.M., 1987, Economics of Scope, Contestable Theory and Economic Efficiency.

Ed. Kilmer, W.L. and W. Armbruster, In Economic Efficiency in Agricultural and

Food Marketing. Iowa State University Press, Iowa, U.S.A.

Mandal, M.A.S., 2000, Changing Rural Economy of Bangladesh (Ed.), Bangladesh

Economic Association, Dhaka.

Marion, B.W. et al., 1986, The Organization and Performance of the U.S. Food System

Lexington, mass.: Lexington Book.

Muller, W.F., 1983, Market Power and its Control in the Food System. American Journal of

Agricultural Economics. 65: 855-868.

Nelson, P.E.Jr., 1966, Price Competition among Retail Food Stores. Journal of Farm

Economics. 48: 172-187.

Ninno, C. del and P. Dorosh, 1998, Government policy, markets and food security in

Bangladesh. . IFPRI, FMRS Project.

Padberg, D.I., 1968, Economics of Food Relating. Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University. Food

Distribution Program.

Ravallion, M., 1987, Markets and Famines. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Shahabuddin. Q. and P.A. Dorosh, 1998, Rice Market in the 1997-98 Asian Season: A

Rapid Appraisal Analysis. IFPRI, Dhaka.

Shahabuddin, Q. and Rahman, R.I., 1999, Growth and Stagnation of Bangladesh Agriculture.

Dhaka: Centre for Integrated Rural Development in Asia and Pacific.

Tomek, W.G. and K.L. Robinson, 1995, Agricultural Product Prices. Cornell University

Press, 1 thaca and London.

xxxviii

Tomek, W.G., 1985, Limits on Price Analysis. American Journal of Agriculture Economics.

67: 905-915.

Tomek, W.G. and K.L. Robinson, 1977, Agricultural Price Analysis and Outlook in a Survey

of Agricultural Economics Literature. Vol-1. Ed. L.R. Martin. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press.

Ward, R.W., 1982, Asymmetry in retail, wholesale, and shipping pointy pricing for Fresh

Vegetables. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 64:205-212.

Westcott, P.C., 1986, Aggregate Indicators in the quarterly Agricultural forecasting Model.

USDA, ERS. Staff Report AGES 860916.

Appendix

xxxix

Appendix Table1a: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Aman

Season of Dinajpur, Rangpur, Bogra and Rajshahi Market during the Period of

1980-81 to 2001-02.

Yea

r

MarketDinajpur Rangpur Bogra Rajshahi

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

1980-81 459 465 450 6141981-82 471 2.6 453 4.0 478 2.8 468 2.1 440 -2.2 443 -0.8 441 -28.2 508 -13.11982-83 429 -8.9 518 -17.2 461 -3.6 527 -12.5 440 0.0 521 -15.5 468 6.1 521 -10.21983-84 654 52.4 546 19.7 641 39.0 550 16.5 683 55.2 632 8.1 655 40.0 593 10.41984-85 556 -15.0 673 -17.4 549 -14.4 664 -17.3 772 13.0 743 3.9 657 0.3 719 -8.61985-86 810 45.7 762 6.3 802 46.1 755 6.2 775 0.4 829 -6.6 844 28.5 822 2.71986-87 919 13.5 880 4.4 915 14.1 876 4.5 941 21.4 879 7.1 964 14.2 915 5.41987-88 912 -0.8 913 -0.1 910 -0.5 910 0.0 920 -2.2 912 0.9 936 -2.9 928 0.91988-89 908 -0.4 922 -1.5 904 -0.7 916 -1.3 874 -5.0 905 -3.4 883 -5.7 918 -3.81989-90 946 4.2 951 -0.5 935 3.4 948 -1.3 921 5.4 939 -1.9 935 5.9 941 -0.61990-91 999 5.6 992 0.7 1004 7.4 980 2.5 1022 11.0 989 3.3 1005 7.5 987 1.81991-92 1030 3.1 972 5.9 1000 -0.4 951 5.2 1024 0.2 987 3.7 1022 1.7 980 4.31992-93 888 -13.8 937 -5.3 848 -15.2 902 -6.0 916 -10.5 952 -3.8 912 -10.8 945 -3.51993-94 894 0.7 975 -8.3 858 1.2 941 -8.9 917 0.1 997 -8.0 902 -1.1 988 -8.71994-95 1144 28.0 1071 6.8 1118 30.3 1039 7.6 1158 26.3 1105 4.8 1149 27.4 1068 7.61995-96 1175 2.7 1080 8.8 1141 2.1 1041 9.6 1241 7.2 1139 9.0 1154 0.4 1080 6.91996-97 922 -21.5 995 -7.3 863 -24.4 975 -11.5 1017 -18.0 1070 -4.9 936 -18.9 1027 -8.91997-98 887 -3.8 1039 -14.6 921 6.7 1028 -10.4 951 -6.5 1122 -15.2 991 5.9 1096 -9.61998-99 1307 47.4 1128 15.9 1299 41.0 1113 16.7 1398 47.0 1192 17.3 1362 37.4 1176 15.81999-00 1189 -9.0 1168 1.8 1119 -13.9 1164 -3.9 1226 -12.3 1246 -1.6 1175 -13.7 1204 -2.42000-01 1009 -15.1 1072 -5.9 1075 -3.9 1070 0.5 1115 -9.1 1140 -2.2 1076 -8.4 1115 -3.52001-02 1018 1015 1079 1094

xl

Appendix Table1b: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Aman

Season of Pabna, Kushtia, Jessore and Khulna Market during the Period of 1980-81

to 2001-02.

Yea

r

MarketPabna Kushtia Jessore Khulna

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

1980-81 541 458 478 5951981-82 456 -15.7 501.3 -9.0 468 2.2 481 -2.7 512 7.1 510 0.4 552 -7.2 541.3 2.01982-83 507 11.2 554.7 -8.6 517 10.5 548 -5.7 540 5.5 551.7 -2.1 477 -13.6 575.3 -17.11983-84 701 38.3 624.7 12.2 659 27.5 622 5.9 603 11.7 613.7 -1.7 697 46.1 637.7 9.31984-85 666 -5.0 743.3 -10.4 690 4.7 743.7 -7.2 698 15.8 713 -2.1 739 6.0 799.3 -7.51985-86 863 29.6 834.7 3.4 882 27.8 843.7 4.5 838 20.1 828 1.2 962 30.2 895 7.51986-87 975 13.0 932 4.6 959 8.7 932.3 2.9 948 13.1 907.3 4.5 984 2.3 972 1.21987-88 958 -1.7 951 0.7 956 -0.3 942 1.5 936 -1.3 933.7 0.2 970 -1.4 962.3 0.81988-89 920 -4.0 945 -2.6 911 -4.7 932 -2.3 917 -2.0 942.3 -2.7 933 -3.8 950.7 -1.91989-90 957 4.0 976.3 -2.0 929 2.0 949.7 -2.2 974 6.2 989.7 -1.6 949 1.7 968.3 -2.01990-91 1052 9.9 1025 2.7 1009 8.6 981.3 2.8 1078 10.7 1043 3.4 1023 7.8 1000 2.31991-92 1065 1.2 1013 5.1 1006 -0.3 963.7 4.4 1076 -0.2 1023 5.2 1029 0.6 991.7 3.81992-93 923 -13.3 962 -4.1 876 -12.9 934 -6.2 914 -15.1 975.3 -6.3 923 -10.3 970.7 -4.91993-94 898 -2.7 986.7 -9.0 920 5.0 980.3 -6.2 936 2.4 1008 -7.1 960 4.0 1021 -5.91994-95 1139 26.8 1074 6.1 1145 24.5 1091 5.0 1174 25.4 1105 6.2 1179 22.8 1122 5.11995-96 1184 4.0 1086 9.0 1207 5.4 1096 10.1 1206 2.7 1101 9.5 1226 4.0 1112 10.21996-97 935 -21.0 1040 -10.1 936 -22.5 1050 -10.9 923 -23.5 1037 -11.0 932 -24.0 1044 -10.71997-98 1000 7.0 1091 -8.4 1008 7.7 1101 -8.4 981 6.3 1083 -9.4 974 4.5 1082 -10.01998-99 1339 33.9 1148 16.7 1359 34.8 1179 15.3 1346 37.2 1166 15.5 1340 37.6 1155 16.01999-00 1104 -17.6 1156 -4.5 1169 -14.0 1191 -1.8 1170 -13.1 1193 -1.9 1151 -14.1 1187 -3.02000-01 1024 -7.2 1080 -5.2 1044 -10.7 1090 -4.2 1063 -9.1 1104 -3.7 1070 -7.0 1101 -2.82001-02 1112 1057 1079 1082

xli

Appendix Table1c: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Aman

Season of Barisal, Patuakhali, Mymensingh and Kishoreganj during the Period of

1980-81 to 2001-02.

Yea

r

MarketBarisal Patuakhali Mymensingh Kishoreganj

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

1980-81 591 512 642 6401981-82 556 -5.9 542.3 2.5 498 -2.7 506.3 -1.6 470 -26.8 533 -11.8 478 -25.3 538.3 -11.21982-83 480 -13.7 578 -17.0 509 2.2 573 -11.2 487 3.6 553 -11.9 497 4.0 562.3 -11.61983-84 698 45.4 643 8.6 712 39.9 659.7 7.9 702 44.1 618.3 13.5 712 43.3 627 13.61984-85 751 7.6 803.3 -6.5 758 6.5 762.3 -0.6 666 -5.1 740 -10.0 672 -5.6 748.3 -10.21985-86 961 28.0 922 4.2 817 7.8 855.7 -4.5 852 27.9 822 3.6 861 28.1 831.3 3.61986-87 1054 9.7 1017 3.6 992 21.4 931 6.6 948 11.3 916.3 3.5 961 11.6 928.3 3.51987-88 1037 -1.6 1023 1.4 984 -0.8 984.7 -0.1 949 0.1 946.3 0.3 963 0.2 956.7 0.71988-89 978 -5.7 985.7 -0.8 978 -0.6 1015 -3.6 942 -0.7 945 -0.3 946 -1.8 946.7 -0.11989-90 942 -3.7 963.7 -2.2 1083 10.7 1061 2.1 944 0.2 971.3 -2.8 931 -1.6 973 -4.31990-91 971 3.1 990 -1.9 1122 3.6 1100 2.0 1028 8.9 1005 2.3 1042 11.9 1005 3.71991-92 1057 8.9 990.3 6.7 1096 -2.3 1066 2.8 1043 1.5 994 4.9 1042 0.0 1003 3.91992-93 943 -10.8 949.3 -0.7 979 -10.7 1008 -2.8 911 -12.7 954.7 -4.6 925 -11.2 964.7 -4.11993-94 848 -10.1 977.3 -13.2 948 -3.2 1020 -7.1 910 -0.1 990.7 -8.1 927 0.2 1002 -7.51994-95 1141 34.6 1072 6.4 1133 19.5 1038 9.2 1151 26.5 1102 4.5 1154 24.5 1104 4.51995-96 1228 7.6 1111 10.5 1033 -8.8 1037 -0.4 1244 8.1 1106 12.5 1232 6.8 1099 12.11996-97 965 -21.4 1062 -9.2 945 -8.5 992.7 -4.8 922 -25.9 1030 -10.5 912 -26.0 1038 -12.21997-98 994 3.0 1098 -9.5 1000 5.8 1118 -10.5 925 0.3 1072 -13.7 971 6.5 1102 -11.91998-99 1335 34.3 1164 14.7 1408 40.8 1158 21.6 1370 48.1 1144 19.8 1424 46.7 1185 20.21999-00 1164 -12.8 1175 -1.0 1065 -24.4 1179 -9.6 1136 -17.1 1200 -5.3 1160 -18.5 1216 -4.62000-01 1027 -11.8 1112 -7.7 1063 -0.2 1068 -0.4 1093 -3.8 1100 -0.7 1065 -8.2 1100 -3.22001-02 1146 1075 1072 1074

xlii

Appendix Table1d: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Aman

Season of Jamalpur, Tangail, Faridpur and Dhaka Market during the Period of

1980-81 to 2001-02.

Yea

r

MarketJamalpur Tangail Faridpur Dhaka

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

1980-81 445 452 636 6331981-82 450 1.1 458.7 -1.9 456 0.9 461.3 -1.2 512 -19.5 552.3 -7.3 489 -22.7 540 -9.41982-83 481 6.9 526.3 -8.6 476 4.4 515.7 -7.7 509 -0.6 545.3 -6.7 498 1.8 558.3 -10.81983-84 648 34.7 590.7 9.7 615 29.2 576 6.8 615 20.8 585.3 5.1 688 38.2 630.7 9.11984-85 643 -0.8 709 -9.3 637 3.6 710.3 -10.3 632 2.8 627 0.8 706 2.6 756.7 -6.71985-86 836 30.0 809.3 3.3 879 38.0 831.3 5.7 634 0.3 734.7 -13.7 876 24.1 832.3 5.21986-87 949 13.5 910.3 4.2 978 11.3 941.7 3.9 938 47.9 834 12.5 915 4.5 904 1.21987-88 946 -0.3 939.7 0.7 968 -1.0 960 0.8 930 -0.9 926 0.4 921 0.7 922.7 -0.21988-89 924 -2.3 931.3 -0.8 934 -3.5 949 -1.6 910 -2.2 922.7 -1.4 932 1.2 936.3 -0.51989-90 924 0.0 952.3 -3.0 945 1.2 978.7 -3.4 928 2.0 948.3 -2.1 956 2.6 979.3 -2.41990-91 1009 9.2 978 3.2 1057 11.9 1030 2.7 1007 8.5 983.3 2.4 1050 9.8 1027 2.21991-92 1001 -0.8 964.7 3.8 1087 2.8 1037 4.9 1015 0.8 979.3 3.6 1076 2.5 1032 4.21992-93 884 -11.7 930 -4.9 966 -11.1 1005 -3.8 916 -9.8 955.7 -4.2 971 -9.8 991.7 -2.11993-94 905 2.4 988 -8.4 961 -0.5 1044 -8.0 936 2.2 1012 -7.5 928 -4.4 1024 -9.41994-95 1175 29.8 1097 7.1 1205 25.4 1136 6.0 1184 26.5 1117 6.0 1174 26.5 1124 4.51995-96 1211 3.1 1099 10.2 1243 3.2 1130 10.0 1230 3.9 1132 8.6 1269 8.1 1148 10.51996-97 910 -24.9 1017 -10.5 942 -24.2 1059 -11.1 983 -20.1 1083 -9.2 1002 -21.0 1131 -11.41997-98 929 2.1 1097 -15.3 993 5.4 1121 -11.4 1036 5.4 1151 -10.0 1121 11.9 1168 -4.01998-99 1451 56.2 1169 24.1 1429 43.9 1208 18.3 1433 38.3 1282 11.7 1381 23.2 1221 13.11999-00 1128 -22.3 1216 -7.2 1202 -15.9 1228 -2.1 1378 -3.8 1304 5.7 1160 -16.0 1205 -3.72000-01 1069 -5.2 1083 -1.3 1052 -12.5 1120 -6.1 1100 -20.2 1199 -8.3 1073 -7.5 1106 -3.02001-02 1052 1106 1119 1084

Appendix Table1e: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Aman

Season of Sylhet, Comilla, Noakhali and Chittagang Market during the Period of

xliii

1980-81 to 2001-02.Y

ear

MarketSylhet Comilla Noakhali Chittagang

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

1980-81 625 603 602 5481981-82 424 -32.2 505.7 -16.2 440 -27.0 514.7 -14.5 556 -7.6 586.3 -5.2 445 -18.8 483 -7.91982-83 468 10.4 526.3 -11.1 501 13.9 553 -9.4 601 8.1 620 -3.1 456 2.5 506 -9.91983-84 687 46.8 596.7 15.1 718 43.3 631.3 13.7 703 17.0 669.7 5.0 617 35.3 569 8.41984-85 635 -7.6 702 -9.5 675 -6.0 752.7 -10.3 705 0.3 762 -7.5 634 2.8 660.7 -4.01985-86 784 23.5 781.7 0.3 865 28.1 838.7 3.1 878 24.5 860.3 2.1 731 15.3 777.3 -6.01986-87 926 18.1 877.7 5.5 976 12.8 938 4.1 998 13.7 953 4.7 967 32.3 889.7 8.71987-88 923 -0.3 914.7 0.9 973 -0.3 965 0.8 983 -1.5 973 1.0 971 0.4 972.7 -0.21988-89 895 -3.0 903.7 -1.0 946 -2.8 954.3 -0.9 938 -4.6 962 -2.5 980 0.9 987 -0.71989-90 893 -0.2 934 -4.4 944 -0.2 987.3 -4.4 965 2.9 1000 -3.5 1010 3.1 1031 -2.01990-91 1014 13.5 977.3 3.8 1072 13.6 1037 3.4 1097 13.7 1059 3.6 1103 9.2 1077 2.41991-92 1025 1.1 986.7 3.9 1094 2.1 1053 3.9 1116 1.7 1071 4.2 1117 1.3 1075 3.91992-93 921 -10.1 957 -3.8 994 -9.1 1019 -2.4 1000 -10.4 1031 -3.0 1005 -10.0 1027 -2.11993-94 925 0.4 1009 -8.3 968 -2.6 1052 -8.0 977 -2.3 1054 -7.3 958 -4.7 1064 -10.01994-95 1180 27.6 1139 3.6 1193 23.2 1153 3.4 1185 21.3 1139 4.0 1229 28.3 1155 6.41995-96 1312 11.2 1139 15.2 1299 8.9 1204 7.9 1256 6.0 1115 12.6 1278 4.0 1138 12.31996-97 924 -29.6 1066 -13.3 1119 -13.9 1148 -2.5 905 -27.9 1040 -13.0 908 -29.0 1073 -15.41997-98 963 4.2 1079 -10.7 1025 -8.4 1201 -14.6 960 6.1 1086 -11.6 1032 13.7 1078 -4.31998-99 1349 40.1 1134 18.9 1458 42.2 1229 18.7 1392 45.0 1157 20.3 1295 25.5 1155 12.21999-00 1091 -19.1 1176 -7.2 1203 -17.5 1255 -4.1 1120 -19.5 1235 -9.3 1137 -12.2 1156 -1.62000-01 1088 -0.3 1097 -0.8 1103 -8.3 1142 -3.4 1193 6.5 1144 4.3 1035 -9.0 1080 -4.22001-02 1111 1121 1119 1069

Appendix Table1f: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Aman

Season of Rangamati, Khagrachari and Bandarban Market during the Period of

1980-81 to 2001-02.

xliv

Yea

r

MarketRangamati Khagrachari Bandarban

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

1980-81 598 610 6051981-82 451 -24.6 502 -10.2 455 -25.4 508.7 -10.6 458 -24.3 507.7 -9.81982-83 457 1.3 532 -14.1 461 1.3 534.7 -13.8 460 0.4 535.3 -14.11983-84 688 50.5 593 16.0 688 49.2 594.7 15.7 688 49.6 593 16.01984-85 634 -7.8 671 -5.5 635 -7.7 671.3 -5.4 631 -8.3 667.3 -5.41985-86 691 9.0 746.3 -7.4 691 8.8 734.7 -5.9 683 8.2 776.7 -12.11986-87 914 32.3 837 9.2 878 27.1 815.7 7.6 1016 48.8 903.7 12.41987-88 906 -0.9 913.3 -0.8 878 0.0 906 -3.1 1012 -0.4 997.7 1.41988-89 920 1.5 936.3 -1.7 962 9.6 933.7 3.0 965 -4.6 981.3 -1.71989-90 983 6.8 999 -1.6 961 -0.1 1009 -4.8 967 0.2 990.7 -2.41990-91 1094 11.3 1063 2.9 1105 15.0 1054 4.9 1040 7.5 1028 1.11991-92 1113 1.7 1066 4.4 1095 -0.9 1058 3.5 1078 3.7 1053 2.41992-93 991 -11.0 1020 -2.8 973 -11.1 1057 -7.9 1041 -3.4 1005 3.61993-94 956 -3.5 1035 -7.6 1103 13.4 1088 1.4 896 -13.9 1072 -16.41994-95 1158 21.1 1113 4.0 1188 7.7 1196 -0.7 1279 42.7 1156 10.71995-96 1225 5.8 1142 7.3 1297 9.2 1143 13.5 1292 1.0 1194 8.21996-97 1042 -14.9 1101 -5.4 944 -27.2 1054 -10.4 1010 -21.8 1092 -7.51997-98 1037 -0.5 1173 -11.6 920 -2.5 972.7 -5.4 975 -3.5 1088 -10.41998-99 1440 38.9 1281 12.4 1054 14.6 1031 2.2 1279 31.2 1135 12.71999-00 1365 -5.2 1349 1.2 1120 6.3 1138 -1.6 1152 -9.9 1127 2.22000-01 1243 -8.9 1266 -1.8 1240 10.7 1187 4.4 950 -17.5 1023 -7.12001-02 1190 1202 967

Appendix Table2a: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Aus

Season of Dinajpur, Rangpur, Bogra and Rajshahi Market during the Period of

1980-81 to 2001-02.

Market

xlv

Yea

rDinajpur Rangpur Bogra Rajshahi

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

1980-81 478 489 445 4761981-82 482 0.8 503 -4.2 468 -4.3 502 -6.8 415 -6.7 489.3 -15.2 464 -2.5 511 -9.21982-83 549 13.9 544 0.9 549 17.3 538.7 1.9 608 46.5 549 10.7 593 27.8 558.7 6.11983-84 601 9.5 600.7 0.1 599 9.1 598.7 0.1 624 2.6 649.3 -3.9 619 4.4 642.7 -3.71984-85 652 8.5 678.7 -3.9 648 8.2 654.7 -1.0 716 14.7 705.3 1.5 716 15.7 694 3.21985-86 783 20.1 771 1.6 717 10.6 744.3 -3.7 776 8.4 790.7 -1.9 747 4.3 780.3 -4.31986-87 878 12.1 855 2.7 868 21.1 827.7 4.9 880 13.4 848 3.8 878 17.5 841 4.41987-88 904 3.0 912 -0.9 898 3.5 907 -1.0 888 0.9 891 -0.3 898 2.3 903.7 -0.61988-89 954 5.5 933.3 2.2 955 6.3 931.3 2.5 905 1.9 908.3 -0.4 935 4.1 925 1.11989-90 942 -1.3 970.3 -2.9 941 -1.5 968.7 -2.9 932 3.0 954.3 -2.3 942 0.7 969 -2.81990-91 1015 7.7 985 3.0 1010 7.3 981 3.0 1026 10.1 991 3.5 1030 9.3 996 3.41991-92 998 -1.7 954.7 4.5 992 -1.8 947.3 4.7 1015 -1.1 971.7 4.5 1016 -1.4 975.3 4.21992-93 851 -14.7 953 -10.7 840 -15.3 932.3 -9.9 874 -13.9 972.3 -10.1 880 -13.4 972 -9.51993-94 1010 18.7 1003 0.7 965 14.9 965.3 0.0 1028 17.6 1032 -0.4 1020 15.9 1023 -0.31994-95 1148 13.7 1087 5.6 1091 13.1 1028 6.1 1193 16.1 1131 5.5 1168 14.5 1109 5.31995-96 1103 -3.9 1068 3.3 1028 -5.8 1015 1.3 1173 -1.7 1136 3.2 1140 -2.4 1111 2.61996-97 952 -13.7 1061 -10.2 926 -9.9 1018 -9.0 1043 -11.1 1126 -7.3 1026 -10.0 1108 -7.41997-98 1127 18.4 1106 1.9 1099 18.7 1073 2.4 1161 11.3 1139 1.9 1158 12.9 1135 2.01998-99 1239 9.9 1189 4.2 1195 8.7 1155 3.5 1213 4.5 1178 3.0 1222 5.5 1177 3.81999-00 1201 -3.1 1151 4.3 1171 -2.0 1102 6.2 1160 -4.4 1142 1.6 1151 -5.8 1140 1.02000-01 1014 -15.6 1046 -3.1 941 -19.6 1013 -7.1 1052 -9.3 1067 -1.4 1047 -9.0 1074 -2.52001-02 924 927 988 1025

Appendix Table2b: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Aus

Season of Pabna, Kushtia, Jessore and Khulna Market during the Period of 1980-81

to 2001-02.

MarketPabna Kushtia Jessore Khulna

xlvi

Yea

r

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

1980-81 516 617 516 4951981-82 495 -4.1 528 -6.3 503 -18.5 582.3 -13.6 501 -2.9 537.3 -6.8 480 -3.0 527 -8.91982-83 573 15.8 574.7 -0.3 627 24.7 596.3 5.1 595 18.8 573 3.8 606 26.3 587.3 3.21983-84 656 14.5 658.3 -0.4 659 5.1 683.7 -3.6 623 4.7 663.3 -6.1 676 11.6 691.7 -2.31984-85 746 13.7 725 2.9 765 16.1 732.7 4.4 772 23.9 710.3 8.7 793 17.3 738.3 7.41985-86 773 3.6 808 -4.3 774 1.2 800.3 -3.3 736 -4.7 793.3 -7.2 746 -5.9 805 -7.31986-87 905 17.1 866.7 4.4 862 11.4 838.3 2.8 872 18.5 837 4.2 876 17.4 840 4.31987-88 922 1.9 930 -0.9 879 2.0 887 -0.9 903 3.6 915.7 -1.4 898 2.5 905.7 -0.81988-89 963 4.4 957.3 0.6 920 4.7 915.3 0.5 972 7.6 955 1.8 943 5.0 929.3 1.51989-90 987 2.5 1000 -1.3 947 2.9 964.3 -1.8 990 1.9 1011 -2.1 947 0.4 968.7 -2.21990-91 1051 6.5 1020 3.1 1026 8.3 989.3 3.7 1071 8.2 1035 3.5 1016 7.3 984.7 3.21991-92 1021 -2.9 987.7 3.4 995 -3.0 961.3 3.5 1044 -2.5 1002 4.2 991 -2.5 970.3 2.11992-93 891 -12.7 967.3 -7.9 863 -13.3 959 -10.0 890 -14.8 993.3 -10.4 904 -8.8 985.7 -8.31993-94 990 11.1 998 -0.8 1019 18.1 1015 0.4 1046 17.5 1025 2.0 1062 17.5 1043 1.91994-95 1113 12.4 1058 5.2 1162 14.0 1091 6.5 1140 9.0 1098 3.9 1162 9.4 1114 4.31995-96 1072 -3.7 1045 2.6 1092 -6.0 1071 1.9 1107 -2.9 1076 2.9 1118 -3.8 1079 3.61996-97 951 -11.3 1054 -9.8 960 -12.1 1069 -10.2 980 -11.5 1080 -9.3 957 -14.4 1075 -11.01997-98 1140 19.9 1095 4.1 1155 20.3 1111 4.0 1153 17.7 1120 2.9 1151 20.3 1126 2.21998-99 1195 4.8 1151 3.9 1217 5.4 1174 3.7 1227 6.4 1169 5.0 1270 10.3 1195 6.31999-00 1117 -6.5 1111 0.5 1149 -5.6 1124 2.2 1126 -8.2 1140 -1.2 1163 -8.4 1158 0.42000-01 1021 -8.6 1071 -4.6 1006 -12.4 1040 -3.3 1066 -5.3 1069 -0.3 1041 -10.5 1063 -2.02001-02 1074 965 1016 984

Appendix Table2c: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Aus

Season of Barisal, Patuakhali, Mymensingh and Kishoreganj during the Period of

1980-81 to 2001-02.

MarketBarisal Patuakhali Mymensingh Kishoreganj

xlvii

Yea

r

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

1980-81 498 475 515 4951981-82 498 0.0 519.7 -4.2 453 -4.6 507.3 -10.7 449 -12.8 512.7 -12.4 448 -9.5 507 -11.61982-83 563 13.1 353.7 59.2 594 31.1 554.3 7.2 574 27.8 552.3 3.9 578 29.0 541 6.8

1983-84 0 -100.0 433.3-

100.0 616 3.7 648 -4.9 634 10.5 645.3 -1.8 597 3.3 592 0.8

1984-85 737#DIV/

0! 482.3 52.8 734 19.2 716.7 2.4 728 14.8 705 3.3 601 0.7 643.7 -6.61985-86 710 -3.7 794.3 -10.6 800 9.0 817 -2.1 753 3.4 797 -5.5 733 22.0 736.3 -0.51986-87 936 31.8 864.3 8.3 917 14.6 885.7 3.5 910 20.8 858.3 6.0 875 19.4 830.7 5.31987-88 947 1.2 948.3 -0.1 940 2.5 946 -0.6 912 0.2 915.3 -0.4 884 1.0 890.3 -0.71988-89 962 1.6 974 -1.2 981 4.4 959 2.3 924 1.3 932.3 -0.9 912 3.2 917.3 -0.61989-90 1013 5.3 1010 0.3 956 -2.5 1019 -6.2 961 4.0 971 -1.0 956 4.8 967.7 -1.21990-91 1055 4.1 1022 3.2 1120 17.2 1064 5.3 1028 7.0 1001 2.7 1035 8.3 1005 3.01991-92 998 -5.4 993.3 0.5 1115 -0.4 1053 5.9 1015 -1.3 974.3 4.2 1024 -1.1 993 3.11992-93 927 -7.1 987 -6.1 924 -17.1 967.3 -4.5 880 -13.3 965.3 -8.8 920 -10.2 985.3 -6.61993-94 1036 11.8 1034 0.2 863 -6.6 995.7 -13.3 1001 13.8 1012 -1.1 1012 10.0 1029 -1.71994-95 1139 9.9 1098 3.7 1200 39.0 1088 10.3 1154 15.3 1089 6.0 1156 14.2 1090 6.01995-96 1120 -1.7 1095 2.3 1200 0.0 1204 -0.3 1112 -3.6 1082 2.8 1103 -4.6 1086 1.51996-97 1027 -8.3 1076 -4.6 1212 1.0 1212 0.0 979 -12.0 1070 -8.5 1000 -9.3 1076 -7.01997-98 1081 5.3 1103 -2.0 1224 1.0 1220 0.3 1119 14.3 1093 2.3 1124 12.4 1119 0.41998-99 1202 11.2 1136 5.8 1225 0.1 1203 1.8 1182 5.6 1156 2.3 1233 9.7 1192 3.51999-00 1125 -6.4 1126 -0.1 1160 -5.3 1186 -2.2 1166 -1.4 1131 3.1 1218 -1.2 1163 4.72000-01 1050 -6.7 1092 -3.8 1172 1.0 1171 0.1 1046 -10.3 1055 -0.8 1039 -14.7 1073 -3.22001-02 1100 1180 952 963

Appendix Table2d: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Aus

Season of Jamalpur, Tangail, Faridpur and Dhaka Market during the Period of

1980-81 to 2001-02.

MarketJamalpur Tangail Faridpur Dhaka

xlviii

Yea

r

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

1980-81 497 474 546 5441981-82 444 -10.7 503 -11.7 476 0.4 523.3 -9.0 507 -7.1 556.7 -8.9 477 -12.3 542 -12.01982-83 568 27.9 531 7.0 620 30.3 578 7.3 617 21.7 586.3 5.2 605 26.8 572.7 5.61983-84 581 2.3 615.7 -5.6 638 2.9 677 -5.8 635 2.9 668 -4.9 636 5.1 671.3 -5.31984-85 698 20.1 670.7 4.1 773 21.2 734.7 5.2 752 18.4 689.7 9.0 773 21.5 732 5.61985-86 733 5.0 771.3 -5.0 793 2.6 817 -2.9 682 -9.3 765.7 -10.9 787 1.8 798.3 -1.41986-87 883 20.5 836.3 5.6 885 11.6 860 2.9 863 26.5 807 6.9 835 6.1 829.3 0.71987-88 893 1.1 896.7 -0.4 902 1.9 910.3 -0.9 876 1.5 882.3 -0.7 866 3.7 880 -1.61988-89 914 2.4 912 0.2 944 4.7 939 0.5 908 3.7 908 0.0 939 8.4 922.7 1.81989-90 929 1.6 947.3 -1.9 971 2.9 989.7 -1.9 940 3.5 956.3 -1.7 963 2.6 983.7 -2.11990-91 999 7.5 971 2.9 1054 8.5 1026 2.7 1021 8.6 987.3 3.4 1049 8.9 1019 2.91991-92 985 -1.4 940 4.8 1053 -0.1 1005 4.7 1001 -2.0 971.3 3.1 1046 -0.3 1007 3.81992-93 836 -15.1 928.7 -10.0 909 -13.7 998 -8.9 892 -10.9 981.3 -9.1 927 -11.4 1010 -8.21993-94 965 15.4 988 -2.3 1032 13.5 1044 -1.1 1051 17.8 1047 0.4 1058 14.1 1062 -0.41994-95 1163 20.5 1094 6.3 1191 15.4 1122 6.1 1198 14.0 1136 5.4 1202 13.6 1148 4.71995-96 1154 -0.8 1103 4.7 1144 -3.9 1117 2.4 1160 -3.2 1145 1.3 1185 -1.4 1133 4.61996-97 991 -14.1 1090 -9.1 1016 -11.2 1125 -9.7 1078 -7.1 1146 -5.9 1012 -14.6 1134 -10.71997-98 1124 13.4 1119 0.4 1215 19.6 1160 4.8 1199 11.2 1202 -0.2 1204 19.0 1154 4.31998-99 1243 10.6 1185 4.9 1248 2.7 1214 2.8 1328 10.8 1245 6.7 1247 3.6 1206 3.41999-00 1188 -4.4 1165 2.0 1179 -5.5 1150 2.5 1207 -9.1 1224 -1.4 1166 -6.5 1178 -1.02000-01 1063 -10.5 1081 -1.7 1023 -13.2 1062 -3.7 1137 -5.8 1146 -0.8 1121 -3.9 1097 2.22001-02 992 985 1095 1003

Appendix Table2e: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Aus

Season of Sylhet, Comilla, Noakhali and Chittagang Market during the Period of

1980-81 to 2001-02.

MarketSylhet Comilla Noakhali Chittagang

xlix

Yea

r

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

1980-81 542 521 530 4771981-82 422 -22.1 524.3 -19.5 435 -16.5 525.3 -17.2 496 -6.4 574.3 -13.6 447 -6.3 515.7 -13.31982-83 609 44.3 557 9.3 620 42.5 573.3 8.1 697 40.5 597 16.8 623 39.4 558.3 11.61983-84 640 5.1 648 -1.2 665 7.3 681 -2.3 598 -14.2 689 -13.2 605 -2.9 642.7 -5.91984-85 695 8.6 689.3 0.8 758 14.0 728.7 4.0 772 29.1 714 8.1 700 15.7 671 4.31985-86 733 5.5 757 -3.2 763 0.7 801 -4.7 772 0.0 814.7 -5.2 708 1.1 776 -8.81986-87 843 15.0 811.7 3.9 882 15.6 851 3.6 900 16.6 864 4.2 920 29.9 855.3 7.61987-88 859 1.9 871 -1.4 908 2.9 921.7 -1.5 920 2.2 930 -1.1 938 2.0 952.3 -1.51988-89 911 6.1 910 0.1 975 7.4 961.3 1.4 970 5.4 967 0.3 999 6.5 1002 -0.31989-90 960 5.4 958.3 0.2 1001 2.7 1012 -1.1 1011 4.2 1025 -1.4 1070 7.1 1066 0.31990-91 1004 4.6 977 2.8 1061 6.0 1043 1.7 1094 8.2 1057 3.5 1130 5.6 1092 3.51991-92 967 -3.7 956.7 1.1 1068 0.7 1024 4.3 1067 -2.5 1046 2.0 1075 -4.9 1060 1.41992-93 899 -7.0 967.3 -7.1 943 -11.7 1027 -8.2 977 -8.4 1047 -6.7 975 -9.3 1054 -7.51993-94 1036 15.2 1030 0.6 1071 13.6 1085 -1.3 1097 12.3 1100 -0.3 1111 13.9 1113 -0.21994-95 1155 11.5 1123 2.8 1240 15.8 1173 5.7 1227 11.9 1153 6.4 1253 12.8 1197 4.61995-96 1179 2.1 1092 8.0 1207 -2.7 1169 3.2 1136 -7.4 1104 2.9 1228 -2.0 1176 4.41996-97 942 -20.1 1077 -12.6 1061 -12.1 1166 -9.0 949 -16.5 1062 -10.6 1048 -14.7 1144 -8.41997-98 1111 17.9 1086 2.3 1231 16.0 1195 3.0 1101 16.0 1087 1.3 1156 10.3 1133 2.11998-99 1205 8.5 1144 5.3 1292 5.0 1234 4.7 1212 10.1 1171 3.5 1194 3.3 1158 3.11999-00 1116 -7.4 1135 -1.7 1180 -8.7 1201 -1.8 1200 -1.0 1173 2.3 1124 -5.9 1123 0.12000-01 1085 -2.8 1077 0.7 1132 -4.1 1151 -1.7 1107 -7.8 1122 -1.4 1052 -6.4 1079 -2.52001-02 1031 1142 1060 1061

Appendix Table2f: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Aus

Season of Rangamati, Khagrachari and Bandarban Market during the Period of

1980-81 to 2001-02.

MarketRangamati Khagrachari Bandarban

l

Yea

r

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

1980-81 524 524 4521981-82 451 -13.9 577.3 -21.9 452 -13.7 577.7 -21.8 452 0.0 536.3 -15.71982-83 757 67.8 635 19.2 757 67.5 635.3 19.2 705 56.0 619.3 13.81983-84 697 -7.9 726.7 -4.1 697 -7.9 726.7 -4.1 701 -0.6 708 -1.01984-85 726 4.2 737.3 -1.5 726 4.2 737.3 -1.5 718 2.4 770.3 -6.81985-86 789 8.7 787 0.3 789 8.7 852 -7.4 892 24.2 856.3 4.21986-87 846 7.2 835 1.3 1041 31.9 957 8.8 959 7.5 939 2.11987-88 870 2.8 894.7 -2.8 1041 0.0 1081 -3.7 966 0.7 965 0.11988-89 968 11.3 972.3 -0.4 1160 11.4 1113 4.3 970 0.4 984.3 -1.51989-90 1079 11.5 1062 1.6 1137 -2.0 1160 -2.0 1017 4.8 1017 0.01990-91 1138 5.5 1104 3.1 1182 4.0 1156 2.3 1065 4.7 1054 1.01991-92 1094 -3.9 1065 2.7 1148 -2.9 1125 2.1 1081 1.5 1030 5.01992-93 963 -12.0 1070 -10.0 1044 -9.1 1115 -6.4 944 -12.7 1049 -10.01993-94 1153 19.7 1119 3.0 1154 10.5 1147 0.6 1123 19.0 1109 1.31994-95 1242 7.7 1205 3.1 1244 7.8 1206 3.1 1260 12.2 1199 5.11995-96 1219 -1.9 1176 3.7 1221 -1.8 1185 3.0 1213 -3.7 1173 3.41996-97 1066 -12.6 1167 -8.6 1090 -10.7 1140 -4.4 1045 -13.8 1141 -8.41997-98 1215 14.0 1225 -0.8 1110 1.8 1107 0.3 1164 11.4 1154 0.91998-99 1394 14.7 1304 6.9 1120 0.9 1126 -0.6 1253 7.6 1203 4.21999-00 1303 -6.5 1316 -1.0 1149 2.6 1161 -1.1 1191 -4.9 1137 4.72000-01 1250 -4.1 1271 -1.7 1215 5.7 1207 0.6 968 -18.7 1131 -14.42001-02 1260 1258 1235

Appendix Table3a: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Boro

Season of Dinajpur, Rangpur, Bogra and Rajshahi Market during the Period of

1980-81 to 2001-02.

MarketDinajpur Rangpur Bogra Rajshahi

li

Yea

r

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

1980-81 556 528 556 4901981-82 762 37.1 711.7 7.1 769 45.6 640.3 20.1 761 36.9 687.33 10.7 807 64.7 673.7 19.81982-83 817 7.2 785.7 4.0 624 -18.9 724.7 -13.9 745 -2.1 750.33 -0.7 724 -10.3 779.3 -7.11983-84 778 -4.8 792.3 -1.8 781 25.2 726.3 7.5 745 0.0 748.67 -0.5 807 11.5 779.3 3.61984-85 782 0.5 781 0.1 774 -0.9 774.7 -0.1 756 1.5 754 0.3 807 0.0 807 0.01985-86 783 0.1 823.7 -4.9 769 -0.6 812.3 -5.3 761 0.7 808.33 -5.9 807 0.0 853.7 -5.51986-87 906 15.7 869.7 4.2 894 16.3 861 3.8 908 19.3 863.67 5.1 947 17.3 899.3 5.31987-88 920 1.5 924.7 -0.5 920 2.9 926.7 -0.7 922 1.5 925.67 -0.4 944 -0.3 940.7 0.41988-89 948 3.0 940 0.9 966 5.0 944 2.3 947 2.7 939 0.9 931 -1.4 940 -1.01989-90 952 0.4 974.3 -2.3 946 -2.1 978.7 -3.3 948 0.1 970 -2.3 945 1.5 967.3 -2.31990-91 1023 7.5 990 3.3 1024 8.2 990.7 3.4 1015 7.1 984 3.2 1026 8.6 988 3.81991-92 995 -2.7 945.3 5.3 1002 -2.1 951.7 5.3 989 -2.6 957.67 3.3 993 -3.2 960.7 3.41992-93 818 -17.8 948.3 -13.7 829 -17.3 950.3 -12.8 869 -12.1 964.33 -9.9 863 -13.1 961 -10.21993-94 1032 26.2 1012 2.0 1020 23.0 1011 0.9 1035 19.1 1041 -0.6 1027 19.0 1033 -0.51994-95 1186 14.9 1112 6.7 1183 16.0 1107 6.8 1219 17.8 1163 4.8 1208 17.6 1130 6.91995-96 1117 -5.8 1067 4.7 1119 -5.4 1053 6.2 1235 1.3 1138.3 8.5 1154 -4.5 1097 5.21996-97 897 -19.7 1054 -14.9 858 -23.3 1046 -17.9 961 -22.2 1141 -15.8 929 -19.5 1100 -15.51997-98 1147 27.9 1144 0.3 1160 35.2 1130 2.6 1227 27.7 1202.3 2.1 1216 30.9 1184 2.71998-99 1387 20.9 1228 12.9 1373 18.4 1211 13.3 1419 15.6 1273.3 11.4 1406 15.6 1264 11.21999-00 1151 -17.0 1179 -2.4 1101 -19.8 1235 -10.9 1174 -17.3 1237.7 -5.1 1170 -16.8 1228 -4.72000-01 1000 -13.1 1065 -6.1 1231 11.8 1119 10.0 1120 -4.6 1150.7 -2.7 1108 -5.3 1143 -3.02001-02 1044 1026 1158 1150

Appendix Table3b: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Boro

Season of Pabna, Kushtia, Jessore and Khulna Market during the Period of 1980-81

to 2001-02.

MarketPabna Kushtia Jessore Khulna

lii

Yea

r

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

1980-81 563 547 536 5201981-82 783 39.1 700.7 11.8 825 50.8 698.7 18.1 804 50.0 714.67 12.5 675 29.8 631.3 6.91982-83 756 -3.4 769.3 -1.7 724 -12.2 791.3 -8.5 804 0.0 804 0.0 699 3.6 683 2.31983-84 769 1.7 767.7 0.2 825 14.0 791.3 4.3 804 0.0 804 0.0 675 -3.4 683 -1.21984-85 778 1.2 776.7 0.2 825 0.0 825 0.0 804 0.0 804 0.0 675 0.0 675 0.01985-86 783 0.6 840.7 -6.9 825 0.0 855.3 -3.5 804 0.0 856 -6.1 675 0.0 768.7 -12.21986-87 961 22.7 906.7 6.0 916 11.0 889 3.0 960 19.4 908.67 5.6 956 41.6 868.7 10.11987-88 976 1.6 976 0.0 926 1.1 926 0.0 962 0.2 963 -0.1 975 2.0 977.7 -0.31988-89 991 1.5 980.7 1.1 936 1.1 935 0.1 967 0.5 973.67 -0.7 1002 2.8 984.3 1.81989-90 975 -1.6 1012 -3.7 943 0.7 965.3 -2.3 992 2.6 1003.3 -1.1 976 -2.6 1003 -2.71990-91 1070 9.7 1026 4.3 1017 7.8 974.3 4.4 1051 5.9 1012 3.9 1032 5.7 999.3 3.31991-92 1034 -3.4 995 3.9 963 -5.3 938.3 2.6 993 -5.5 970 2.4 990 -4.1 959.3 3.21992-93 881 -14.8 984.7 -10.5 835 -13.3 948.3 -12.0 866 -12.8 976 -11.3 856 -13.5 966.7 -11.41993-94 1039 17.9 1034 0.5 1047 25.4 1019 2.8 1069 23.4 1054.7 1.4 1054 23.1 1041 1.21994-95 1181 13.7 1118 5.6 1174 12.1 1114 5.4 1229 15.0 1157.3 6.2 1213 15.1 1142 6.21995-96 1134 -4.0 1073 5.7 1120 -4.6 1077 4.0 1174 -4.5 1110 5.8 1159 -4.5 1089 6.41996-97 903 -20.4 1075 -16.0 937 -16.3 1092 -14.2 927 -21.0 1094.7 -15.3 895 -22.8 1094 -18.21997-98 1189 31.7 1159 2.6 1218 30.0 1184 2.9 1183 27.6 1177.7 0.5 1229 37.3 1176 4.51998-99 1385 16.5 1233 12.3 1397 14.7 1241 12.6 1423 20.3 1247.3 14.1 1405 14.3 1249 12.51999-00 1125 -18.8 1178 -4.5 1107 -20.8 1176 -5.9 1136 -20.2 1229 -7.6 1112 -20.9 1216 -8.62000-01 1023 -9.1 1112 -8.0 1025 -7.4 1096 -6.5 1128 -0.7 1138 -0.9 1131 1.7 1130 0.12001-02 1188 1156 1150 1148

Appendix Table3c: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Boro

Season of Barisal, Patuakhali, Mymensingh and Kishoreganj during the Period of

1980-81 to 2001-02.

MarketBarisal Patuakhali Mymensingh Kishoreganj

liii

Yea

r

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

1980-81 478 478 485 4851981-82 487 1.9 485 0.4 487 1.9 485 0.4 478 -1.4 546 -12.5 478 -1.4 546 -12.51982-83 490 0.6 489 0.2 490 0.6 489 0.2 675 41.2 610.33 10.6 675 41.2 610.3 10.61983-84 490 0.0 572.3 -14.4 490 0.0 571.3 -14.2 678 0.4 708.33 -4.3 678 0.4 708.3 -4.31984-85 737 50.4 645.7 14.1 734 49.8 669 9.7 772 13.9 755.33 2.2 772 13.9 755.3 2.21985-86 710 -3.7 820 -13.4 783 6.7 797.3 -1.8 816 5.7 856.67 -4.7 816 5.7 856.3 -4.71986-87 1013 42.7 912.3 11.0 875 11.7 862.7 1.4 982 20.3 932.67 5.3 981 20.2 934.7 5.01987-88 1014 0.1 994 2.0 930 6.3 934.7 -0.5 1000 1.8 1000.7 -0.1 1007 2.7 1009 -0.21988-89 955 -5.8 1006 -5.0 999 7.4 1036 -3.6 1020 2.0 1008.7 1.1 1040 3.3 1020 2.01989-90 1048 9.7 1048 0.0 1180 18.1 1131 4.4 1006 -1.4 1043.7 -3.6 1012 -2.7 1056 -4.21990-91 1140 8.8 1080 5.6 1213 2.8 1148 5.6 1105 9.8 1055.7 4.7 1117 10.4 1067 4.71991-92 1051 -7.8 1013 3.8 1052 -13.3 1033 1.9 1056 -4.4 1019 3.6 1073 -3.9 1039 3.31992-93 847 -19.4 929 -8.8 833 -20.8 944.7 -11.8 896 -15.2 1016.7 -11.9 927 -13.6 1037 -10.61993-94 889 5.0 964.3 -7.8 949 13.9 981.3 -3.3 1098 22.5 1090.3 0.7 1112 20.0 1109 0.31994-95 1157 30.1 1068 8.3 1162 22.4 1085 7.1 1277 16.3 1198.3 6.6 1287 15.7 1208 6.51995-96 1159 0.2 1086 6.7 1144 -1.5 1064 7.6 1220 -4.5 1147.3 6.3 1225 -4.8 1163 5.31996-97 943 -18.6 1061 -11.1 885 -22.6 1010 -12.3 945 -22.5 1160.3 -18.6 978 -20.2 1173 -16.61997-98 1082 14.7 1121 -3.5 1000 13.0 1098 -8.9 1316 39.3 1231.7 6.8 1316 34.6 1271 3.51998-99 1338 23.7 1172 14.1 1408 40.8 1183 19.0 1434 9.0 1308.7 9.6 1519 15.4 1350 12.51999-00 1097 -18.0 1161 -5.5 1141 -19.0 1183 -3.6 1176 -18.0 1232.7 -4.6 1215 -20.0 1267 -4.12000-01 1049 -4.4 1117 -6.1 1000 -12.4 1051 -4.9 1088 -7.5 1124.3 -3.2 1068 -12.1 1155 -7.52001-02 1205 1012 1109 1182

Appendix Table3d: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Boro

Season of Jamalpur, Tangail, Faridpur and Dhaka Market during the Period of

1980-81 to 2001-02.

MarketJamalpur Tangail Faridpur Dhaka

liv

Yea

r

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

1980-81 541 480 536 5441981-82 487 -10.0 585.7 -16.8 502 4.6 592.7 -15.3 587 9.5 613.67 -4.3 589 8.3 626 -5.91982-83 729 49.7 623.3 17.0 796 58.6 661 20.4 718 22.3 687.67 4.4 745 26.5 672.3 10.81983-84 654 -10.3 717.3 -8.8 685 -13.9 756.3 -9.4 758 5.6 763.67 -0.7 683 -8.3 748.3 -8.71984-85 769 17.6 747 2.9 788 15.0 776 1.5 815 7.5 760.33 7.2 817 19.6 777 5.11985-86 818 6.4 856.3 -4.5 855 8.5 878 -2.6 708 -13.1 822.33 -13.9 831 1.7 859.7 -3.31986-87 982 20.0 936 4.9 991 15.9 952.3 4.1 944 33.3 867.67 8.8 931 12.0 907 2.61987-88 1008 2.6 1008 0.0 1011 2.0 1011 0.0 951 0.7 950 0.1 959 3.0 974.3 -1.61988-89 1033 2.5 1007 2.6 1030 1.9 1014 1.6 955 0.4 954.33 0.1 1033 7.7 1016 1.61989-90 980 -5.1 1029 -4.8 1000 -2.9 1048 -4.6 957 0.2 982.67 -2.6 1057 2.3 1062 -0.51990-91 1074 9.6 1025 4.8 1115 11.5 1068 4.4 1036 8.3 993.67 4.3 1096 3.7 1071 2.31991-92 1021 -4.9 991.3 3.0 1088 -2.4 1045 4.1 988 -4.6 966.33 2.2 1061 -3.2 1026 3.41992-93 879 -13.9 995.3 -11.7 931 -14.4 1051 -11.4 875 -11.4 980.67 -10.8 920 -13.3 1022 -10.01993-94 1086 23.5 1087 -0.1 1135 21.9 1121 1.2 1079 23.3 1065 1.3 1085 17.9 1086 -0.11994-95 1295 19.2 1216 6.5 1298 14.4 1223 6.1 1241 15.0 1177 5.4 1254 15.6 1195 4.91995-96 1267 -2.2 1175 7.8 1236 -4.8 1164 6.2 1211 -2.4 1131.7 7.0 1247 -0.6 1155 8.01996-97 964 -23.9 1171 -17.7 957 -22.6 1151 -16.9 943 -22.1 1137.7 -17.1 963 -22.8 1074 -10.31997-98 1281 32.9 1267 1.1 1260 31.7 1235 2.0 1259 33.5 1245.7 1.1 1012 5.1 1139 -11.21998-99 1555 21.4 1331 16.9 1488 18.1 1311 13.5 1535 21.9 1328.3 15.6 1442 42.5 1209 19.31999-00 1156 -25.7 1295 -10.8 1186 -20.3 1235 -4.0 1191 -22.4 1283.7 -7.2 1173 -18.7 1241 -5.52000-01 1175 1.6 1145 2.6 1032 -13.0 1111 -7.1 1125 -5.5 1172 -4.0 1108 -5.5 1135 -2.42001-02 1103 1116 1200 1123

Appendix Table3e: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Boro

Season of Sylhet, Comilla, Noakhali and Chittagang Market during the Period of

1980-81 to 2001-02.

MarketSylhet Comilla Noakhali Chittagang

lv

Yea

r

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

1980-81 574 517 523 5231981-82 602 4.9 641.3 -6.1 612 18.4 610.3 0.3 624 19.3 623.67 0.1 625 19.5 643.7 -2.91982-83 748 24.3 668 12.0 702 14.7 683.7 2.7 724 16.0 694.33 4.3 783 25.3 704.3 11.21983-84 654 -12.6 704 -7.1 737 5.0 718.3 2.6 735 1.5 741.67 -0.9 705 -10.0 728.3 -3.21984-85 710 8.6 714.3 -0.6 716 -2.8 757.7 -5.5 766 4.2 764 0.3 697 -1.1 699.7 -0.41985-86 779 9.7 809 -3.7 820 14.5 846 -3.1 791 3.3 853 -7.3 697 0.0 790.7 -11.81986-87 938 20.4 896 4.7 1002 22.2 946.3 5.9 1002 26.7 932.33 7.5 978 40.3 887.7 10.21987-88 971 3.5 979 -0.8 1017 1.5 1018 -0.1 1004 0.2 1004.3 0.0 988 1.0 994.7 -0.71988-89 1028 5.9 1004 2.4 1035 1.8 1026 0.9 1007 0.3 1017 -1.0 1018 3.0 1026 -0.71989-90 1014 -1.4 1051 -3.5 1026 -0.9 1063 -3.5 1040 3.3 1069.3 -2.7 1071 5.2 1078 -0.61990-91 1111 9.6 1057 5.1 1128 9.9 1082 4.2 1161 11.6 1112.3 4.4 1145 6.9 1097 4.41991-92 1046 -5.9 1027 1.9 1093 -3.1 1059 3.2 1136 -2.2 1091 4.1 1075 -6.1 1057 1.71992-93 924 -11.7 1021 -9.5 955 -12.6 1060 -9.9 976 -14.1 1085 -10.0 952 -11.4 1051 -9.41993-94 1093 18.3 1099 -0.5 1131 18.4 1131 0.0 1143 17.1 1140.3 0.2 1126 18.3 1122 0.31994-95 1280 17.1 1234 3.8 1306 15.5 1241 5.2 1302 13.9 1232 5.7 1289 14.5 1200 7.41995-96 1328 3.8 1188 11.8 1286 -1.5 1194 7.7 1251 -3.9 1139.3 9.8 1184 -8.1 1157 2.31996-97 955 -28.1 1176 -18.8 991 -22.9 1221 -18.9 865 -30.9 1086 -20.3 999 -15.6 1149 -13.01997-98 1244 30.3 1194 4.2 1387 40.0 1293 7.2 1142 32.0 1134.3 0.7 1263 26.4 1220 3.61998-99 1382 11.1 1278 8.2 1502 8.3 1359 10.5 1396 22.2 1225.3 13.9 1397 10.6 1265 10.51999-00 1207 -12.7 1238 -2.5 1188 -20.9 1260 -5.7 1138 -18.5 1219.7 -6.7 1134 -18.8 1191 -4.82000-01 1125 -6.8 1162 -3.2 1090 -8.2 1151 -5.3 1125 -1.1 1133.7 -0.8 1042 -8.1 1084 -3.82001-02 1155 1176 1138 1075

Appendix Table3f: Distribution of Marketwise Fluctuations of Boro Rice Prices in Boro

Season of Rangamati, Khagrachari and Bandarban Market during the Period of

1980-81 to 2001-02.

MarketRangamati Khagrachari Bandarban

lvi

Yea

r

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

Sea

sona

l pric

e(T

k./q

uint

al)

Cha

nges

from

pre

viou

s ye

ar %

)

Mov

ing

aver

age

pric

e (3

-ye

ar)

Dev

iatio

n of

sea

sona

l pric

e fro

m m

ovin

g av

erag

e

1980-81 528 528 5281981-82 658 24.6 690 -4.6 658 24.6 690 -4.6 658 24.6 683.67 -3.81982-83 884 34.3 747.7 18.2 884 34.3 802.3 10.2 865 31.5 793.33 9.01983-84 701 -20.7 754.3 -7.1 865 -2.1 876 -1.3 857 -0.9 869.67 -1.51984-85 678 -3.3 755.3 -10.2 879 1.6 877 0.2 887 3.5 878.67 0.91985-86 887 30.8 824 7.6 887 0.9 921.7 -3.8 892 0.6 924.33 -3.51986-87 907 2.3 901 0.7 999 12.6 961.7 3.9 994 11.4 960 3.51987-88 909 0.2 941.7 -3.5 999 0.0 1015 -1.5 994 0.0 970 2.51988-89 1009 11.0 989.3 2.0 1046 4.7 1031 1.5 922 -7.2 970.33 -5.01989-90 1050 4.1 1065 -1.4 1048 0.2 1085 -3.4 995 7.9 995 0.01990-91 1137 8.3 1087 4.6 1162 10.9 1109 4.7 1068 7.3 1035.3 3.21991-92 1075 -5.5 1047 2.7 1118 -3.8 1065 5.0 1043 -2.3 1005.3 3.71992-93 928 -13.7 1030 -9.9 914 -18.2 1051 -13.1 905 -13.2 990 -8.61993-94 1088 17.2 1074 1.3 1122 22.8 1104 1.6 1022 12.9 1042.3 -2.01994-95 1205 10.8 1161 3.8 1277 13.8 1227 4.1 1200 17.4 1146 4.71995-96 1191 -1.2 1107 7.6 1281 0.3 1168 9.6 1216 1.3 1129.3 7.71996-97 926 -22.3 1114 -16.9 947 -26.1 1154 -17.9 972 -20.1 1149.3 -15.41997-98 1226 32.4 1198 2.3 1233 30.2 1135 8.7 1260 29.6 1178.7 6.91998-99 1443 17.7 1301 10.9 1224 -0.7 1187 3.1 1304 3.5 1220.3 6.91999-00 1233 -14.6 1283 -3.9 1105 -9.7 1151 -4.0 1097 -15.9 1110 -1.22000-01 1174 -4.8 1202 -2.4 1123 1.6 1143 -1.7 929 -15.3 1008.7 -7.92001-02 1200 1201 1000

lvii