INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1680
www.rsisinternational.org
Understanding the Rising Food Subsidy: A Component- wise Analysis of
Economic Costs in India
Prof. Aloka Kumar Goyal
1
, *Pragati Yadav
2
1
Dept. of Economics, DDU Gorakhpur University
2
Research Scholar, Dept. of Economics, DDU Gorakhpur University
*Corresponding Author
DOI:
https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000142
Received: 16 October 2025 2025; Accepted: 21 October 2025; Published: 06 November 2025
ABSTRACT
Food subsidy has been a foundation of India’s social welfare and food security strategy for decades. It bridges
the gap between the economic cost of foodgrains and the highly subsidized issue price under the Public
Distribution System (PDS), thus enabling the poor and vulnerable sections of society to access food at affordable
rates. In the context of India’s large population and persistent rural poverty, food subsidy plays a dual role-
supporting farmers’ incomes through assured procurement at the Minimum Support Price (MSP) and providing
purchasing power to the poor through subsidized foodgrains distribution. This paper examines the long-term
trends in food subsidy in India, with special focus on its annual growth rate and share as a percentage of GDP,
to understand its fiscal significance. The study further explores the determinants of the economic cost of
foodgrains, which directly influences the subsidy burden. Key components such as MSP/procurement price,
procurement incidentals, and distribution costs for wheat and rice are analyzed in terms of their annual growth
rates and their impact on the overall economic cost, using regression analysis. The findings aim to provide
insights into which cost components contribute the most to the rise in food subsidy. The study relies on secondary
data compiled from various government sources to highlight the changing dynamics of food subsidy in India.
Keywords: Food subsidy, Food Security, Economic Cost, Central Issue Price, MSP/procurement Price,
Procurement Incidental, Distribution Cost
INTRODUCTION
Food security has been one of the most pressing challenges for developing economies, particularly India, where
a significant proportion of the population continues to live under conditions of poverty and food insecurity.
Access to adequate and affordable foodgrains is not just an economic issue but also a matter of social justice and
human welfare. For low-income households, limited purchasing power prevents them from meeting their basic
food requirements through the open market. In this context, government intervention in the form of food
subsidies has played a vital role in ensuring food security, reducing poverty. Food subsidy in India is a crucial
fiscal and social instrument aimed at ensuring food security, reducing poverty, and stabilizing farm incomes. It
represents the difference between the economic cost incurred by the government for procuring, storing, and
distributing foodgrains and the central issue price at which these grains are supplied through the Public
Distribution System (PDS) and other welfare schemes. The economic cost itself is made up of three major
components, each of which has important implications for both farmers and consumers.
The first component, the Minimum Support Price (MSP) or procurement price, is the price announced by the
government before every agricultural season to guarantee farmers a remunerative return on their produce. MSP
forms the foundation of India’s price support policy, ensuring that farmers are insulated from price fluctuations
in the open market. However, regular increases in MSP, particularly for rice and wheat, have also contributed to
a rise in the government’s procurement cost, thereby increasing the economic cost of foodgrains. The second
component is procurement incidentals, which include handling charges, mandi (market) fees, purchase taxes,
storage costs, and transport charges from the procurement centers to the central pool. These costs are sensitive
to changes in fuel prices, state-specific taxes, and logistics infrastructure, and therefore show significant variation
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1681
www.rsisinternational.org
across years. The third component is the distribution cost, which covers the expenses of moving foodgrains from
central storage to state depots and eventually to Fair Price Shops. It includes freight charges, handling, transit
losses, and administrative overheads. Rising transportation costs, increased wage rates, and inefficiencies in the
supply chain have led to a consistent increase in distribution costs over time. Taken together, these three
components determine the economic cost per quintal of foodgrains. Since the issue price for PDS beneficiaries
has remained almost unchanged under the National Food Security Act (NFSA), any increase in the economic
cost directly translates into a higher food subsidy burden for the central government. Therefore, understanding
the trends in MSP, procurement incidentals, and distribution costs is essential to comprehend the growth of food
subsidy and its fiscal implications. This research aims to provide a clearer understanding of how structural and
policy factors shape India’s food subsidy system, offering evidence for potential policy reforms to ensure fiscal
sustainability while safeguarding food security objectives.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Many scholars have explored food subsidy in India by decomposing its components: procurement price (MSP),
procurement/ handling incidentals, and distribution costs and assessing how they have driven the subsidy burden.
A seminal work in this domain is Sharma & Munish Alagh (2013) “Food Subsidy in India: Its Components,
Trends, Causes and Reforms for Public Policy.” They provide a detailed time-series decomposition for food
subsidy over decades, showing how increases in MSP plus enlarged scale of procurement (especially for wheat
and rice), combined with rising incidental costs, storage, and handling inefficiencies, have significantly increased
the economic cost of foodgrains. Their findings include that procurement incidentals and distribution costs have
not kept pace with MSP in terms of rate of increase but are non-negligible contributors to total cost. They also
discuss implications for fiscal burdens and reform options (better targeting, operational efficiency,
rationalization of stocks, etc
.
Another paper “India’s Burgeoning Food Subsidies: How Much can we Blame the Food Corporation of
India?”Swaha Shome & Mala Lalvani (2017) focuses on the role of FCI in rising food subsidies—particularly
how operational inefficiencies, procurement strategy, stock holding, carrying costs, etc., contribute. The authors
estimate the welfare losses associated with inefficient setting or use of MSP for rice and wheat. They argue that
a significant proportion of the subsidy burden is driven by inefficiencies within FCI’s operations (storage,
transport, open market sales, etc.), and not just by procurement prices. Another paper by Ghabru, Devi, and
Rathod (2017) analyze key issues in India’s Public Distribution System (PDS), highlighting problems like
beneficiary misidentification, high leakage rates, and financial strain due to rising subsidies. They note
operational inefficiencies in Fair Price Shops and suggest reforms such as digitization, GPS tracking, and local
governance involvement. The paper advocates for systemic improvements, including options like universal PDS
and direct cash transfers, to enhance food security and reduce wastage. The Economic Survey (2022–23) noted
that the food subsidy bill surged sharply post-COVID due to expanded free-ration schemes and increased
procurement at higher MSPs. A NITI Aayog (2021) report on food management systems observed that the share
of distribution and handling expenses in the total economic cost rose due to logistical bottlenecks and additional
safety measures during the pandemic. Similarly Food Corporation of India (FCI) Annual Report (2023)
highlighted that transportation and storage costs grew disproportionately owing to increased movement of food
grains under welfare schemes. Academic studies such as Narayanan (2021) and Dev and Sengupta (2020)
emphasized that while MSP increases played a vital role in supporting farmers during the pandemic, they also
intensified the fiscal burden by raising procurement and subsidy expenses. Additionally, Kaur and Sidhu (2022)
found that distribution costs increased because of additional warehousing, handling charges, and decentralized
procurement patterns introduced to meet regional demand. Despite digital reforms like One Nation One Ration
Card (ONORC) and the gradual introduction of Direct Benefit Transfers (DBT), the literature suggests that MSP
and distribution expenses continue to dominate. The literature suggests that MSP and distribution expenses
continue to dominate India’s food subsidy structure, making them critical policy levers for fiscal management.
Objective of the Study
The objectives of the study are:
1. To examine the trends and annual growth rates of food subsidy in India.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1682
www.rsisinternational.org
2. To compares the annual growth rates of economic cost components to identify which one contributes
most to the rising food subsidy.
3. To find out the responsive factor for economic cost.
Methodology Of The Study
This study covers research area India based on secondary data collected from various sources such as
Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, Food Grain Bulletins, Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public
Distribution, Ministry of statistics and program implementation, for the time period from 2000 to 2025. To study
the behavior of data, statistical techniques such as trend analysis and line charts, bar diagrams have been used.
The study examines the determinants of the economic cost of food grains, taking economic cost as the dependent
variable and Minimum Support Price (MSP), procurement incidental cost, and distribution cost as the
independent variables. Annual growth rates were computed to analyze trends, and a multiple regression model
was used to estimate the effect of the independent variables on economic cost. The model is specified as;
Y = β₀ + β₁X₁ + β₂X₂ + β₃X₃ + ϵ
Where:
Y = Economic Cost
X₁ = Weighted average of MSP / procurement price of wheat and rice based on procurement quantity of wheat
and rice.
X₂ = Weighted average of procurement incidentals of wheat and rice based on procurement quantity of wheat
and rice.
X₃ = Weighted average of distribution cost of wheat and rice based on procurement quantity of wheat and rice.
β₀ = Intercept
β₁, β₂, β₃ = Coefficients for X₁, X₂, X₃
ϵ = Error term
The following null hypotheses are framed for testing:
H
01
: There is no significant relationship between MSP and economic cost.
H
02
: There is no significant relationship between procurement incidental cost and economic cost.
H
03
: There is no significant relationship between distribution cost and economic cost.
Results are interpreted using regression coefficients, R square
value and p-values to identify which cost
components significantly influence the economic cost of food grains.
Analysis Of The Study
The study have been analysed in following manner:
Section A) Food Subsidy Trends in India
The table 1 shows the trends in food subsidy in India from the year 2000-01 to 2024-25. It includes three main
columns: the total food subsidy (in crore rupees), the percentage growth rate compared to the previous year, and
the percentage of food subsidy as part of the country's GDP. From 2000-01 to 2010-11, the food subsidy in India
increased steadily. It started at ₹12,010 crore in 2000-01 and rose to ₹72,371 crore by 2010-11. The growth rate
fluctuated each year, showing strong growth especially in 2002-03 and 2009-10. During this period, the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1683
www.rsisinternational.org
percentage of GDP also increased, showing that food subsidy was becoming a more significant part of the
national budget. Between 2011-12 and 2016-17, the subsidy amount continued to rise, reaching ₹1,30,673 crore
in 2016-17,the growth rate during this period was moderate..During the period 2017-18 and 2020-21, food
subsidy rose more quickly. This sharp rise was likely due to special support during the COVID-19 pandemic,
when extra food aid was given to the poor. However, after 2020-21, the subsidy started to come down. The
growth rate became negative in recent years, meaning the government reduced the subsidy amount. Overall, the
table shows a long-term rise in food subsidies with a major spike during the pandemic years, followed by a
gradual return to lower levels. This reflects both the growing need for food security over time and the
government’s response to it. This analysis shows how India's food subsidy grew steadily over time, peaked
during a national crisis, and is now gradually returning to more regular levels.
Table 1: Food Subsidy Trends in India
Year
Food Subsidy
% Growth Rate
% of GDP
2000-01
12010
0.31
0.51
2001-02
17494
0.46
0.71
2002-03
24176
0.38
0.94
2003-04
25160
0.04
0.91
2004-05
25746
0.02
0.87
2005-06
23071
-0.10
0.71
2006-07
25828
0.12
0.72
2007-08
31260
0.21
0.80
2008-09
42585
0.36
1.02
2009-10
58242
0.37
1.29
2010-11
62930
0.08
1.27
2011-12
72371
0.15
1.38
2012-13
84554
0.17
1.54
2013-14
89740
0.06
0.92
2014-15
113171
0.26
1.07
2015-16
134919
0.19
1.19
2016-17
130673
-0.03
1.06
2017-18
139982
0.07
1.06
2018-19
168762
0.21
1.20
2019-20
152672
-0.10
1.05
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1684
www.rsisinternational.org
2020-21
541127
2.54
3.95
2021-22
288719
-0.47
1.92
2022-23
272502
-0.06
1.70
2023-24
211394
-0.22
1.22
2024-25
172560
-0.18
0.92
Source: Compiled by Author based on Data from food Grain Bulletin, GoI
Figure: 1 based on table 1
Section B) Components of Food Subsidy in India
In India, the food subsidy system aims to provide essential grains at affordable prices through the Public
Distribution System (PDS). It represents the difference between the economic cost and the central issue price at
which these grains are supplied through the Public Distribution System (PDS) and other welfare schemes .The
economic cost of this subsidy includes three main components. The first is the Minimum Support Price (MSP),
which is the price paid to farmers for procuring grains. The second is procurement incidentals, covering costs
such as storage, handling, and transportation of the grains. The third component is the distribution cost, which
involves the expenses of delivering grains to beneficiaries through the PDS network. This section of the study
analyses the annual growth rate of factors affecting economic cost, share of MSP /procurement rice, procurement
incidentals, and distribution cost in the economic cost and responsive factor for raising economic cost of
foodgrains in India
Annual Growth rate of factors affecting economic cost of food grains in India
The table 2 presents the annual growth rates of key components of economic cost; MSP/procurement price,
procurement incidentals, and distribution cost for wheat and rice from 2002–03 to 2025–26. A clear trend
emerges showing that the MSP/procurement price has generally witnessed a steady and sustained growth for
both wheat and rice, with sharp increases in certain years such as 2008–09 and 2013–14, indicating that rising
procurement prices are a primary contributor to the increase in economic cost. Procurement incidentals exhibit
high volatility, with extreme spikes and occasional negative growth, reflecting fluctuations in handling, storage,
and procurement operations that are often policy-driven or due to changes in input costs. For rice, from2006-07,
in procurement incidentals weightage of levy rice incidentals is also being taken showing extreme spikes in the
year. Distribution costs also show considerable variation, with some years displaying sharp positive growth
(notably 2014–15 and 2019–20 for wheat) while others even turn negative, which indicates variability in
transport, storage losses, and handling charges over time. Comparatively, wheat’s economic cost components
exhibit more stable growth compared to rice, where procurement incidentals and distribution costs show wide
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
2021-22
2022-23
2023-24
2024-25
Food Subsidy Trends in India
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1685
www.rsisinternational.org
swings, likely due to state-specific procurement inefficiencies and higher cost of maintaining buffer stocks.
Overall, MSP/procurement price remains the most consistent driver of rising food subsidy, while procurement
incidentals and distribution costs contribute more episodically but can cause significant short-term spikes in the
economic cost.
Overall, the data shows that the steady rise in MSP/procurement price is the main factor driving the increase in
economic cost and food subsidy for both wheat and rice. Procurement incidentals and distribution costs affect
the cost only in some years, showing irregular changes, but MSP remains the most consistent and major
contributor.
Table 2: Annual Growth rate of factors affecting economic cost of food grains in India
Wheat
Rice
MSP/Procurement
Price
Procurement
Incidentals
Distribution
Cost
MSP/Procurement
Price
Procurement
Incidentals
Distribution
Cost
1.64
2.40
14.85
0.00
-7.68
31.87
0.00
-4.15
16.62
3.77
-50.28
36.0
1.61
37.85
31.89
1.82
84.21
20.51
1.59
-10.19
14.68
1.79
-62.38
12.69
1.56
9.60
9.17
1.75
*802.54
3.22
15.38
-8.87
0.92
11.21
-5.20
10.35
33.33
21.66
-19.88
31.78
47.91
-14.21
8.00
4.03
-11.55
11.76
7.32
-35.04
3.70
2.66
8.62
5.26
8.49
20.86
4.46
10.97
10.45
8.00
11.79
16.67
9.83
11.74
12.24
15.74
9.65
10.18
5.06
8.76
30.02
4.80
20.79
35.75
3.70
21.00
10.28
3.82
28.30
27.55
3.57
5.92
-8.45
3.68
3.94
1.17
5.17
6.32
9.02
4.26
-10.24
-5.75
6.56
3.74
8.91
5.44
4.90
4.43
6.77
-30.63
-4.20
12.90
-22.61
11.13
6.05
1.68
36.97
1.14
3.83
26.57
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1686
www.rsisinternational.org
4.62
-0.67
8.77
5.54
2.48
13.99
2.60
0.76
-55.68
3.85
7.75
-60.44
2.03
-13.19
28.29
5.15
-7.96
24.83
5.46
2.50
-2.87
7.01
0.41
-17.14
7.06
16.21
0.46
5.36
8.31
-11.68
6.59
3.20
-1.61
3.87
1.87
-5.43
Source: Compiled by Author based on Data from food Grain Bulletin, GoI
Figure: 2 based on table 2
Figure: 3 based on table 2
Share of MSP/procurement rice, procurement incidentals, and distribution cost in the economic cost
The table 3 shows the share of MSP/procurement price, procurement incidentals, and distribution cost in the
economic cost of wheat and rice in India. For wheat, MSP consistently forms the largest share, ranging between
about 53% and 81%, with a rising trend in recent years, indicating the increasing weight of MSP in total cost.
Procurement incidentals remain fairly stable between 10–18%, while distribution cost fluctuates between 10–
25%, peaking in 2005–06 (24.88%). For rice, the MSP share is lower than wheat, ranging from about 41% to
57%, but shows a gradual upward movement over time. Procurement incidentals for rice are relatively small
(around 5–20%) but show occasional spikes, while distribution costs range from 6–21%, with higher shares in
-80.00
-60.00
-40.00
-20.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
2021-22
2022-23
2023-24
2024-25
2025-26
Annual Growth rate of factors affecting economic cost of wheat
MSP/Procurement Price Procurement Incidentals Distribution Cost
-100.00
-50.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
2021-22
2022-23
2023-24
2024-25
2025-26
Annual Growth rate of factors affecting economic cost of rice
MSP/Procurement Price Procurement Incidentals Distribution Cost
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1687
www.rsisinternational.org
the mid-2000s and a notable decline in recent years. Overall, the analysis suggests that MSP has become the
dominant component of economic cost for both wheat and rice, while the relative burden of distribution cost has
been declining, pointing toward greater policy reliance on procurement price rather than distribution-related
expenses. In conclusion, the table indicates that the MSP/procurement price has steadily increased as a dominant
share of the economic cost for both wheat and rice, especially in recent years. In contrast, the share of
procurement incidentals and distribution costs has either remained stable or declined, showing reduced relative
importance. This highlights that rising MSP is the key driver of overall cost escalation in food grains, while
efficiency in distribution has slightly improved over time.
Table: 3 Share of MSP/procurement rice, procurement incidentals, and distribution cost in the economic cost
Wheat
Rice
MSP/Procurement
Price
Procurement
Incidentals
Distribution
Cost
MSP/Procurement
Price
Procurement
Incidentals
Distribution
Cost
71.52
15.79
14.86
48.28
6.09
10.90
69.35
15.43
16.28
45.46
5.29
13.53
67.49
14.39
18.47
43.37
2.42
16.92
61.77
17.87
21.94
42.96
4.33
19.83
62.04
15.87
24.88
42.20
1.57
21.57
53.53
14.77
23.07
41.09
13.59
21.30
55.42
12.08
20.90
40.73
11.48
20.95
71.81
14.28
16.27
47.49
15.03
15.91
75.81
14.52
14.06
52.20
15.86
10.16
74.95
14.21
14.56
50.43
15.79
11.27
73.34
14.77
15.07
50.87
16.49
12.28
73.32
15.03
15.40
54.23
16.65
12.46
70.74
15.01
18.38
50.09
17.72
14.91
68.25
16.90
18.86
46.20
20.20
16.90
68.16
17.25
16.65
45.11
19.78
16.10
68.01
17.40
17.22
46.06
17.38
14.86
67.46
16.81
17.46
47.48
17.83
15.17
73.53
11.90
17.07
50.81
13.08
15.98
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1688
www.rsisinternational.org
70.15
10.89
21.04
47.58
12.57
18.73
70.47
10.38
21.97
47.42
12.17
20.16
80.04
11.58
10.78
54.46
14.50
8.82
79.03
9.73
13.38
54.80
12.77
10.54
78.89
9.44
12.31
56.21
12.29
8.37
79.82
10.37
11.68
56.90
12.79
7.10
81.37
10.24
10.99
57.24
12.62
6.50
Source: Compiled by Author based on Data from food Grain Bulletin, GoI
Responsive factor for raising Economic Cost
The regression analysis shows that the model is highly reliable, with an R² of 0.99, meaning that more than 99%
of the variation in economic cost is explained by the selected variables. Among the three explanatory variables,
MSP and distribution cost were found to have a statistically significant positive effect on economic cost at the
5% level, as indicated by their very low p-values (p < 0.05). This means that an increase in MSP or distribution
cost directly raises the overall economic cost. In contrast, procurement incidental cost was not statistically
significant (p > 0.05), suggesting that its fluctuations do not have a major impact on the economic cost during
the study period. MSP is the largest contributor to foodgrains economic cost in India, as the government spends
heavily to procure at MSP (often above market price).Distribution cost is rising due to fuel price increases and
higher logistics costs, so its significant impact is realistic. Procurement incidentals have a minor role; they are a
small proportion of total cost and have not changed drastically in recent years these results imply that policy
measures focusing on controlling MSP hikes and reducing distribution costs would be more effective in
managing the rise in economic cost than measures targeting procurement incidentals.
Table: 4 Responsive factors for raising Economic Cost
Variable
Coefficients
P-value
Significance (5%)
Conclusion
MSP/Procurement Price
1.306765297
2.30059E-16
Significant
Reject H₀₁ – MSP has a
significant positive effect
on economic cost
Procurement Incidentals
0.362759078
0.115438178
Not Significant
Accept H₀₂ – Procurement
incidentals do not have a
significant effect
Distribution Cost
1.135932842
2.4666E-07
Significant
Reject H₀₃ – Distribution
cost has a significant
positive effect on economic
cost
R Square
0.993702282
Source: Compiled by Author based on Data from food Grain Bulletin, Economic survey,GoI
CONCLUSION
On the basis of above analysis, it can be concluded that India’s food subsidy policy has changed over time. In
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1689
www.rsisinternational.org
the beginning, the government kept increasing subsidies to make essential items more affordable for weaker
section of society, as the data shows a long-term rise in food subsidies during the period. The steady rise in
MSP/procurement price is the main factor driving the increase in economic cost and food subsidy for both wheat
and rice. Comparatively, wheat’s economic cost components exhibit more stable growth compared to rice
.MSP/procurement price has steadily increased as a dominant share of the economic cost for both wheat and
rice, especially in recent years. In contrast, the share of procurement incidentals and distribution costs has either
remained stable or declined, showing reduced relative importance. This highlights that rising MSP is the key
driver of overall cost escalation in food grains, while efficiency in distribution has slightly improved over time.
The results show that MSP/Procurement Price and Distribution Cost have a significant and positive effect on
Economic Cost, while Procurement Incidentals have a smaller, statistically insignificant effect. This indicates
that policy efforts to manage economic cost should prioritize rationalizing MSP increases and improving
efficiency in distribution channels rather than focusing only on procurement incidentals. Overall, the data shows
that the steady rise in MSP/procurement price is the main factor driving the increase in economic cost and food
subsidy for both wheat and rice. Procurement incidentals and distribution costs affect the cost only in some years,
showing irregular changes, but MSP remains the most consistent and major contributor. Since the Food
Corporation of India (FCI) and state agencies purchase large volumes of rice and wheat under the procurement
system, even marginal MSP hikes have a compounding impact on the total fiscal burden. The distribution cost,
which includes transportation, storage, handling, and fair price shop margins, has also emerged as a major
contributor to the rising economic cost, particularly after 2020. During and after the COVID-19 pandemic, food
distribution under welfare schemes such as the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY)
expanded significantly, increasing both logistical and administrative expenses. Moreover, pandemic-induced
disruptions such as higher fuel costs, longer transport distances, and increased handling requirements further
elevated the distribution component. Consequently, the combined rise in MSP and distribution costs has made
them the primary drivers of India’s escalating economic cost of food grains. The findings suggest that containing
the growth of economic cost requires a balanced and evidence-based policy approach. Moderating annual MSP
increases and linking them with productivity or market trends can prevent unsustainable fiscal pressure.
Simultaneously, optimizing the distribution network through investments in modern storage infrastructure,
improved logistics, and digital monitoring can help lower operational inefficiencies. Expanding DBT systems in
regions with robust market structures may further reduce distribution costs over time. Thus, effective
management of MSP policies and distribution systems can ensure fiscal sustainability while maintaining India’s
commitment to food security.
REFERENCES
1. Sharma, V. P., & Alagh, M. (2013). Food subsidy in India: Its components, trends, causes and reforms
for public policy. Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA) Working Paper No. 2013-08-
02. R
2. Shome, S., & Lalvani, M. (2017). India’s burgeoning food subsidies: How much can we blame the
Food Corporation of India? The Economists’ Voice, 14(1–2), 1.
3. Ghabru, M. G., Devi, G., & Rathod, N. (2017). Public distribution system in india: key issues and
challenges. Indian Journal of Economics and Development, 13(4), 747-754
4. Jha, R., Gaiha, R., Pandey, M. K., & Kaicker, N. (2013). Food subsidy, income transfer and the poor:
A comparative analysis of the public distribution system in India's states. Journal of Policy
Modeling, 35(6), 887-908.
5. Government of India. (2023). Economic Survey 2022–23. Ministry of Finance, Department of
Economic Affairs.
6. NITI Aayog. (2021). Reforming the food management system in India: Towards an efficient and
sustainable framework. NITI Aayog Discussion Paper, Government of India.
7. Food Corporation of India. (2021). Trends in procurement, buffer stock, and distribution cost during
COVID-19: FCI analysis report. FCI Policy & Planning Division, New Delhi.
8. Dev, S. M., & Sengupta, R. (2020). COVID-19: Impact on the Indian economy. Indira Gandhi Institute
of Development Research (IGIDR), Mumbai.
9. Kaur, G., & Sidhu, R. S. (2022). Rising food subsidy and the fiscal implications of MSP and
procurement operations in India. Economic & Political Weekly, 57(18), 45–52.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1690
www.rsisinternational.org
10. Government of India. (2023). Annual Report 2022–23. Department of Food and Public Distribution,
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution.
11. Singh. Kalpana.(2014).Food Security in India: Performance and Concern. IOSR Journal of humanities
and social Sciences,vol 19
12. 3.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349767066_Food_Security_Policy_in_India_Challenges
_andPerformance
13. GoI. Food Grain Bulletin (2009, 2015, 2024),Department of Food and Public Distribution.
14. GoI. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance2022. Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Department of
Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, New
Delhi.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349767066_Food_Security_Policy_in_India_Challe
nges_and_Performance
15. .FAO (2009). Declaration of the world summit on food security. Rome.
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/Summit/Docs/Final_Declaration/WSFS09_Declaration
.pdf
16. FAO (2006). Food Security: FAO policy brief.
17. World Trade Organization.
ANNEXURE
Table 1: Components of Economic Cost of Wheat and Rice of Foodgrains in India (Rs/qtl)
Wheat
Rice
Year
MSP/Procure
ment Price
Procurement
Incidentals
Distributi
on Cost
Econom
ic cost
MSP/Procure
ment Price
Procurement
Incidentals
Distributi
on Cost
Econom
ic cost
200
1-02
610
134.7
126.7
852.9
530
66.8
119.6
1097.7
200
2-03
620
137.93
145.51
894.05
530
61.67
157.72
1165.93
200
3-04
620
132.2
169.69
918.69
550
30.66
214.52
1268.08
200
4-05
630
182.24
223.8
1019.91
560
56.48
258.51
1303.59
200
5-06
640
163.67
256.66
1031.51
570
21.25
291.32
1350.67
200
6-07
650
179.39
280.19
1214.35
580
191.79
300.69
1411.66
200
7-08
750
163.47
282.76
1353.24
645
181.81
331.81
1583.7
200
8-09
1000
198.87
226.54
1392.58
850
268.92
284.67
1789.78
200
9-10
1080
206.88
200.37
1424.61
950
288.6
184.92
1820.07
201
0-11
1120
212.38
217.65
1494.35
1000
313.09
223.49
1983.11
201
1-12
1170
235.68
240.39
1595.25
1080
350
260.74
2122.94
201
2-13
1285
263.35
269.81
1752.57
1250
383.76
287.28
2304.87
201
3-14
1350
286.41
350.8
1908.32
1310
463.53
389.97
2615.51
201
4-15
1400
346.57
386.85
2051.24
1360
594.72
497.42
2943.58
201
5-16
1450
367.08
354.16
2127.39
1410
618.17
503.24
3125.47
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1691
www.rsisinternational.org
Source: Comspiled by Author based on Data from food Grain Bulletin, GoI
201
6-17
1525
390.27
386.12
2242.4
1470
554.85
474.29
3191.64
201
7-18
1625
404.85
420.52
2408.67
1550
582.02
495.28
3264.23
201
8-19
1735
280.86
402.85
2359.73
1750
450.4
550.42
3444.1
201
9-20
1840
285.58
551.78
2623.08
1770
467.65
696.64
3720.06
202
0-21
1925
283.67
600.16
2731.75
1868
479.27
794.13
3939.26
202
1-22
1975
285.84
266
2467.53
1940
516.42
314.18
3562.49
202
2-23
2015
248.13
341.25
2549.73
2040
475.32
392.18
3722.35
202
3-24
2125
254.34
331.44
2693.52
2183
477.29
324.95
3883.83
202
4-25
2275
295.57
332.98
2850.19
2300
516.97
286.99
4042.15
202
5-26
2425
305.04
327.61
2980.06
2389
526.64
271.41
4173.34