Skip to main content
Log in

Food inflation and volatility in India: trends and determinants

  • Article
  • Published:
Indian Economic Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We analyze behavior of food prices in India during the last decade at a disaggregate level. Systematic decomposition shows that eggs, meat, fish, milk, cereals, and vegetables are the main contributors to food inflation. Fruits and vegetables showed a much higher short-term volatility in prices. All the major contributors possess a higher weight in the consumption basket, indicating that the weight of a commodity has much larger bearing on its overall contribution to food inflation, as compared to other factors such as base effect or percentage change in prices (inflation). The inflation-volatility patterns reveal that the commodities that have higher income elasticity of demand but have limited processing and storage facilities, such as fruits and vegetables, are characterized by higher volatility. Econometric analysis shows that while cereal and edible oil prices appear to be mainly driven by supply-side factors such as production, wage rates, and minimum support prices, for pulses, the effects of supply and demand factors appear almost equal. On the other hand, prices of eggs, meat, fish, milk, and fruits and vegetables appear to be driven mainly by demand-side factors. Price projections show that the eggs-meat-fish-milk group shows the highest increase because of the higher income elasticities of demand and the rapid increase in India’s per capita income in the recent years.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Source: Tomek and Robinson (1972)

Fig. 2

Source: Office of the Economic Adviser, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, India; MCI (2015)

Fig. 3

Source: Office of the Economic Adviser, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, India; MCI (2015) and MoA (2016)

Fig. 4

Source: Authors’ calculations from MCI (2015)

Fig. 5

Source: Authors’ calculations from MCI (2015)

Fig. 6

Source: Authors’ calculations from MCI (2015)

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There has been a slowdown in food inflation since August 2014, mainly due to the higher base effect and the slowdown in food and fuel prices globally. However, understanding long-term trends is still important for informed policy making. In addition, food inflation has started inching up again since April 2015.

  2. MPCE is a proxy for income spent on the particular group of commodities. The variable is lagged in order to avoid reverse causality.

  3. In an ongoing study by the authors, it has been found that the major contributing commodities are broadly similar across major states in India, with minor differences.

  4. For a few of the commodities, although the models are the best fitted as per diagnostic statistics, the coefficient restrictions are not satisfied.

  5. Inflation here refers to magnitude of commodity’s inflation and not the commodity’s contribution to overall inflation, which depends also upon the weight of the commodity and the base effect. This distinction is important while interpreting the results in this section. Also, we have used volatility measure computed using the ratio method in order to get one single measure of volatility for each commodity.

  6. Because current expenditure is a function of current price, which is the focus of our inquiry.

References

  • Alexander, C. (2008). Practical financial econometrics. Vol. 2 of Market Risk Analysis. West Sussex, UK: Wiley.

  • Anand, R., Ding D., & Tulin, V. (2014). Food inflation in India: The role for monetary policy. In IMF Working Paper WP/14/178, International Monetary Fund, September 2014.

  • Bai, J., & Perron, P. (2003). Computation and analysis of multiple structural change models. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, R., & Sengupta, A. (2015). Food inflation in India: Causes and consequences. Working Paper 2015-151. New Delhi: National Institute of Public Finance and Policy.

  • CSO (Central Statistics Office). (2015). Consumer price index: Changes in the revised series (base year 2012 = 100). New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chand, R. (2009). The wheat market: Distortions caused by government interventions. Economic and Political Weekly, XLIV(12), 41–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chand, R. (2010). Understanding the nature and causes of food inflation. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(9), 10–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • DES (Directorate of Economics and Statistics). (2018a). Various issues, Cost of Cultivation of Principal Crops in India. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture.

  • DES (Directorate of Economics and Statistics). (2018b). Various issues. Agricultural statistics at a glance. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture.

  • Enders, W. (2003). Applied econometric time series (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ, US: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezekiel, M. (1938). The Cobweb theorem. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 52(2), 255–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2015). FAOSTAT database. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data. Accessed Dec.

  • GoI. (2012). Report of the committee on the regulation of sugar sector in India: The way forward. Prime Minister’s Office, Government of India, 2012.

  • Gopakumar, K. U., & Pandit, V. (2014). Production, procurement and inflation: A market model for foodgrains. Working Paper 238. Delhi: Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.

  • Johnson, D. G. (1975). World agriculture, commodity policy and price variability. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57 (5), 823–828.

  • MCI (Ministry of Commerce and Industry. (2015). DGCIS (Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics) database. http://www.eaindustry.nic.in/home.asp. Accessed Dec.

  • Mishra, P., & Roy, D. (2011). Explaining inflation in India: The role of food prices. In Paper presented at the India Policy Forum, National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi, October 31. http://www.prachimishra.net/mishra_roy_reviseddraft_ipf_oct25.pdf.

  • MoA (Ministry of Agriculture). (2016). Directorate of economics and statistics database. Accessed on various dates. http://rpms.dacnet.nic.in/QueryReport.aspx. http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/APY_96_To_07.htm.

  • NHB. (2016). Indian horticulture database. Accessed on various dates http://nhb.gov.in/.

  • NSSO (National Sample Survey Office). (2018). Various issues. Reports on ‘Household Consumer Expenditure in India’. New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.

  • Nair, S. R. (2013). Making sense of persistently high inflation in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 48(42), 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nair, S. R., & Eapen, L. M. (2012). Food price inflation in India (2008–2010). Economic and Political Weekly, 47(20), 46–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerlove, M. (1958). The dynamics of supply: Estimation of farmers’ response to price. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • RBI. (2016). Reserve Bank of India database. Accessed on various dates. https://dbie.rbi.org.in/DBIE/dbie.rbi?site=statistics.

  • Sekhar, C. S. C. (2003). Price formation in world wheat markets: Implications for policy. Journal of Policy Modeling, 25(1), 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sekhar, C. S. C., Roy, D., & Bhatt, Y. (2017). Food inflation and food price volatility in India—trends and determinants. Discussion Paper 01640 International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, D.C, May 2017.

  • Tomek, W. G., & Robinson, K. L. (1972). Agricultural product prices. Ithaca, NY, US: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. (2011). Reconsidering the role of food prices in inflation. Working Paper WP/11/71. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

  • World Bank. (2015). World bank commodities price data (the pink sheet). Washington, DC.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. S. C. Sekhar.

Additional information

The authors would like to extend special thanks to the anonymous reviewer of the journal for very insightful suggestions/comments. Special thanks to the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) South Asia office and the Institute of Economic Growth (IEG) for the support provided. Thanks are also due to the participants of various conferences at IFPRI, IEG, Indian Statistical Institute and Centre for Economic and Social Studies, where this paper was presented, for their comments/suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies.

Appendices

Appendix 1: ARCH/GARCH models

The generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity GARCH(p,q) model is given by

$$h_{t} = \alpha_{0} + \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{q} {} \alpha_{i} \varepsilon_{t - i}^{2} + \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{p} {} \beta_{j} h_{t - j}^{{}} ,$$
(10)

where \(\alpha_{i} \ge 0, \, \beta_{j} \ge 0,\alpha_{i} + \beta_{j} < 1\),\(\varepsilon_{t}^{{}}\) is the error term, \(h_{t}\) is the conditional variance in t, and \(\alpha_{i} {\text{ and }}\beta_{j}\) are the parameters (to be estimated). If p = q = 1, then this model reduces to a GARCH(1,1) model, \(h_{t} = \alpha_{0} + \alpha_{i} \varepsilon_{t - 1}^{2} + \beta_{j} h_{t - 1}^{{}}\). Variance \(h_{t}\) in period t is conditional on (1) the size of the residual in t − 1 and (2) \(h_{t - 1}\), the conditional variance in the previous period. Thus, \(h_{t}\) is large if \(\varepsilon_{t - 1}^{2}\) is large, and vice versa.

1.1 TARCH model (threshold ARCH model)

TARCH is an extension of the GARCH model; it allows the effects of positive and negative shocks (to prices in this case) to have different effects on volatility. The standard TARCH model for a one-period lag is given by

$$h_{t} = \alpha_{0} + \alpha_{1} \varepsilon_{t - 1}^{2} + \lambda_{1} d_{t - 1} \varepsilon_{t - 1}^{2} + \beta_{1} h_{t - 1}^{{}} ,$$
(11)

where \(d_{t - 1} = 1\) if \(\varepsilon_{t - 1}^{{}} < 0\) and \(d_{t - 1} = 0\) if \(\varepsilon_{t - 1}^{{}} \ge 0\). In addition, (1) \(h_{t} = \alpha_{0} + (\alpha_{1} + \lambda_{1} )\varepsilon_{t - 1}^{2} + \beta_{1} h_{t - 1}^{{}}\) in case of a negative error, and (2) \(h_{t} = \alpha_{0} + \alpha_{1} \varepsilon_{t - 1}^{2} + \beta_{1} h_{t - 1}^{{}}\) otherwise; and \(\alpha_{1} \ge 0, \, \beta_{1} \ge 0\), but there is no restriction on \(\lambda_{1}\).

1.2 EGARCH model (exponential GARCH model)

In the GARCH and TARCH models, there are binding coefficient restrictions such as\(\alpha_{i} \ge 0, \, \beta_{j} \ge 0{\text{ and }}\alpha_{i} + \beta_{j} < 1\). A less restrictive model is the exponential GARCH (EGARCH) model, given by

$$\ln (h_{t} ) = \alpha_{0} + \alpha_{1} \frac{{\varepsilon_{t - 1}^{{}} }}{{\sqrt {h_{t - 1}^{{}} } }} + \lambda_{1} \left| {\frac{{\varepsilon_{t - 1}^{{}} }}{{\sqrt {h_{t - 1}^{{}} } }}} \right| + \beta_{1} h_{t - 1}^{{}} .$$
(12)

In this model, both \(\alpha_{i}\) and \(\beta_{j}\) can have negative values since the dependent variable is \(\ln (h_{t} )\) and not \(h_{t}\). The effect of \(\varepsilon_{t - 1}^{{}}\) on \(\ln (h_{t} )\) is equal to \(\alpha_{1} + \lambda_{1}\) when \(\varepsilon_{t - 1}^{{}} \ge 0\) and equal to \(- \alpha_{1} + \lambda_{1}\) when \(\varepsilon_{t - 1}^{{}} < 0\).

Appendix 2: Volatility of commodity subgroups, 2005–2014, all India

figure a
figure b

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sekhar, C.S.C., Roy, D. & Bhatt, Y. Food inflation and volatility in India: trends and determinants. Ind. Econ. Rev. 53, 65–91 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41775-018-0017-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41775-018-0017-z

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation