Every policy distributes risk.

Punjab's wheat transition was presented as a technical reform: reduce fiscal exposure, expand private participation, and move procurement away from an overextended state. Parts of that argument were valid. The old procurement structure had become increasingly expensive, inefficient and difficult to sustain. But reforms are not judged only by their stated objectives. They are judged by how risks, protections and losses are distributed once the system begins operating.

And in Punjab's wheat transition, nearly every organised participant entered the harvest season with some form of protection, flexibility or policy access.

That outcome was not necessarily planned. But neither was it accidental.

Private aggregators received subsidised financing structures, free public storage and operational support from Food Department personnel. Banks retained the ability to limit participation or withdraw where collateral and release conditions appeared uncertain, and that is exactly what happened.

The flour milling sector and the import trade each operate within structures that offer their own forms of insulation when domestic procurement weakens. Lower farm-gate prices reduce raw material costs for mills. Instability in domestic supply generates demand for import financing, storage and logistics linked to external supply.

None of this required coordination or conspiracy.

It is simply the logic of organised interests operating in a policy environment where access is unequal.

The farmer has no equivalent institutional presence.

Pakistan's farmer organisations remain politically visible during moments of acute crisis, but structurally weak during policy formation itself. Aggregator rules, financing structures, benchmark mechanisms, storage conditions, procurement timelines and import decisions are usually designed inside institutional rooms where the farmer has little direct representation. The grower learns the terms of transition largely........

© The Friday Times