By
Khurram Niaz
Despite their apparent status as common staples, sugar and wheat are significantly more important in developing nations than their calorie content indicates. These two goods have a significant impact on low-income households’ everyday life, influencing social stability, affordability, and food security. They are frequently listed as important inflation indicators in economic textbooks, and governments monitor their prices to evaluate changes in the cost of living. However, the actual realities of the impoverished frequently differ from what official inflation reports indicate.
A sharp rise in the cost of sugar or wheat flour can force families below or close to the poverty line to forgo meals, reduce the nutrition of their children, or incur further debt. A serious weakness in the interpretation of economic realities is revealed by this gap between theoretical models and actual conditions on the ground. Wheat and sugar, particularly in nations like Pakistan, are not merely line items in a statistical basket; rather, they are imperceptible signs of actual economic hardship that policymakers and economists cannot afford to overlook.
Sugar and Wheat as Real Economic Barometers in the Affordability Versus Inflation Debate:
Wheat and sugar have long been regarded as benchmark commodities in conventional economic research, especially in developing nations where inflation measurement instruments are used. Many central banks and government agencies use the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which includes these necessities, as a key indicator of inflation trends. Their price movements are thought to be indicators of the state of the economy as a whole; if the prices of wheat and sugar increase, inflation is thought to be rising; if they stay the same, policymakers tend to consider this as an indication of economic management.
But by reducing consumption to statistics, this technical approach ignores the human reality that lies behind those numbers. Although economic models can reliably predict price trends, they do not account for the lived experiences of various socioeconomic classes, particularly those for whom even small price fluctuations might have significant repercussions. Because of this, these models run the risk of giving a skewed picture, one that misses hardship at the micro level while capturing macroeconomic stability.
It is crucial to look at who uses sugar and wheat and under what circumstances to fully comprehend them as economic indicators. Wheat consumption is flexible in wealthy or metropolitan households, where it is frequently replaced with other grains or foreign foods. Sugar is usually used sparingly. These families are also comparatively unaffected by changes in the cost of staples since they have access to a wide variety of processed or imported substitutes.
The situation for lower-middle-class and impoverished families is very different. Their daily meals are based on wheat, which is typically eaten as roti or chapati. In contrast, tea—a daily emotional and cultural ritual throughout South Asia—is sweetened with sugar. Even a slight price increase in these households can result in unpleasant dietary concessions that lower psychological comfort and nutritional quality. Although these differences in purchasing patterns are rarely shown in inflation data, they are essential to comprehending economic vulnerability.
There is a more serious problem with the way policymakers think about inflation. The majority of nations use percentage changes in the prices of a set basket of items to determine inflation. Despite being statistically sound, this approach ignores affordability, or people’s real ability to purchase necessities within their means. In economies with lower incomes, where subsistence wages, seasonal labour, and informal employment predominate, this is especially troublesome.
In these situations, families making less than 1000 rupees per day may be disproportionately affected by even a small increase, such asRs2/ per kilogram of wheat or sugar. The problem for these households is not only growing costs but also declining purchasing power. Although policymakers may assert that inflation is “under control,” such assertions are meaningless if necessary goods remain out of reach for significant portions of the population. One obvious flaw in the reasoning behind policy is the disparity between statistical inflation and lived affordability.
Unaffordable basics have far-reaching effects beyond just hunger. Families that are struggling financially frequently turn to less expensive, lower-quality foods, which can have long-term health effects like malnutrition, decreased immunity, and delays in children’s development. These pressures can even drive youngsters to drop out of school to help support their families, whether in rural or urban slums.
Marginalized communities become increasingly frustrated as necessities become unattainable, especially when they witness the wealthy enjoying plenty while officials show no concern. In addition to pushing disadvantaged families into high-risk informal lending systems, this expanding inequality has the potential to undermine public confidence in institutions and ignite instability. In these kinds of situations, a small change in price has the potential to turn into a larger social disaster that neither an inflation graph nor a GDP growth number can adequately depict.
Pakistan is a classic example of the Political Economy behind the Sugar and Wheat Markets:
The wheat and sugar industries in Pakistan are hubs of patronage and political power, representing much more than just simple economic activity. Influential business families, many of whom occupy important political positions or have close ties to government coalitions, control the majority of these industries. As a result, political expediency and private profit frequently influence policy decisions pertaining to wheat and sugar more than the general good.
These markets’ structure makes them extremely susceptible to manipulation. The government periodically interferes in the supply chain for sugar and declares support prices for wheat, but these actions are usually erratic and poorly implemented. In order to deliberately raise domestic prices, tactics like stockpiling, fabricating shortages, and granting export permits suddenly often followed by substantial subsidies, are employed. These actions increase food insecurity for millions of people while benefiting a small number. Due to structural flaws and political cooperation, these industries have evolved from being tools of economic stability to being means of exploitation.
Pakistan has gone through several wheat and sugar crises in the past 20 years. Every occurrence, from the 2009 sugar shortage to the 2019 wheat flour crises and the subsequent price spikes in 2020 and 2021, has followed a similar pattern: abrupt market shortages, negative publicity, government investigations, and finally, popular forgetting. Even while investigation findings have occasionally named prominent offenders, accountability is still rare and frequently symbolic. Cross-border smuggling and the misuse of subsidies are often unpunished. People see a system where manipulation is accepted and there is little political desire for change, which has led to widespread public cynicism.
Although official inflation numbers may indicate only slight price increases for wheat or sugar, the situation on the ground is quite different. Even a slight increase in wheat prices can result in fewer rotis on the table or the removal of sugar from morning tea for daily wage workers, domestic helpers, or rural families. These are not small changes; they represent actual compromises in dignity, comfort, and nutrition.
Subsidized wheat programs are a lifeline in rural communities, where any interruption brought on by corruption or bureaucratic holdups can have dire repercussions right away. When rations are postponed or redirected, families that are eligible for assistance are frequently compelled to purchase goods at exorbitant costs from open markets. Nonetheless, policymakers keep depending on overall economic data, which produces a narrative of “manageable inflation” that hides the human cost of the figures.
One important question is brought up by the ongoing volatility in Pakistan’s main commodity markets: are these crises the consequence of misguided policies, or are they signs that a system is working exactly as it should, benefiting the wealthy at the expense of the poor? Most likely, the truth is somewhere in the middle. On the one hand, manipulation is made simple by inadequate oversight, weak institutions, and regulatory deficiencies. The larger policy framework, on the other hand, appears to be set up to preserve the comfort of urban middle classes rather than guarantee food security for those who are most in need.
In Pakistan, economic policymaking rarely places a strong emphasis on accessibility or affordability. Rather, it focuses on macroeconomic stability, frequently in response to pressure from global lenders or budgetary benchmarks. Hunger, malnutrition, and public unhappiness are all viewed as acceptable side effects under such a paradigm. While the cycle of exploitation and injustice persists, the impoverished are left to adapt, rely on charity, or quietly suffer.
My Final Thoughts:
In underdeveloped economies, sugar and wheat are more than just commodities. They are real-world indicators of the state of the economy. Even though standard inflation measures record percentage changes in prices, they frequently don’t account for the difficulties faced by low-income households, who must contend with fewer meals and worse nutrition. A deeper reality is shown by the discrepancy between price data and purchasing power: actual inflation for the poor is defined by affordability rather than just pricing. Too frequently overlooked in official narratives, the unaffordability of basics sets off a chain reaction that results in social discontent and health degradation.
In Pakistan, these failures are magnified. The sugar and wheat sectors are entangled with political interests, enabling market manipulation and recurring crises. From an economist’s perspective, what’s missing is a pro-poor inflation model that recognises the fundamental difference between price and accessibility. Until such a framework is adopted, Pakistan’s sugar and wheat turmoil will not be exceptions—they will remain the inevitable, and avoidable, consequences of a broken system.
Khurram Niaz