Rice price - Beika

Japanese: 米価 - べいか

The price of rice. Rice prices exist at each stage of rice distribution. The selling price of rice to rice producers is the producer rice price, and the purchasing price of rice to rice consumers is the consumer rice price, but there is also the price at which rice collectors in the production area sell to wholesalers in the consumption area, and the price at which wholesalers sell to retailers (wholesale price). Rice prices also vary depending on the quality of the rice (brand and grade), and a variety of rice prices are formed at each stage depending on the brand and grade. However, the quality of white rice is also divided into other categories such as high, medium, and low, rather than being categorized by brand and grade.

The price of rice has long been considered the "king of prices" due to the large volume of rice as a commodity and its importance as a daily necessity. During the era of free trading before the Pacific War, rice was traded as a futures contract, with so-called "rice prices" set at rice exchanges around the country and speculators playing an active role. The futures contracts sold at the exchanges were called "seasonal rice" and their prices were called "seasonal rice prices." In contrast, the spot rice was called "shomai" (regular rice) and the center of its trading and price formation was the shomai market. Apart from the collection markets in producing areas, shomai markets were limited to large cities such as Tokyo and Osaka, but their prices served as an indicator of rice prices nationwide. In particular, the average price of medium-sized rice at the Fukagawa shomai market in Tokyo became the standard for rice prices. Even during the Edo period, rice was already an important commodity that was distributed nationwide. The main form of distribution was rice tax collected from farmers by feudal lords, and therefore it was limited to local cities, mainly Edo, Osaka, and castle towns, where it was transported and sold. However, a rice market was created and futures trading known as choaimai was also conducted.

[Keizo Mochida]

History of rice price policy

Given its importance to the economy and society, rice prices have been a target of government policy from an early stage. The basic objective of rice price policy is to suppress rice prices that are too high, to raise prices that are too low, or to suppress fluctuations in rice prices and stabilize them, but the issue is at what level the price should be stabilized, which results in either high or low rice prices. As early as the Edo period, the shogunate often implemented rice price adjustment policies, using methods such as legal rice price fixes (1657, 1735), rice price reduction orders (numerous), rice purchases and sales, restrictions on sake brewing, and interference with stock associations, with price reduction measures being particularly notable during famines.

[Keizo Mochida]

Meiji Period

In order to smoothly carry out land tax reform, the Meiji government established the Johei Bureau to purchase rice, aiming to maintain the price of rice and to export some of it to obtain foreign currency. However, this rice price policy was only temporary, and rice prices were left unchecked until the Russo-Japanese War. The government's intervention in rice prices began in 1904 (Meiji 37) when an import tax on rice and unhulled rice was included in the emergency special taxes imposed for the Russo-Japanese War. This was largely for financial purposes as compensation for the increase in land tax, but this import tax continued to be a protective tariff even after the Russo-Japanese War. Japan had become a full-fledged rice importing country since the mid-1890s, and the tariff meant a certain level of rice price support policy. A temporary rice price adjustment order was issued in 1915 (Taisho 4) to support rice prices, but although rice price adjustment policies were actively discussed during the Taisho era, a full-fledged rice price policy was not implemented until 1921. However, this period was also a time of turbulent rice prices, culminating in the rice riots of 1918. In order to curb these unprecedentedly high rice prices, temporary measures such as interference with the exchange and the Foreign Rice Control Order were implemented. Although these measures were not particularly effective, the rice riots served as a catalyst for the recognition of the need for food policy measures. One such measure was a policy of increasing production and self-sufficiency, centered on colonial rice, but at the same time, there was a demand for a permanent policy to stabilize rice prices. The latter was the Rice Law, which was born out of a movement by agricultural organizations (mainly landlords) in 1920, triggered by the collapse of rice prices due to the depression following World War I.

[Keizo Mochida]

Rice Law

The Rice Law (Law No. 36 of 1921) simply stated that "the government may purchase, sell, exchange, process or store rice when it deems it necessary to regulate the supply and demand of rice," and a special account for regulating rice supply and demand was established with a maximum loan limit of 200 million yen. The Rice Law was amended in 1925 to add the purpose of "price regulation," but at the time the government's purchase volume was small and it did not play a significant role. However, the Rice Law marked the beginning of a system in which the government took a certain degree of responsibility for rice prices, and this continued until the Food Control Law. It was during the Great Depression that the Rice Law began to take effect in earnest in 1929 (Showa 4). Rice prices, which began to fall in the latter half of 1927, plummeted further during the depression, coupled with the large-scale import of rice from the colonies. In 1929, the government expanded the borrowing limit of special accounts, purchasing 260,000 tons of rice in 1927, 150,000 tons in 1928, 300,000 tons in 1930, and 310,000 tons in 1931, and further strengthened rice price measures with the second revision of the Rice Law in 1931. With the second revision, indirect control of rice was almost complete, and the third revision in 1932 and the Rice Control Law of 1933 were the final steps.

[Keizo Mochida]

Rice Control Act

The Rice Control Law (Law No. 24, 1933) set minimum and maximum prices, and allowed unlimited purchases and sales within those prices, with the clear intention of stabilizing rice prices within this range. The minimum price was set based on production costs and the price allowance (the prevailing rice price, i.e. price parity plus the past tendency that rice prices gradually exceed prices), and the maximum price was set based on household expenses and the price allowance. Under the Rice Control Law, the government purchased 1.55 million tons in 1934, which supported the decline in rice prices under the rice surplus at the time. However, the rice surplus turned into a shortage from 1935, and the Rice Autonomy Control Law enacted in 1936 ended without being implemented, and rice price policy changed to a restraint policy thereafter. In order to maintain the maximum price, the government had to sell the government rice that it had purchased up until that point, but after the severe drought in Korea in 1939, the rice shortage became decisive and there was no rice to sell. As the war expanded, it became necessary to move towards direct control in order to keep rice prices down and distribute it fairly among the people. This led to the Rice Rationing Control Act of 1939, followed by the Food Control Act of 1942, which introduced authoritarian direct control.

[Keizo Mochida]

Food Control Law

The Food Control Law (Law No. 40, 1942) was "aimed at controlling food, adjusting supply and demand, and controlling prices, as well as rationing, in order to secure food for the nation and stabilize the national economy." It was a system in which the government compulsorily purchased all staple foods, except for those for personal use, such as rice and wheat, and then distributed them to consumers in a planned manner. In other words, supply and distribution became the norm, free distribution of rice was abolished, and all rice prices were officially fixed. The purchase price and the selling price were to be determined by taking into account production costs, household expenses, prices, and other economic circumstances. However, because it was a control, the relationship between the two prices was severed, and a dual price system was established. Supply prices were also set at a higher price for producers than for landowners. Producer rice prices were based on production costs, but because of the severe food shortage, rice prices were generally restrained.

Even during the food shortages following the Second World War, rice prices were controlled by the Food Control Law. Producer rice prices were determined by the parity system amid inflation. This parity system changed in many ways, but continued until 1959 (Showa 34). Until 1951, the parity system was based on the average of 1934-1936 as the base year, but because it was low compared to the actual supply and demand, a system of additional payments was adopted during times of severe inflation, and various forms of incentives were given for donations. Nevertheless, black market rice was rampant, and the black market price in cities was 24 times the official price in June 1946. Consumers also had no choice but to rely on black market rice, as rationing was small and not fully implemented. When the food situation improved and it became difficult to forcibly supply rice, various subsidies were used to raise the parity price, but until around 1953, the domestic price of rice was below the international price, and rice prices were still suppressed. After the bumper rice harvest in 1955, the supply and demand of rice eased and the international price fell, so the price of rice in Japan gradually became more expensive internationally, while the price of black market rice fell domestically. Furthermore, despite the recovery of the Japanese economy and the start of high economic growth, prices remained stable, so the parity price of rice did not rise, and the income gap between urban workers and farmers widened, and farmers began to demand an increase in the price of rice. In response to this, a new method of determining producer rice prices was adopted: the production cost/income compensation method. This method determines producer rice prices based on the average rice production costs of the previous three years, with material costs revalued at current prices and home labor costs revalued at urban worker wages. This method, which was adopted in 1960, raised the producer rice price in line with the rise in urban worker wages due to rapid economic growth. In particular, under the rice shortage trend before the rice surplus that began in the 1970s, farmers strongly demanded an increase in the producer rice price, and a calculation method was adopted that would raise rice prices year by year within the framework of this method, leading to a rapid increase in the producer rice price.

After the war, the consumer rice price and the government selling price were set to the cost price, which was the producer price plus expenses, from the 1947 harvest. This period of independent accounting lasted for a few years, but with the adoption of the production cost and income compensation method as the method for calculating the producer rice price, the consumer rice price lost its relationship with the producer rice price, and the dual rice price system was established. The consumer rice price tended to be slow to increase in response to increases in the producer rice price. As a result, the relationship between the two became a so-called negative spread, in which the government selling price was lower than the producer price (government purchase price) from 1963, and continued until the 1986 harvest. The method for determining the consumer rice price was the household rice price mentioned above, but with the continued rise in workers' incomes, this method was unable to play a role in suppressing the rise in the consumer rice price, and the suppression of the increase in the consumer rice price was due to political considerations for the consumer. As a result of the negative spread, the Food Agency's account deficit occurred and increased. The problem of the Food Agency's deficit became an important element of rice price policy.

Agricultural policy under the Basic Agricultural Law from 1961 did not necessarily aim to raise rice prices, but farmers' demands for income balance were centered on raising rice prices, and these demands were passed with the help of agricultural and forestry lawmakers in the ruling party, so rice prices rose relatively and rice became a crop favorable to farmers. Rice production increased, and there was a rice surplus in 1969. After the rice surplus occurred, policymakers tried to set producer rice prices in a restrained manner, and changed the calculation method in the production cost and income compensation method to avoid raising rice prices as much as possible, so rice prices remained almost flat from 1968 to 1972. However, due to the sudden rise in international rice prices caused by the food crisis in 1972, inflation caused by the oil crisis in 1973, and the temporary rice surplus that disappeared around the same time, agricultural organizations' demands for an increase in producer rice prices intensified, and producer rice prices were significantly raised between 1973 and 1975. However, as the rice surplus reoccurred and international food supply and demand eased, producer rice prices were subsequently suppressed.

For consumers, after the 1960s, as the supply and demand for rice eased, the expensive black market rice that had existed until then disappeared. However, as consumer demand for good quality rice increased, the black market distribution of good quality rice in the form of free rice began, and a price gap emerged between this and rationed rice. Within the framework of the rationing system, measures such as specially selected rice were taken to deal with the problem, but this also had its limits, and eventually, in 1969, the independently distributed rice system was launched, and in April 1972, the application of the Price Control Order to retail prices was abolished. Since the 1960s, the food control system as a control over supply and distribution had completely collapsed, and the de facto abolition of controls had progressed. The 1981 amendment to the Food Control Law ratified this, and a new rice price system was born.

[Keizo Mochida]

Revised Food Control Law

Under the Food Control Law revised in 1981, rice prices were broadly divided into those for government rice and those for independently distributed rice. The price of government rice was decided annually through deliberation by the Rice Price Deliberation Council, with the purchase price from producers and the selling price to the government at wholesalers being determined. For rice produced in 1994 (Heisei 6), the former was 16,392 yen per 60 kilograms (brown rice, grades 1-5, average of grades 1-2, including packaging costs), and the latter was 18,123 yen (same as above). Grades 1-5 are classifications of brands based on place of origin and variety, with grades 1 through 5 being of decreasing quality and with different prices. There are also three grades, with grades 1 through 3 being of decreasing quality and with different prices.

The method for determining the producer rice price has been the production cost/income compensation method since 1960. However, this method is in reality heavily influenced by the supply and demand of rice and financial circumstances, and the producer rice price was hardly raised from 1977 to 1982, and remained unchanged from 1984 to 1986. In 1987, due to a significant drop in production costs, it was lowered by about 6% for the first time in 31 years. In 1988, it was also lowered by 4.6%. From then on, the producer rice price remained unchanged until the Food Law (enacted in 1995). The method for determining the government selling price is the household rice price method. The household rice price method is a method for determining the government selling price so as to limit the increase in the consumer rice price to the range of the household growth rate from a certain base year. If the household growth rate is 10%, the increase in the selling price will also be within 10%. This system allowed a great deal of freedom, with only a ceiling, and price increases were determined solely based on financial circumstances. However, when the government's purchase price was reduced, the government's selling price was also reduced slightly more than the purchase price.

The price of rice to consumers is free and left to the discretion of retailers, but standard price rice made from government rice must be permanently stocked, and the government selling price plus a certain margin is set as the guide price. The standard price of rice in 1994 differs depending on the region because the composition of the raw materials differs, but the standard price was 3,850 yen for 10 kilograms of polished rice. In addition, there was a cheaper, lower quality variety called "Tokuyou Jomai," but the quantity was small.

The price (opening price) of independently distributed rice is free, but it is decided by bidding at the Independently Distributed Rice Price Formation Organization (which changed its name to the Independently Distributed Rice Price Formation Center in 1995, and became the National Rice Trading and Price Formation Center in 2004). This opening price is the price at which the collectors (mostly agricultural cooperatives) sell to the wholesalers, and the price for producers is the price minus the shipping costs. However, under the independently distributed rice system at that time, the government rice had a large margin of error, so various subsidy measures were taken to make up for the difference and facilitate distribution, and sales promotion expenses, subsidies for high-quality rice, etc. were paid to producers and distributors. Therefore, the producer's net amount is the sum of these amounts returned to the producer. The highest opening price for independently distributed rice in 1994 was Niigata Koshihikari, which was 25,866 yen per 60 kilograms, 7,743 yen higher than the government rice selling price. The consumer price of independently distributed rice is free to set and varies depending on the region and retailer, but the national average price for high-quality rice made from independently distributed rice was 6,052 yen per 10 kilograms (October 1994).

[Keizo Mochida]

Food Law

In 1994, the Food Control Law was replaced by the Food Law (Law No. 113 of 1994, officially known as the Law Concerning Stabilization of Supply and Demand and Prices of Staple Foodstuffs). Under this law, the main type of rice in circulation is independently distributed rice, and so rice prices are set to the price of independently distributed rice. As before, this price is determined by bidding at the Independently Distributed Rice Price Formation Center. However, there is a certain margin of variation in price formation, and it is not completely free. However, only 25% of the rice in circulation is listed at the center, and the rest is traded on a relative basis based on the price formed by the center. In this respect, there is not much difference from before. Under the Food Law, the significance of government rice has decreased, but the disparity between independently distributed rice varieties is tending to widen.

Since the introduction of the production cost and income compensation system in determining producer rice prices in 1960, rice price policy has supported domestic rice prices higher than international prices to protect producers. Until around 1955, domestic rice prices were no different from international prices, but then, due to the effects of the strong yen, by 1989, producer rice prices had risen to seven times higher than in the United States, and consumer rice prices had risen to more than twice as high. In that sense, rice price policy was primarily for the benefit of producers, and was the core of agricultural protection policies. However, rice prices have been on a downward trend since 1987, reaching levels that are no longer viable for rice farmers. This trend has continued even after the enforcement of the Food Law, which introduced market principles, making it difficult for even large-scale farmers with low production costs to manage their businesses.

[Keizo Mochida]

"The History of Rice Price Fluctuations in Japan" by Nakazawa Benjiro (1933, Meibundo)" ▽ "A Study of the History of Food Policy in Japan, 3 volumes (1951, Food Agency)" ▽ "The History of Food Control, 10 volumes (1969-72, Food Agency)" ▽ "Japanese Agricultural Annual Report Vol. 17, Food Control System - Structure and Function" edited by Kondo Yasuo (1968, Ochanomizu Shobo)" ▽ "Japanese Agricultural Annual Report Vol. 28, Food Control System - Significance of its Existence in the 1980s" edited by Kondo Yasuo (1980, Ochanomizu Shobo)" ▽ "Japanese Agricultural Annual Report Vol. 42, From Government Food Control to Agricultural Cooperative Food Control" edited by Ouchi Chikara (1995, Rural Statistics Association)" ▽ "Japanese Rice - Climate, History, Lifestyle" by Mochida Keizo (1990, Chikuma Shobo)" ▽ "The Food Law System and Agricultural Cooperatives" edited by the Japan Agricultural Research Institute (2000, Agriculture and Forestry Statistics Association)

Changes in rice prices and rice price policies before the war
©Shogakukan ">

Changes in rice prices and rice price policies before the war

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

Japanese:

米の値段のこと。米価は米の流通の各段階に存在する。米の生産者の販売価格が生産者米価であり、米の消費者の購入価格が消費者米価であるが、このほか、産地の集荷業者が消費地の卸売業者に売る価格、卸売業者が小売業者に売る価格（卸売価格）もある。また米価は米の品質（銘柄・等級）によっても差があり、銘柄・等級別に多様な米価が各段階別に形成される。もっとも、白米の品質は銘柄・等級別ではなく、上中下などのような別の区分も行われる。

　米価は、米の商品としての大量性、生活必需品としての重要性から、昔から「物価の王」として重要視されてきた。太平洋戦争前までの自由取引時代には、米も先物取引が行われており、各地の米穀取引所でいわゆる「米相場」がたてられ、相場師が活躍していたのである。取引所における先物は期米といわれ、その価格は期米価格といわれた。これに対し現物は正米(しょうまい)といわれ、その取引と価格形成の中心は正米市場であった。正米市場は産地の集荷市場を別とすれば、東京、大阪などの大都市に限られたが、その価格は全国の米価の指標となった。とくに東京の深川正米市場の中米の平均価格は米価の標準となっていた。江戸時代においても、米はすでに全国的に流通する重要な商品であった。流通の主力は、領主が農民から徴収した年貢米であり、したがって、それが輸送され販売される江戸、大坂、城下町を主とする地方都市に限られてはいたが、米穀市場が生まれ、帳合米といわれる先物取引も行われていたのである。

［持田恵三］

米価政策の歴史

米価はその経済、社会に占める重要性からいって、早くから政府の政策の対象となっていた。米価政策の基本は、高すぎる米価を抑制する、安すぎる米価を引き上げる、あるいは米価の変動を抑えて安定させる、といった目的をもつものであるが、どの水準に安定させるかが問題であり、それによって高米価、低米価のどちらかになることになる。江戸時代すでに幕府によってしばしば米価調節政策が行われたが、手段は米価法定（1657年、1735年）、米価引下令（多数）、米の買上げ・払下げ、酒造制限、株仲間への干渉などであったが、とくに飢饉(ききん)の際の引下げ策が目だっている。

［持田恵三］

明治時代

明治政府は地租改正を円滑に進めるため、常平局を設けて米の買上げを行い、米価の維持をねらい、その一部を輸出して外貨を獲得した。しかしこの米価政策は一時的なものにとどまり、以後日露戦争時まで米価は放任されていた。米価に対する政府の介入が始まるのは、1904年（明治37）の日露戦争のための非常特別税のなかに米・籾(もみ)輸入税が設けられたときである。これは地租増徴への対価として多分に財政目的のものであったが、この輸入税は日露戦争後も継続して保護関税化していった。明治30年代なかばから本格的な米輸入国に日本はなっていたのであり、関税は一定の米価支持政策を意味していた。1915年（大正4）に米価支持のための臨時の米価調節令が出されたことはあったが、大正年間は米価調節政策が盛んに論議されながらも、本格的な米価政策は1921年まで行われなかった。しかしこの間は、1918年の米騒動を頂点とする米価の激動の時代であった。この空前の高米価抑制のために、取引所干渉、外国米管理令といった一時的な対策が行われた。この効果はたいしたものではなかったが、米騒動を契機として食糧対策の必要が認識された。その一つは植民地米を中心とする増産・自給政策であったが、それと並んで恒久的な米価安定政策が求められた。後者は1920年の第一次世界大戦後の恐慌による米価暴落を契機とする、農業団体（主として地主）の運動から生まれた米穀法である。

［持田恵三］

米穀法

米穀法（大正10年法律第36号）は、「政府は米穀の需給を調節する為(ため)必要ありと認むるときは米穀の買入、売渡、交換、加工又は貯蔵を為(な)すことを得」という簡単なもので、これに2億円の借入れを限度とする米穀需給調節特別会計がつけられていた。米穀法は1925年に改正されて「価格の調節」を目的に加えたが、当時は政府の買入量も少なく、たいした役割も発揮しなかった。しかし米穀法は、政府が米価に一定の責任をもつという体制の出発点となり、食糧管理法まで続くのである。米穀法が本格的に活動を始めるのは、1929年（昭和4）からの大恐慌のなかであった。1927年後半から下がり始めた米価は、植民地米の大量輸入と相まって、恐慌下にいっそう暴落した。1929年に特別会計の借入れ限度を拡大して、政府は、1927年26万トン、1928年15万トン、1930年30万トン、1931年31万トンと米の買入れを行い、1931年には米穀法の第二次改正を行って、いっそう米価対策を強化した。第二次改正によって米の間接統制はほぼ形を整え、1932年の第三次改正、さらに1933年の米穀統制法に至って完成をみることになる。

［持田恵三］

米穀統制法

米穀統制法（昭和8年法律第24号）は、最低価格と最高価格を決め、その価格内で無制限に買入れ・売渡しを行うものであり、この範囲に米価を安定させるはっきりした意図をもつものであった。最低価格は生産費と物価参酌値（率勢米価。つまり物価パリティに、米価が物価より少しずつ上回るという過去の傾向を加味したもの）に基づいて決められ、最高価格は家計費と物価参酌値に基づいて決められた。米穀統制法によって政府は1934年に155万トンの大量買入れを行い、当時の米過剰下の米価低落を支えたのである。しかし米過剰は1935年からは不足に転じ、1936年に成立した米穀自治管理法も施行されることなく終わり、米価政策は以後抑制の方向に転換した。最高価格を維持するために、それまで買い込んだ政府米を売ることがその手段であったが、1939年の朝鮮の大干魃(かんばつ)以後、米不足は決定的になり、売るべき米はなくなってしまう。戦争の拡大とともに、米価を抑え、米を国民に公平に分配するためには、直接統制へと進まざるをえなくなり、1939年の米穀配給統制法を経て、1942年の食糧管理法による強権的な直接統制が始められた。

［持田恵三］

食糧管理法

食糧管理法（昭和17年法律第40号）は、「国民食糧の確保及国民経済の安定を図る為食糧を管理し其(そ)の需給及価格の調整並に配給の統制を行うことを目的とす」るもので、米麦その他の主要食糧を、自家用分を除いてすべて政府が強制的に買い入れ、それを政府が消費者に計画的に配給する制度であった。つまり供出と配給が基本となり、米の自由流通はなくなり、米価はすべて公定された。買入価格、売渡価格は、それぞれ生産費と家計費、それに物価その他の経済事情を参酌して決めることになっていた。しかし統制であるため、両価格の関連はいちおう断たれ、二重価格制となった。供出価格についても、生産者は地主より有利に決められた。生産者米価はいちおう生産費主義をとっていたけれど、厳しい食糧不足のなかであったから、米価は全体として抑制的であった。

　第二次世界大戦後の食糧不足時代にも食糧管理法によって米価は抑制されていた。生産者米価はインフレのなかでパリティ方式で決められた。このパリティ方式は、その内容はいろいろと変わったが、いちおう1959年（昭和34）まで続けられた。1951年までのパリティ方式は、1934～1936年平均を基準年次としたものであったが、需給実勢に対し安かったため、インフレの激しかった時代には、追加払いという制度も採用され、供出に対してもさまざまな形の奨励金がつけられた。それでも闇米(やみごめ)が横行し、都市の闇値は1946年6月には公定の24倍にもなった。消費者も、配給量が少なく、しかもそれも完全には行われなかったため、闇米に頼らざるをえなかった。食糧事情が好転し強権的供出が困難になると、各種奨励金による事実上のパリティ価格引上げが行われたが、1953年ごろまでは国内米価は国際価格を下回っており、米価はなお抑制的であった。1955年の米の大豊作を転機として、米の需給は緩和し、国際価格も下がったため、日本の米価はしだいに国際的に割高になる一方、国内では闇米価格が下落した。また日本経済の復興と高度成長の開始にもかかわらず、物価は安定していたので、パリティ米価が上がらなかったため、都市勤労者と農民との所得格差は拡大し、米価引上げの要求が農民の間で強まった。これに対して採用された新しい生産者米価決定方式が、生産費・所得補償方式である。これは、前3か年平均の米生産費をもととし、このうち物財費は当年価格、自家労賃分は都市勤労者賃金で評価替えした生産費に基づいて生産者米価を決定する方式である。1960年から採用されたこの方式によって、高度成長による都市勤労者賃金の上昇とともに、生産者米価も引き上げられた。ことに1970年代からの米過剰が発生する以前の米不足基調の下では、生産者米価引上げの農民の要求が強く、この方式の枠内で年々米価が上がるような計算方法が採用されて、生産者米価は急速に引き上げられた。

　消費者米価と政府売渡価格は、戦後1947年産米から、生産者価格に経費を加えたコスト価格が採用された。この独立採算時代は数年であったが、生産者米価算定方式としての生産費・所得補償方式の採用に伴って消費者米価は生産者米価との関連を失い、二重米価制が定着した。そして生産者米価引上げに対し、消費者米価の引上げが遅れる傾向が続いた。このため両者の関係は、1963年から政府売渡価格が生産者価格（政府買入価格）より安い、いわゆる逆ざやになり、1986年産米に至るまで続いた。消費者米価の決定方式は前述した家計米価であったが、勤労者所得の上昇が続くなかでは、この方式は消費者米価上昇を抑える役割を果たせず、消費者米価引上げ抑制は消費者への政治的配慮によるものであった。逆ざやの発生の結果、食管会計の赤字が発生、増大した。そして食管赤字の問題は米価政策の重要な要素となった。

　1961年からの農業基本法の下での農業政策は、かならずしも米価引上げを指向しはしなかったが、所得均衡を求める農民側の要求がもっぱら米価引上げに集中し、その要求を与党の農林議員の力を借りて通したために、米価は相対的に高くなり、米は農民に有利な作目となった。米生産は増加し、1969年以来米過剰となった。米過剰が発生してから、政策当局は生産者米価を抑制的に決めようとし、生産費・所得補償方式のなかでの計算方法を、米価をなるべく引き上げないようにと変えたため、米価は1968年以降1972年までほぼ横ばいに推移した。しかし1972年の食糧危機による国際価格の急騰、1973年の石油危機によるインフレ、そして同じころの一時的な米過剰の解消もあって、生産者米価引上げへの農業団体の要求が強まり、1973～1975年に生産者米価は大幅に引き上げられた。しかし米過剰が再発し、国際食糧需給も緩和したため、以後生産者米価は抑制された。

　消費者にとっては1960年代以降、米需給の緩和とともに、それまでの高い闇米はなくなった。しかし消費者の良質米需要の増大とともに、自由米という形での良質米の闇流通が発生し、配給米との間に価格差が生まれた。配給制度の枠内でも特選米などの方式での対応は行われたが、それも限界があり、結局、1969年から自主流通米制度が発足し、1972年4月からは小売価格について物価統制令の適用が廃止されるに至った。1960年代以降、供出・配給という統制としての食管制度はまったく崩れていたのであり、事実上の統制撤廃が進んでいた。1981年の食管法改正はこれを追認したものであり、これによって新しい米価の体系が生まれたのである。

［持田恵三］

改正食管法

1981年に改正された食管法の下での米価は、大きく分けて政府米に関するものと自主流通米に関するものとがあった。政府米の価格は、生産者からの買入価格と政府の卸商への売渡価格とが、毎年米価審議会の議を経て決定された。1994年（平成6）産米については、前者は60キログラム当り1万6392円（玄米、1～5類、1～2等平均、包装費込み）であり、後者は1万8123円（同前）であった。1～5類は産地・品種による銘柄の区分で、1類から5類に至る順に品質が落ち、価格も差がつけられる。等級も1～3等があり、1等から3等に至る順に品質が落ち、価格差がつけられている。

　生産者米価の決定方式は、1960年から生産費・所得補償方式がとられてきた。しかし、この方式は米の需給状態、財政事情によって価格決定が大きく左右されるのが実情であり、1977年以後1982年まで、生産者米価はほとんど引き上げられていないし、1984～1986年は据置きであった。1987年は生産費が大幅に下がったために、31年ぶりに約6％引き下げられた。1988年も4.6％の引下げであった。以後、食糧法（1995年施行）まで、生産者米価は据え置かれた。政府売渡価格の決定方式は家計米価方式による。家計米価方式とは、ある基準年からの家計の伸び率の範囲に、消費者米価の上昇率を抑えるように、政府売渡価格を決める方式である。家計の伸び率が10％なら、売渡価格の値上げ幅も10％以内となる。この方式は上限があるだけでかなり自由度が大きく、もっぱら財政事情によって値上げが決められるようになった。しかし政府買入価格の引下げに伴って、政府売渡価格は買入価格より若干多めに引き下げられた。

　消費者米価は自由であって、小売商に任されているが、政府米を原料とした標準価格米を常置することになっており、その価格は政府売渡価格に一定のマージンを加えたものが指導価格となっている。1994年の標準価格米価格は、地域によって原料の構成が異なるので差があるが、精米10キログラム3850円が基準である。このほか、より低質で安い米として徳用上米があったが、その数量は少なかった。

　自主流通米の価格（建値）は自由であるが、自主流通米価格形成機構（1995年に名称変更し、自主流通米価格形成センターとなり、2004年には全国米穀取引・価格形成センターとなる）での入札により決まる。この建値は集荷業者（ほとんど農協）が卸売業者に売り渡す価格であり、生産者の価格は、これから発地経費を差し引いたものになる。しかし当時の自主流通米制度では、政府米の逆ざやが大きいので、その差を埋めて流通を円滑にするために種々の助成措置がとられ、販売促進費、良質米奨励金などが生産者や流通担当業者に支給されていた。だから生産者の手取り額は、これらのうち生産者に還元されるものを加えた額となる。自主流通米の建値は、1994年産の最高は新潟産コシヒカリであり、60キログラム当り2万5866円で、政府米売渡価格よりも7743円高い。自主流通米の消費者価格は自由であり、地域により、小売店によりまちまちであるが、自主流通米を原料とした上米で全国平均10キログラム当り6052円（1994年10月）であった。

［持田恵三］

食糧法

1994年には食糧管理法にかわり、「食糧法」（平成6年法律第113号、正式には「主要食糧の需給及び価格の安定に関する法律」）が制定された。その下では主として流通する米が自主流通米のため、米価は自主流通米の価格となる。この価格は従来どおり、自主流通米価格形成センターにおける入札により決まる。ただし価格形成には一定の変動幅が設けられており、完全に自由ではない。しかしセンターに上場される米は流通量の25％であり、ほかはセンターで形成された価格を基準として相対で取引される。この点は従来とあまり差はない。食糧法のもとで政府米のもつ意味は小さくなったが、自主流通米間の格差は拡大傾向にある。

　1960年の生産者米価決定における生産費・所得補償方式の導入以来の米価政策は、国際価格より高く国内米価を支持し、生産者を保護するものであり、1955年ごろまで国際価格と差がなかった国内米価は、その後円高の影響も加わって、1989年にはアメリカと比べて生産者米価で7倍、消費者米価で2倍以上にもなった。その意味では米価政策は、もっぱら生産者のためのものであり、農業保護政策の中核であった。しかし1987年より米価は下落傾向にあり、稲作農家の経営には引き合わない水準になっている。市場原理が導入された食糧法施行以後もこの傾向は続き、生産費の安い大規模経営農家の経営をも厳しくさせている。

［持田恵三］

『中沢辨次郎著『日本米価変動史』（1933・明文堂）』▽『『日本食糧政策史の研究』全3巻（1951・食糧庁）』▽『『食糧管理史』全10冊（1969～72・食糧庁）』▽『近藤康男編『日本農業年報第17集　食管制度――構造と機能』（1968・御茶の水書房）』▽『近藤康男編『日本農業年報第28集　食管――80年代における存在意義』（1980・御茶の水書房）』▽『大内力編『日本農業年報第42集　政府食管から農協食管へ』（1995・農村統計協会）』▽『持田恵三著『日本の米――風土・歴史・生活』（1990・筑摩書房）』▽『日本農業研究所編『食糧法システムと農協』（2000・農林統計協会）』