Discuss the constraints of the APMC system and evaluate how e-NAM addresses these constraints. Why has adoption of the Model APLM Act, 2017 been uneven across states?

Q. Discuss the constraints of the APMC system and evaluate how e-NAM addresses these constraints. Why has adoption of the Model APLM Act, 2017 been uneven across states? (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Agricultural marketing is a State subject, and State APMC Acts long confined farmers to notified mandis. Reform has therefore come through a central platform (e-NAM) and an advisory model law, whose combined impact remains real but partial.

Constraints of the APMC system - Monopolistic, fragmented markets: notified mandis restricted where farmers could sell, weakening price discovery [2]. - Cartelisation and intermediation: layers of licensed traders and commission agents reduced the farmer's share of the consumer rupee [2]. - Multiple levies: market fees charged at several points raised transaction costs, prompting the single-point levy reform [2]. - Post-harvest infrastructure gaps: inadequate storage and cold chains, now targeted by the AMI Scheme (12,353 storage projects, 369.18 lakh MT) and the Agriculture Infrastructure Fund [1].

Evaluating e-NAM - Gains: launched April 2016, e-NAM virtually integrates physical mandis — 1,361 APMCs across 23 States and 4 UTs, 209 commodities [2]; 1.89 crore farmers and 2.78 lakh traders registered as of 30 June 2026 [1]. Transparent online bidding widens the buyer pool, while e-NWR integration enables warehouse-receipt-based marketing and credit [2]. - Limits: coverage is a subset of India's mandis [2]; inter-state trade, though rising from ₹37 lakh (2018-19) to ₹14.28 crore (2025-26), stays marginal [1]. Crucially, e-NAM integrates rather than replaces APMCs, so assaying, grading and logistics bottlenecks persist [2].

Why Model APLM Act adoption is uneven - Marketing being a State subject, the 2017 Model Act (circulated 24 April 2017) is advisory; states adopt voluntarily [1][2]. - Mandi fees are a significant state revenue stream, and entrenched trader lobbies resist dilution. - Political caution deepened after the farm laws episode. - Administrative capacity varies — NITI Aayog's Agricultural Marketing & Farm Friendly Reforms Index, topped by Maharashtra, showed wide inter-state dispersion [3].

Thus e-NAM has improved transparency without dismantling structural rigidities that only states can remove. Sustained progress lies in incentive-linked funding, deeper mandi and FPO integration, and using competitive federalism through reform indices — reform by persuasion, consistent with the constitutional division of powers.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Strengthening of Agricultural Marketing — Press Information Bureau — e-NAM registration figures, FPO turnover, AMI and AIF infrastructure data, State-subject classification 2. National Agriculture Market (e-NAM) Explainer — Press Information Bureau — APMC constraints, e-NAM launch and mandi/commodity coverage, e-NWR linkage, Model APLM Act 2017 3. NITI Aayog launches the first ever Agricultural Marketing & Farm Friendly Reforms Index — Press Information Bureau — inter-state variation in reform uptake, Maharashtra ranked first