The Urgency of Implementing the "Giving Economy" to Manage Staple Food

From the beginning, economics was constructed on the basis of "mutual taking" transactions. The description of the Islamic Food Economy, especially for staple foods, shows that there is another option that has been implemented for a long time, namely "mutual giving" transactions. People instinctively enjoy sharing food. Any tribe and any religion. Even now, in the modern world, we still like to do it. When we meet old friends, our habit is to invite them to eat. Yes, share food.

Is it possible to construct and run a “sharing economy” or “giving economy”? Of course this is a spectacular change.

However, why not? Because the economic sector and the socio-religious and cultural elements attached to it are very varied. And we must be open to various fresh ideas that are more solutions. We have to put together a new structure for the world food economy, which until now has turned out to be incomplete.

In a somewhat similar form, recently the sharing economy has developed. Sharing economy is ".....a way of distributing goods and services that differs from the traditional model of corporations hiring employees and selling products to consumers". The forms include sharing a workplace (co-working platforms), helping each other with capital (peer to peer lending platforms), borrowing clothes from each other (fashion platforms), sharing freelance workers (feelancing platforms), also developing giving each other rides, sharing taxis, and so on. The platform is a sharing of resources, roles and profit sharing which is possible due to the availability of digital-based information technology.

In agriculture, Rhenald Khasali (management expert), gave an example of a land owner who saw that many other farmers needed to pass through his land. In a sharing economy, landowners will not ban or close roads, but instead offer farmers cooperation and share in the profits. The land owner, for example, will offer the farmer to look after his crops so that later they can share the results.

In fact, the attitude of sharing assets has been carried out for thousands of years. The emergence of the internet and the use of big data, has made it easier for asset owners and asset users to communicate with each other.

People in the Caliphate era usually implemented non-market mechanisms. When famine hit the Hijaz (Medina), Umar bin Khaththab wrote a letter to his guardian in Egypt Amru bin al-'Ash and ordered him to send supplies. Then Amru replied to the letter. "I will send camels full of food, whose heads will be in front of you (Medina) and whose tails will be in front of me (Egypt)."

With regard to food, as explained at the beginning, world food production is very sufficient, but it is our consumption patterns that make it seem as if food is lacking. So, control your tongue and stomach. As explained above, Islam provides a comprehensive solution to a problem. This means that in order for there to be enough food, it is necessary to manage both the supply side and the demand side at the same time. We all have to control our desires.

I am very curious: did food stalls exist during the time of the Prophet? I have tried asking many religious scholars about this, but have yet to receive an answer.

If we consider the concept of hospitality, a guest arriving at a home becomes the host's full responsibility for three days, receiving free meals and lodging. Extending this logic, if an individual or a group of guests arrives in a village, shouldn't it be the village's obligation to meet their needs? This was a common occurrence during the era of the struggle for independence.

If this practice were followed, there would be no need for a trade in staple foods. Or, even if such a trade existed, the aim should not be to amass wealth or conduct business for profit. God knows best.

Islamic economics does not aim to satisfy the boundless variety of human needs and desires. Spiritual reward—pahala—is the ultimate goal of life and of economic activity itself. If giving earns one a spiritual reward, why should one sell—whether at a low price or, worse, a high one? Thus, it is highly reprehensible for anyone to use food as a weapon to amass wealth, dominate others, or exert control over them.

Is buying and selling the most effective and fair mechanism? It may be effective, but not necessarily fair. In any transaction, we can never truly pay the full equivalent of the price we hand over—and this applies to services as well.

Why should food be viewed differently? I would argue that every object possesses unique characteristics and a distinct position within society; therefore, it is inadequate to understand these objects solely through general principles applicable to other things. Theoretical oversimplification fails to appreciate or make room for the unique nature of food.

While food is often categorized as a primary or staple good, this classification seems insufficient. It deserves a higher status—perhaps as a "fundamental necessity"—placing it above mere "staple goods."

Why does food require a different approach to management? Yes, because food is unique. It is produced from the land—whether directly or indirectly. There is no such thing as purely factory-made food.

And the issue is that the amount of land in this world is finite; it does not change. How can something like this be equated with other types of goods?

Furthermore, food production is not the same as manufacturing. Manufacturing involves transforming raw materials into semi-finished and finished goods.

Which foods qualify as "staple foods" or "primary foods"? Indeed, we need to define exactly which foods fall into this category. Every society must determine what constitutes its staple food. In my view, it is best to limit this definition to foods that are simply processed and sold at low prices.

In Islam—at least according to the Sirah Nabawiyah (biography of the Prophet) with which we are familiar—food preparation did not involve complex processes. Food was simply boiled, roasted, or perhaps fried, and consisted of items consumed on a daily basis. There were no exorbitantly expensive foods—such as those with sky-high prices resulting from elaborate preparation methods.

This aligns with the concept of food as a basic necessity—food intended to meet biological needs, rather than prestige foods served at elite gatherings.

What is the most fundamental food? A "staple food" is exactly that—a dietary staple. There are hierarchies of food; some are absolutely essential for survival. In Indonesia, rice is generally the staple, though in some regions, it might be sweet potatoes, for instance.

A staple food serves as the primary source of nutrition. Since staple foods do not usually provide the full range of nutrients the body requires, they are typically accompanied by side dishes to ensure nutritional adequacy and prevent malnutrition. Staple foods vary according to location and culture but generally come from plants—either cereals (such as rice, wheat, and corn) or tubers (such as potatoes, sweet potatoes, taro, and cassava).

Livestock products, such as meat and dairy, also count as food, but they are not staple foods. One can survive without consuming meat or dairy for a month. In Indonesia, many people encounter meat only twice a year: during Eid al-Adha and Eid al-Fitr. However, for traditionally hunter-gatherer societies—such as the Inuit (Eskimos)—meat and fish serve as the primary food sources. Why should food be treated differently? The poor spend the vast majority of their income on food, and it is the duty of the affluent to assist them. Food is a top priority; once food needs are met, resources can be directed toward more meaningful pursuits.

Rice is the staple food for the majority of Indonesia's population, making it a quasi-public commodity of strategic value across economic, environmental, social, and political dimensions. Consideration could be given to removing rice from standard market mechanisms. To enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of rice price stabilization policies, a comprehensive pricing strategy is required. Such a policy must harmonize relationships among all stakeholders—from farmers and processing industries to marketers and consumers—within an efficient supply chain that ensures fair returns for every party involved.

Is it possible to remove food
from market mechanisms?

 

It is difficult—undoubtedly so. The idea that food is an attractive, easy-to-sell commodity that always finds a market has become deeply entrenched in our mindset and daily behavior. Economists have long analyzed food primarily as an economic good. Food is produced for sale, transforming it into agribusiness; supplies are withheld when prices are low, waiting for them to rise; governments employ "food politics," and so on.

Yet, removing food from market mechanisms is not impossible. It could happen if there were a noble intent. Of course, this does not mean it would cease to be traded entirely; rather, if traded, the context would be humanitarian—prioritizing humanity over massive profits.

Food requirements are not actually vast, and the world produces a surplus. However, supplies are often hoarded or withheld. Market mechanisms fail to smoothly distribute wheat from surplus-producing regions to areas facing shortages. The primary obstacle is the high cost of production; payment is required to acquire it. Yet, if a region facing a shortage is designated a disaster zone, wheat is shipped immediately, without haggling over the source of funds. Indeed, a disaster scenario is often the prerequisite.

Food is not merely an economic commodity; it is a fundamental necessity and should not be equated with other goods or needs. Because it is essential, those who share it earn greater merit. People have a choice: to sell or to give. Giving is far superior.

If food were removed from market mechanisms, could it be managed entirely by the government? It is possible. The Baitul Mal (public treasury) system historically operated this way. Food could be provided free of charge, as production costs can be kept very low through the use of government land and inputs, while consumption remains aligned with basic biological needs rather than excess. Thailand is frequently cited as an example of a country where the government is deeply involved in the food sector. The government purchases the entirety of the farmers' harvested grain—and remarkably, at a price 50 percent above the market rate.

Furthermore, food distribution outside of standard market mechanisms already takes place at the community level; the sharing of raw ingredients and prepared meals is commonplace—and remains so today.

Does Islam treat food differently?

If so, why?

 

Yes, food holds a significant position in Islam and requires special treatment. Those who produce it (farmers) hold a special status, as do those who consume it, while those who trade in it must adhere to specific guidelines.

The state, too, views food differently. It is a matter of life and death. People do not die from lacking a television, but the need for rice cannot be postponed. Therefore, it is highly improper for any party or nation to use food as a tool to dominate others; such conduct is truly uncivilized.

If you have a surplus of food, share it immediately. Why? Because a surplus serves no purpose, and food is generally perishable. This differs from shoes; owning a hundred pairs is not an issue, as they do not spoil.

Currently, with food subject to market mechanisms, those who deal in it amass immense profits and wealth. Profit margins are high, and their market dominance is substantial. Food has become a source of power—a process that begins with the large-scale acquisition of land through various means, driven by the understanding that land is the primary source of food production.

****