period. Of these 14, only three, namely, the Philippines, Thailand and Sri Lanka, appeared at a rough glance, to have met the two balances. In most of the others, the rate of growth of food production, even when keeping abreast of population growth, was not sufficient to accommodate increases in food demand that should be allowed for at normal rates out of additional incomes. Mozambique, Ethiopia and Nicaragua put in a dismal showing with staggering declines in the index of per capita food production, although the reference period straddles the systemic breaks in these countries. India conforms to the general pattern of doing rather better in terms of the overall growth and, therefore, of the labour absorption experience than in terms of the food balance relation. Three conditional conclusions seem to be justified: that it is only in exceptional cases that both balances have been maintained; that in the majority of cases, the experience with regard to overall growth has been better than that for the food sector, implying imbalanced growth; and that in the overwhelming number of cases, the food balance has been grossly violated. A few additional points need to be made. First, the twin balances as discussed only provide a floor level: the balances could also be maintained at much higher growth rates. Second, even when the balances are met, it is possible that other mechanisms operate which lead to the violations of the conditions which the balances were meant to protect. Thus, food production and employment might be sufficient, but if the foodgrains are politically prices (as in India), the result might be similar, from the point of view of the poor, to the situation where the food balance is violated. So also, the rate of employ-ment increase might be high enough, but the labour participation rate might rise for certain groups of the population while it drops for others, again implying, from the point of those left out, a violation of the employment balance. Third, even where one or both balances are violated, it is possible that there is a positive per capita growth rate of income in aggregate terms. Indeed, high per capita growth rates are more likely to be characterised by food imbalances than not. Fourth, these imbalances are partly ascribable to the nature of the growth process, but usually also in part to the nature of planning and policy priorities of the state. What happens when there are imbalances? While the pressures set up by imbalances are similar, the manner in which they are absorbed, and hence the social burden of the adjustment is quite different in socialist as against capitalist economies. When the EB is violated, the average number of dependents per employed person rises. If alongside this, per capita incomes are rising, then the question becomes one of an equitable sharing of the restricted employment opportunities . W ithin a capitalist framework, there is no way for this to happen; in a socialist economy, where the entitlement to work is universally guaranteed, there is an inbuilt redistributive mechanism which shares out the available benefits of employment - albeit with greater gains for the employed - between the employed and the unemployed population. When the FB is broken, then in a capitalist economy, the inequality of the distribution of income leads to an inflationary process which raises the price of food suf-ficiently to establish a new equilibrium, but at a point where the post facto income elasticity of demand for food is low enough to equilibriate effective