It has always been alleged that the padi market is monopoly-monopsonistic in structure, inclUding
the traders to behave collusively and unethically, thus reaping excessively high profit margins. However, the
market in reality is competitive but the existence of credit-tie has defied the benefits of a competitive market
from being passed on to the farmers. The instability of the rice market and the pressure of the fixed minimum
support and ceiling prices, forced the traders to indulge in various malpractices to maintain their profit
margin. Though on the whole, the profit made by the traders is reasonable, the evidence of unethical behaviour
suggests that the profit earned is higher than it should be under a fair marketing practic
