Module: 7SSG5107 Environment, Livelihoods and Development in the South
Essay title: The Green Revolution’s success: For whom and where? Due date: 15 Nov 2013 Student number: 1355795 Word count: 996
Introduction The Green Revolution is generally associated with the rapid spread of high- yielding varieties (HYV) of food crops and the introduction of intensive use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides and irrigation to Third World agriculture from the 1940s to the 1960s (Dixon, 1990). Its socio-economic impact remains a contentious subject in the academia. Some claimed that the quantum leap in food production spurred by the Green Revolution outstripped the pace of population growth and spared millions from starvation (Paarlberg, 2010). However, critics rebutted that the capital-intensive technologies have not end hunger but widen inequality among agrarian communities in the developing world (Shiva, 1991). This essay aims to critically assess how different scales of analysis have shaped perception of the Green Revolution’s impact.
Global food production and hunger
If the Green Revolution’s impact were measured solely based on global food production, then it would have been a success as it contributed to the doubling of yield of major food crops in developing countries between 1958 and 1978 (Lipton with Longhurst, 1989). Its effect was especially prominent in South Asia and Southeast Asia where the HYV seeds were widely adopted (Paarlberg, 2010). The new seeds bred by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines were once known as the “miracle seeds” (Yapa, 1993, p.255). It should be noted though that non-IRRI rice seeds developed through national initiatives such as in China, North Vietnam, Brazil and Suriname also contributed to the significant growth in global food production (Pearse, 1980). Jerven (2012, cited by Patel, 2013) pointed out that agricultural productivity made without Green Revolution programmes in the same period were often ignored. Yet if China were excluded from the equation, the
1 Student number: 1355795
number of people starving worldwide would rise over 11% (Rosset, 2000 cited by Patel, 2013). If the Green Revolution’s success were to be judged based on its efforts to end hunger, then it has been a failure. Globally, it is estimated 842 million people are still chronically undernourished between 2011 and 2013 (von Grebmer et al, 2013). Fifteen out of 19 countries with “alarming” and “extremely alarming” levels of hunger found in the 2013 Global Hunger Index are from Africa, where the Green Revolution technologies were also introduced but failed to take off. Even India and Pakistan, which adopted Green Revolution technologies eagerly in the 1960s and have since became food exporters, are listed among countries with “alarming” and “serious” levels of hunger. It is commonly assumed based on simplistic Malthusian logic that having surplus food production would put an end to famine but throughout history, the poor have starved to death despite the availability of abundant food (Sen, 1982 cited by Lathem, 2009).
Impact on peasants Did the Green Revolution benefit smallholders? Patel (2013) highlighted that corn, not wheat, was planted by majority of the Mexican peasants in the 1940s while in India, corn was chosen as the first commodity crop to be researched despite being a minority crop. The original ventures of Green Revolution clearly were not targeted at majority of the peasantry. Patel (2013) added that wheat and rice were only included in India’s Green Revolution programme eight to nine years later in 1964 and 1965. Meanwhile, Pearse (1980, p.37) reported that the “great wheat boom” in Mexico has displaced small farmers and concentrated wealth in the hands of less than 200 millionaires. While it is true that small cultivators worldwide adopted HYV seeds subsequently, the resource-intensive nature of Green Revolution technologies meant that richer farmers with more land, access to irrigation and credit to purchase fertilisers were the first adopters and beneficiaries (Patel, 2013). Therefore, it is unsurprising that Freebairn (1995), after examining over 300 studies published between 1970 and 1989 on the Green Revolution, found that inequality has increased at the farmer-level and among different regions. Some Green Revolution scientists responded to critics and shifted their research focus to breed more “poor farmer-friendly” crops in the later decades (Raju, 2002). Nevertheless, the success of Green Revolution technologies among farmers
2 Student number: 1355795
still hinged upon the availability of state subsidies and infrastructure development (Patel, 2013). For instance, the Mexican government bought locally produced wheat at 33% above world market rate, the Indian and Pakistan governments paid their domestic wheat growers 100% more while the Philippines raised rice subsidies by 50% within a year in 1966 (Paddock, 1970 cited by Patel, 2013). Additionally, Mexico spent 90% of its agricultural budget on big irrigation projects between 1941 and 1952 (Alcantara, 1973 cited by Patel, 2013). India also expanded its irrigation network aggressively in Punjab, Haryana and Western Utter Pradesh (Jewitt, 2002). One of the key reasons Green Revolution technologies could not flourish in Africa was because its governments were restricted from providing agricultural support to farmers (Thurow and Kilman, 2009). African farmers are forced to compete on the world market with their relatively affluent counterparts in the US, Europe and Asia. Without institutional support, the “miracle seeds” could hardly work its wonders even for relatively well-off farmers in Africa. Thurow and Kilman (2009) wrote that Ethiopian farmers who switched to HYV seeds in the 1990s reaped bountiful harvests yet reported losses due to glut in the local market.
Conclusion The Green Revolution has been perceived as a success for driving up global food production and driving down food prices for the masses. But if we were to analyse its impact further at the regional and village level, one finds that its development record has been rather uneven. It was touted as a success in Asia, less so in Latin Africa and it has definitely failed to make a mark in Africa. In countries where Green Revolution has been hailed as a success, their governments provided generous subsidies and infrastructure support to farmers. At the village level, wealthier farmers tend to be the first benefactors and smallholders were often late adopters. Clearly, institutional support is needed to drive agricultural innovations and level the playing ground for poor farmers.
3 Student number: 1355795
References: Alcantara, C.H.D. (1973) The ‘Green Revolution’ as history: The Mexican experience. Development and Change, 4(2), 25-44.
Das, R.J. (2002) The Green Revolution and poverty: A theoretical and empirical examination of the relation between technology and society. Geoforum, 33, 55-72.
Dixon, C. (1990) Rural development in the Third World. London: Routledge.
Freebairn, D. K. (1995) Did the Green Revolution concentrate income? A
quantitative study of research reports. World Development, 23(2), 265-279.
Jewitt, S. (2002) Modern farming, socio-environmental disasters and the
displacement of traditional agriculture? A reassessment from Ranchi District, Jharkhand. In Bradnock, R. and Williams, G. eds. South Asia in a globalising world. Essex: Pearson Education, p.19-50.
Jerven, M. (2012) The political economy of agricultural statistics: Evidence from
India, Nigeria and Malawi [Online]. Simons Papers in Security and Development No. 18/2012, School for International Studies, Simon Fraser University. Available at http://www.sfu.ca/internationalstudies/swp/2012.html [Accessed 14 November 2013]
Lathem, A. (2009) Assessing the legacy of Norman Borlaug: Did the Green Revolution prevent famines? [Online]. Available at http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1710/1/ [Accessed 7 November 2013]
Lipton, M. with Longhurst, R. (1989) New seeds and poor people. London: Unwin Hyman.
Paarlberg, R. (2010) Food politics: What everyone needs to know. New York: Oxford University Press.
Paddock, W.C. (1970) How green is the Green Revolution? Bioscience, 20(16), 897- 902.
4 Student number: 1355795
Patel, R. (2013) The long Green Revolution. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 40(1), 1-63.
Pearse, A. (1980) Seeds of plenty, seeds of want: Social and economic implications of the Green Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rosset, P. (2000) Lessons from the Green Revolution [Online]. Available from http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/4-greenrev.html [Accessed 14 November 2013]
Sen, A. (1982) Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlements and deprivation.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Shiva, V. (1991) The violence of the Green Revolution: Third World agriculture, ecology and politics. London: Zed Books.
Thurow, R. and Kilman, S. (2009) Enough: Why the world’s poorest starve in an age of aplenty. New York: Public Affairs.
von Grebmer, K., D. Headey, C. Béné, L. Haddad, T. Olofinbiyi, D. Wiesmann, H.
Fritschel, S. Yin, Y. Yohannes, C. Foley, C. von Oppeln, and B. Iseli (2013) 2013 Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hunger: Building Resilience to Achieve Food and Nutrition Security. Bonn, Washington, DC, and Dublin: Welthungerhilfe, International Food Policy Research Institute, and Concern Worldwide.
Yapa, L. (1993) What are improved seeds? An epistemology of the Green
