Oh, how I hate mechanistic, "machinic" (used just to upset the anti-pomos) definitions of the failure and success of the Green Revolution like the reasons given in the forwarded message below. Village relations in interlinked markets did not change. That's part of problem of "green revolution" and high yield variety failures. While those "in the know", hooked to networks of information and credit, were able to make the transition to new technologies, others couldn't even with government-sponsored credit and seed programs. The result had little to do with "market inefficenies" or the unwillingness of traditional farmers to utilize new technologies. The work of Terry Byres at the School of Oriental Studies and the Journal of Peasant Studies is a good place to start looking at radical criticism of the Green Revolution. Gina Neff [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------ On Wed, 30 Oct 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have a question I would like to address to the members of the > list. I raised this question in another list (REMI-L for REMI Economic > and Demographic Models) and received one interesting response. But the > other members of the list do not seem interested in the question. > > If you are wondering, I am *not* asking pen-l to "write a > research paper" for me. The Head of my Department is on this list, and I > would not dare. Also, this can give pen-l something to talk about that > is not a U.S. topic. > > Zaiton Ibrahim, Newcastle, Australia > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Wed, 16 Oct 1996 14:19:20 +1000, I (Zaiton Ibrahim, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, asked REMI-L: > > >> Dear to any one whom may concern, > >> I would like to ask your opinion regarding to Green Revolution. > >> Green Revolution seems to be an alternative solution in resolving > >> some problems regarding to the issue of Sustainable Rural > >> Development or SRD. It was found successful in some countries, > >> but not some others. It could be some thing went wrong or it > >> needs some modification in certain countries. > > >> There should be some factors involved and may be some reliable > >> examples can help to explain them. > > Michael Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on REMI-L answered: > > > My understanding (and this is not my field) is that the Green Revolution > > was a textbook example of a technological fix which did not consider the > > sociological problems simultaneously. Green Revolution crops required > > rectangular planting in reasonable density in order to cross fertilize > > themselves. Traditional agricultural techniques call for a different > > configuration, longer rows with more separation (my memory is weak on > > the details, but that was the gist of it, as I recall). Therefore, > > without changes in planting configurations, Green Revolution crops are > > not particularly fertile, and don't solve the problem they were intended > > to. > > > The crops were, as I recall, distributed without adequate descriptions > > of the new planting configurations. In many cases where the > > descriptions were adequate, local farmers where simply resistant enough > > to change to refuse to change the configurations, and therefore the new > > crops failed. > > > I understand that the Green Revolution can, indirectly, be called > > responsible for the current anti-Siek (my apologies for my misspelling > > of the term) feeling in India. Most non-Siek Indian farmers refused to > > change the planting configuration of the crops for the Green Revolution > > crops, but the Sieks did change to the correct configuration, and > > therefore, their relative wealth rose disproportionately, which > > engendered a great deal of resentment. Since the Sieks used their > > newfound wealth to procure education, and with it an advantage in > > government jobs, the problem escalated. > > > Another problem with technological solutions, although I do not know if > > it was a problem at all for the Green Revolution, is that production is > > not the only agricultural problem. Many countries can produce enough > > food, but their distribution system and infrastructure are inadequate. > > The result is more grain for the rats to eat in the warehouses, but not > > more food on people's tables. In addition, most agricultural countries > > heavily tax farmers and subsidize industry (the exact reverse of the > > pattern in industrial nations). This creates serious market > > inefficiencies, which increasing agricultural production can only > > exacerbate. > > Does anyone have a different perspective on this question? >
