The Globalization of Wheat: A Critical History of the Green Revolution by Marci R. Baranski

Abstract

For several decades, scholars, journalists, and activists have been beavering away to overturn triumphalist narratives regarding the Green Revolution. Earlier generations of observers had generally written positively about the revolution and its leading figures, especially U.S. crop scientist Norman Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970.This revolution involved a series of advancements in agriculture between World War II and the late 1980s that led to large increases in cereal grain output—wheat and rice primarily—in various less-developed parts of the world. The increases were the result mainly of the introduction of high-yielding crop varieties (hyvs) used in combination with a technological “package,” marked by increased use of fertilizer, enhanced irrigation works, and, often, greater mechanization.The context for these developments was the perceived need for massive increases in grain production at a time of rapid population growth in already food-insecure parts of the world. The impetus and funding for the Green Revolution must be viewed in the context of the Cold War, as governmental authorities in developed countries devised strategies designed to modernize the agricultural sectors in potentially restive less developed countries (ldcs), thereby lessening the chances of revolutionary upheaval. The preferred instruments for such strategies were crop scientists and development experts, whether working in the public sector—at universities and governmental research facilities—or under the auspices of non-governmental organizations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation. Over time, specialized international agricultural research centers emerged to oversee, direct, coordinate, and disseminate “Green Revolution” research. Many of these centers today operate in partnership with an overall coordinating body known as cgiar (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research).The garden-variety critique of the Green Revolution sees it as a top-down, modernist, and overly technocratic effort orchestrated mainly by “experts” from the developed world that, despite the hype, underperformed in numerous ways almost everywhere it was tried. For example, the increased use of fertilizers and increased importance of irrigation works generally resulted in negative environmental externalities, and the promotion of cereal grains often crowded out production of more nutritious foods. It is alleged that the benefits of the Green Revolution, such as they were, accrued mainly to large commercial farmers who were plugged into agricultural research networks and could afford the necessary “package” of hyvs, fertilizer, irrigation, and mechanized equipment. As a result, rural poverty persisted and undernutrition continued to plague the populations in most areas where the revolution left its mark.The author of this book offers yet another, but different, critical interpretation of the Green Revolution, providing fresh insights to readers interested in agriculture, agricultural history, and economic development. Whereas most critics of the Green Revolution approach the subject from either a social science or natural science perspective, Baranski, who trained in both crop science and the social sciences, offers a more holistic critique, skillfully marshaling and integrating evidence from the biological and social realms to support her claims.The key to the author’s critique, which focuses mainly on the record in India of semi-dwarf wheat hyvs originally developed in Mexico, is her emphasis on the breeding approach known in the crop-science literature as wide adaptation. This approach prioritizes breeding plant varieties that can grow in diverse settings without much adjustment for local conditions. The real-world problem with the approach, according to Baranski, was that most such varieties flourished mainly—and sometimes only—in propitious ecological/agricultural settings with good land, ample fertilizer, and sufficient irrigation works.The underlying premise behind wide adaptation—a misguided one in Baranski’s view—was that such ecological settings were common in ldcs and that hyvs with desired characteristics could be disseminated widely, leading, in time, to impressive gains in productivity, food security, poverty reduction, and the development of the agricultural sector. The premise proved false, however, as most farmers in ldcs were poor and worked dryland or rainfed plots without irrigation and without much fertilizer. As a result, although the gains from the Green Revolution seemed relatively impressive in the aggregate, they were shared unevenly, with many farmers and regions left out. The author contends that this outcome was not surprising, given the top-down, non-contextualized nature of the research, which failed to consider local ecological settings and socio-economic conditions, severely limiting its potential from the start. The unfortunate legacy of this approach still shapes agricultural research agendas in the field of agricultural development today.This book offers a powerful, if somewhat unbalanced, critique of the Green Revolution, understating its successes while emphasizing its limitations. The author acknowledges early on that as a youth she worshipped Borlaug, and in some ways her slim volume reads like the work of someone who feels betrayed.