Why were So Many Social Scientists Wrong about the Green Revolution? Learning from Bangladesh
|TABLE FROM New rice technologies and challenges for food security in Asia and the Pacific - M. Hossain and Josephine H. Narciso http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y4751E/y4751e0r.htm|
Convictions are greater enemies of truth than lies. (Nietzsche)Journal of Development Studies DOI:10.1080/00220388.2012.663905
Version of record first published: 05 Jul 2012
Debate over the Green Revolution – the spread of high-yielding varieties of rice and wheat –
once dominated writing on rural development... Initial optimism about ‘miracle seeds’ was short-lived (Brown, 1970). For the next 20 years, most social science writing about the consequences of the Green Revolution was critical (Farmer, 1977; Griffin, 1979; Pearse, 1980).
... Only in the late 1980s did some critics have second thoughts. Return visits showed that earlier fears were largely unjustified (Hazell and Ramaswamy, 1991). With the recantation by a prominent critic (Lipton with Longhurst, 1989), mainstream social science finally took a positive view of the Green Revolution.
Hazell, P.B.R. and Ramasamy, C. (1991) The Green Revolution Reconsidered: The Impact of High-Yielding Rice Varieties in South Asia (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).
Lipton, M. with Longhurst, R. (1989) New Seeds and Poor People (London: Unwin Hyman).
Wait, there's this in the citations:
Lipton, M. (2007) Plant breeding and poverty: can transgenic seeds replicate the ‘Green Revolution’ as a source of gains for the poor? Journal of Development Studies, 43(1), pp. 31–62.
@ Taylor & Francis Online :: Why were So Many Social Scientists Wrong about the Green Revolution? Learning from Bangladesh - Journal of Development Studies -:
Hat Tip: Giordano Masini @LaValleDelSiele