“The green revolution” in asia: False promise of abundance

Abstract

In non-socialist Asia, the Green Revolution remains largely a myth; with only two exceptions, ongoing land reforms remain mostly symbolic. Present agricultural credit and financing policies are inadequate if not counter-productive and some types of mechanization which have been used have had adverse effects on labor and income. The “promise of abundance” of ten years ago has not been obtained while malnutrition and other evils of rural misery have consistently worsened. Such are the main findings of a study on the evolution of South and Southeast Asian countries during the past decade made by four experts at an international institution specializing in aid to developing Asian countries.

A word about the notes: when writing the article, Morgan only had access to the manuscript version of the book. Since the book is now published, we have put the appropriate page references for Morgan's citations. In a few instances, however, the passages Morgan used from the manuscript did not appear in the book. We therefore cited the manuscript's pages.

Notes

This article is based on an Asian Development Bank (ADB) study, which the bank recently published as Asian Agricultural Survey 1976: Rural Asia, Challenge and Opportunity (Manila: copyright Asian Development Bank, 1977). Because the ADB apparently published only a small number of copies, we agree with Morgan that the study should enjoy wider circulation. The study's findings themselves are not novel. Many critics of the “green revolution,” land reform programs, and related parts of numerous agricultural development programs in Asia have long made the same arguments. Frequently, however, “mainstream” economists and political and agricultural development specialists in Asia and in the United States have dismissed these criticisms, sometimes with a wry smile but other times characterizing them as leftist propaganda. Now the critics can point to the ADB's findings to further support their analyses. What is particularly significant about this study, consequently, is the source rather than the content.