Agricultural History Review, Volume 68 Part 2 (2020), p. 322

The American agricultural historian, Douglas Hurt, has set out to write a dispassionate analysis of a controversial historical episode: the ‘Green Revolution’ (GR) in the global South since the 1940s. The book devotes chapters to Latin America, South Asia, East and Southeast Asia, China, and Sub-Saharan Africa and includes a chapter on recent debate over the introduction of agricultural biotechnology in the South. Along the way there are brief but interesting accounts of GRs in countries rarely mentioned in the secondary literature (e.g. Ethiopia, Guatemala, Vietnam). And in its discussion of recent developments where the scholarly literature is sparse, the book makes good use of newspaper articles and other media.

Hurt’s aims in writing the book were two-fold. On the one hand, it is an attempt to ‘synthesize the literature’ (p. 4), offering an overview of the GR which ‘will provide an understanding of its agricultural history’ (p. 5), and ‘a usable introduction’ (p. 7) for non-specialists. Such a book would be very welcome since the literature to date consists mainly of specialized monographs. On the other hand, for those with a specialist interest in the GR, he seeks to ‘[trace] the acceptance or rejection of the GR over time’ (p. 4), providing ‘a survey of the ways that agricultural and social scientists … have considered the GR’ (p. 6). Effectively a history of the controversy surrounding the GR, this, too, would make it a novel addition to the literature. As admirable as both aims are, however, the book does not succeed in either respect.

When turning to a ‘synthesis’, most readers expect to find a discussion of all the major works comprising the literature in question. One problem with the book under review, however, is that (to judge from the bibliography) a remarkable number of important books and dissertations on the subject have been left out. The chapter on East and Southeast Asia, for example, does not refer to studies of rice research by Edmund Oasa or by Anderson, Levy and Morrison. Similarly, in the chapter on Latin America although important work is listed in the bibliography (e.g. books by Jennings or Hewitt d’Alcantara on Mexico), it is then not referred to in the text. Moreover, there is a disturbing tendency to rely upon news media as sources, not in addition to specialist primary literature or well-established secondary works (which is legitimate) but instead of them (e.g. chapter 3). The book does not, therefore, provide a reliable review of the secondary literature.

Nor is it suitable as an introductory text. Some generalizations about the GR are repeated many times; highly condensed accounts of technical issues need to be unpacked; there are abrupt shifts within the narrative; and important technical terms are left undefined. Furthermore, although the book is rich in information, its interpretations are poorly sign-posted so that students will find the text hard going.

As far as the history of controversy is concerned, one might expect such an analysis to identify the kinds of argument which were used by the protagonists at different time periods, as well as to identify where the critics/defenders were ‘coming from’ (e.g. discipline, institutional affiliation). In the case of the GR this could be highly illuminating: starting with largely uncritical support during the 1950s and ’60s, followed by prolonged criticism during the 1970s, a lull in debate during the ’80s and ’90s, and the re-emergence since then of controversy over the advisability of a ‘second’ GR. Unfortunately, what we get instead is an overly generalized discussion of the debate which reports that ‘some critics said X while others said Y’. To make matters worse, the book uses a referencing system that restricts references to the endnotes and allocates one endnote per paragraph. Since many paragraphs include more than one claim, it is often impossible for the reader to attribute a specific claim in the text to a specific source in the note. In effect, therefore, the controversy is dealt with at arm’s length.

In some respects the book’s characterization of the controversy is useful. It points out, for example, that proponents of the GR were more concerned with increasing production than with the GR’s possible social and environmental consequences. But Hurt’s repeated characterization of the controversy – as a dispute between ‘agricultural scientists’ who defended the GR and ‘social scientists’ who criticized it – is a serious distortion. Some of the most prominent defenders of the GR were in fact agricultural economists while the critics included agronomists of ecological orientation. The major fault line in the controversy, therefore, lay not between disciplines but between those who were narrowly focused upon production and those who took a broader view of what ‘agricultural modernization’ should entail.

To conclude, in its attempt to discuss both the science and the ‘politics’ of the GR, it seems to me that the book has missed a fundamental point. For example, although his case studies clearly demonstrate the necessity of state support in order that GRs succeed, in his lengthy discussion of failed GRs in sub-Saharan Africa since the 1980s, Hurt makes no mention of the World Bank’s policy of ‘structural adjustment’, which systematically eroded the strength of African states. Similarly, his discussion of GRs in several countries lends abundant support to the view that land reform has often been a major factor in the success of a GR. While conceding that it played a role in China, however, Hurt never addresses it as a systemic issue of general importance. Lastly, the book has almost nothing to say about rural political conflict unleashed by the GR in several countries. All of this suggests that the author is reluctant to acknowledge a conclusion that other analysts drew some time ago: that the outcomes of agricultural ‘modernization’ schemes are usually attributable to the political and economic context in the host country.