Exemplars in recent times include :
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract A detailed retrospective of the Green Revolution, its achievement and limits in terms of agricultural productivity improvement, and its broader impact at social, environmental, and economic levels is provided.
Core policy directions for Green Revolution 2. Dire predictions of a Malthusian famine were belied, and much of the developing world was able to overcome its chronic food deficits. Sub-Saharan Africa continues to be the exception to the global trend. Much of the success was caused by the combination of Critically examine green revolution in india rates of investment in crop research, infrastructure, and market development and appropriate policy support that took place during the first Green Revolution GR.
I distinguish the first GR period as — and the post-GR period as the next two decades. Large public investment in crop genetic improvement built on the scientific advances already made in the developed world for the major staple crops—wheat, rice, and maize—and adapted those advances to the conditions of developing countries 2.
The GR strategy for food crop productivity growth was explicitly based on the premise that, given appropriate institutional mechanisms, technology spillovers across political and agroclimatic boundaries could be captured. However, neither private firms nor national governments had sufficient incentive to invest in all of the research and development of such international public goods.
Private firms operating through markets have limited interest in public goods, because they do not have the capacity to capture much of the benefit through proprietary claims; also, because of the global, nonrival nature of the research products, no single nation has the incentive to invest public resources in this type of research.
International public goods institutions were needed to fill this gap, and efforts to develop the necessary institutional capacity, particularly in plant breeding, were a central part of the GR strategy. After CGIAR-generated knowledge, invention, and products such as breeding lines were made publicly available, national public and private sectors responded with investments for technology adaptation, dissemination, and delivery.
Despite that success, in the post-GR period, investment in agriculture dropped off dramatically into the mids 4. However, the need for continued investments in agricultural innovation and productivity growth is as important today as it was in the early years of the GR.
Low income countries and lagging regions of emerging economies continue to rely on agricultural productivity as an engine of growth and hunger reduction 5 — 7. However, sustaining productivity gains, enhancing smallholder competitiveness, and adapting to climate change are becoming increasingly urgent concerns across all production systems.
Since the mids and heightened after the food price spikes, there has been renewed interest in agricultural investment, and there are calls for the next GR, including those calls made by the former Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan and Sir Gordon Conway 38.
Simultaneously, there is recognition of the limitations of the first GR and the need for alternative solutions that correct for those limitations and unintended consequences 5. This paper reviews the evidence on the diffusion and impact of GR crop genetic improvements and the limitations and unintended environmental, social, and institutional consequences of the GR strategy for productivity growth.
Then, I turn to the current period and the renewed interest and investment in agricultural development, and I give the technology and institutional priorities for a GR 2. Diffusion and Impact of Crop Genetic Improvements Positive impacts on poverty reduction and lower food prices were driven in large part by crop germplasm improvements in CGIAR centers that were then transferred to national agricultural programs for adaptation and dissemination.
The productivity gains from crop germplasm improvement alone are estimated to have averaged 1. However, global aggregates mask great geographic disparities. This difference may be, in part, because of the later introduction of CGIAR research programs focused on Africa as well as the lag in breeding efforts for the orphan crops—crops that did not benefit from a backlog of research conducted before the GR period but had improvement that came during the GR and post-GR periods, such as cassava, sorghum, and millets—which are of greater relative importance to the African poor Although the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture research for cassava started inits impact was felt only since the s Although it lagged behind in the GR period, Africa has witnessed positive growth in the post-GR period.
Impact on Productivity and Food Prices. The rapid increase in agricultural output resulting from the GR came from an impressive increase in yields per hectare.
Developing countries in southeast Asia and India were the first countries to show the impact of the GR varieties on rice yields, with China and other Asian regions experiencing stronger yield growth in the subsequent decades Similar yield trends were observed for wheat and maize in Asia Analysis of agricultural total factor productivity TFP finds similar trends to the partial productivity trends captured by yield per hectare [TFP is defined as the ratio of total output to total inputs in a production process 20 ] For the period —, change in global TFP for agriculture was 0.
Crop genetic improvement focused mostly on producing high-yielding varieties HYVsbut the decrease in time to maturity was also an important improvement for many crops, allowing for an increase in cropping intensity. The rapid spread of the rice—wheat system in the Indo-Gangetic plains from Pakistan to Bangladesh can be attributed to the shortening of the crop growing period Other improved inputs, including fertilizer, irrigation, and to a certain extent, pesticides, were also critical components of the GR intervention.
Asia had already invested significantly in irrigation infrastructure at the start of the GR and continued to do so throughout the GR and post-GR periods 2.
Widespread adoption of GR technologies led to a significant shift in the food supply function, contributing to a fall in real food prices 23The Green Revolution refers to a set of research, development, and technology transfer initiatives occurring between the s and the late s (with prequels in the work of the agrarian geneticist Nazareno Strampelli in the s and s), that increased agricultural production worldwide, particularly in the developing world, beginning most markedly in the late s.
Yahoo Lifestyle is your source for style, beauty, and wellness, including health, inspiring stories, and the latest fashion trends. The Green Revolution in India refers to a period of time when agriculture in India changed to an industrial system due to the adoption of modern methods and technology such as high yielding variety (HYV) seeds, tractors, irrigation facilities, pesticides, fertilizers etc.
It is a fact that Green Revolution has occurred in India since Dantwala however said that, the, Green Revolution in India has been technological in character rather than institutional. The effects of Green Revolution can be discussed under two heads.
AFAM Intro to African American Studies This course provides an overview of African American history and culture. Topics include major events, persons, and issues spanning the period from the African heritage to contemporary times.
Aug 26, · Best Answer: My personal view is for short term green revolution was very advantageous but being a farmer myself I believe in long term it has caused a lot of problem for us. When we talk about negative and positive impact of Green revolution in Indian context we see a lot of them and a book can be written Status: Resolved.