IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devpol/v39y2021i5p789-810.html

Embrapa and the construction of scientific heritage in Brazilian agriculture: Sowing memory

Author

Listed:
  • Lídia Cabral

Abstract

Motivation The Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, Embrapa, is well known for incorporating the Cerrado into Brazil’s modern agriculture through its discoveries of how to improve infertile soils and to develop soybean seeds adapted to the tropics. Known as the Tropical Revolution, Brazil’s own Green Revolution, this past episode continues to define Embrapa’s identity and Brazil’s agricultural science and technology, reinforcing a view of agricultural development while neglecting alternatives. Purpose This article seeks to understand how Embrapa has carved its name in Brazil’s agricultural history, creating a powerful national brand with global recognition. It explores what constitutes Embrapa’s “organizational heritage,” how this has been built within the organization and to what effect. Approach and methods To commemorate Embrapa’s 40th anniversary in 2014, an official history (“Memória Embrapa”) was written, focusing on the success of the organization and the reasons for this. This source has been reviewed, then combined with evidence from interviews with 29 Embrapa researchers about the strengths and shortcomings of organizational heritage. Findings Embrapa’s story of success focuses on selected technological breakthroughs, highly trained and motivated scientists, and a sense of mission towards Brazilian society. This omits, however, some successes, challenges and alternative approaches to research that do not fit well with the simplified history. Three such omissions stand out: (1) the official history barely mentions the concerns about the environmental and social impacts of the spread of large‐scale farming—which much of Embrapa’s research had served; (2) Embrapa created a national seed bank, to which indigenous groups demanded access since they had conserved much of the genetic material in the bank (policy was changed to allow indigenous groups access and to promote a dialogue between the scientists and the farmers); and (3), in similar vein, some scientists in Embrapa endeavour to engage with local expertise, with ethnoscience, to enrich and broaden the research. Policy implications Rooting Embrapa’s brand in history makes the narrative persistent and hard to challenge. This risks creating a simplified, monolithic narrative about Embrapa and Brazilian agriculture that feeds technocratic fixations with high science and transfer of technology as the dominant pathway to agricultural development and food security. This may have been considered necessary in the 1970s, but increasingly the agricultural research agenda must include environmental sustainability and conservation of agricultural biodiversity, climate change, social fairness and a respectful engagement with different ways of researching, including learning from the longstanding practices of farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Lídia Cabral, 2021. "Embrapa and the construction of scientific heritage in Brazilian agriculture: Sowing memory," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 39(5), pages 789-810, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:39:y:2021:i:5:p:789-810
    DOI: 10.1111/dpr.12531
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12531
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/dpr.12531?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:wbk:wbpubs:2640 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. John Wilkinson & Bernardo Sorj, 1992. "Structural Adjustment and the Institutional Dimensions of Agricultural Research and Development in Brazil: Soybeans, Wheat and Sugar Cane," OECD Development Centre Working Papers 76, OECD Publishing.
    3. Wright, Brian D., 2012. "Grand missions of agricultural innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1716-1728.
    4. James Sumberg & Dennis Keeney & Benedict Dempsey, 2012. "Public Agronomy: Norman Borlaug as ‘Brand Hero’ for the Green Revolution," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(11), pages 1587-1600, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fernando Coelho Martins Ferreira & Cristiane Biazzin & Paul C. Hong, 2024. "Transition Paths of Brazil from an Agricultural Economy to a Regional Powerhouse: A Global Supply Chain Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-24, March.
    2. William Costa & Britaldo Soares-Filho & Rodrigo Nobrega, 2022. "Can the Brazilian National Logistics Plan Induce Port Competitiveness by Reshaping the Port Service Areas?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-18, November.
    3. Maíra Jong van Lier & Jessica Duncan & Annah Lake Zhu & Simon R. Bush, 2024. "Shallow fixes and deep reasonings: framing sustainability at the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa)," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(2), pages 785-799, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lídia Cabral & Poonam Pandey & Xiuli Xu, 2022. "Epic narratives of the Green Revolution in Brazil, China, and India," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 249-267, March.
    2. Michael J. Andrews, 2020. "Local Effects of Land Grant Colleges on Agricultural Innovation and Output," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Research and Innovation in Agriculture, pages 139-175, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/10184 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Mariana Mazzucato & Douglas K Robinson, 2016. "Lost in space? NASA and the changing publicprivate eco-system in space," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-20, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    5. Ester Ferrari & Luigi Bollani & Mario Coccia & Eugenio Cavallo, 2013. "Technological Innovations in Agricultural Tractors: Adopters’ behaviour towards new technological trajectories and future directions," CERIS Working Paper 201305, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    6. Mowery, David C., 2012. "Defense-related R&D as a model for “Grand Challenges” technology policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1703-1715.
    7. Barbara Biasi & David Deming & Petra Moser, 2020. "Education and Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: The Role of Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Economic Growth, pages 537-551, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Bhaven N. Sampat, 2020. "Comment on "Local Effects of Land Grant Colleges on Agricultural Innovation and Output"," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Research and Innovation in Agriculture, pages 175-178, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Veldhuizen, Caroline, 2020. "Smart Specialisation as a transition management framework: Driving sustainability-focused regional innovation policy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    10. Batbaatar, Maral & Sandström, Christian & P Larsson, Johan & Wennberg, Karl, 2023. "The State of the Entrepreneurial State: Empirical Evidence of Mission-Led Innovation Projects around the Globe," Ratio Working Papers 368, The Ratio Institute.
    11. Maral Batbaatar & Johan P. Larsson & Christian Sandström & Karl Wennberg, 2024. "How Fares the Entrepreneurial State? Empirical Evidence of Mission-Led Innovation Projects Around the Globe," Foundations and Trends(R) in Entrepreneurship, now publishers, vol. 19(8), pages 664-772, March.
    12. Federico Ciliberto & GianCarlo Moschini & Edward D. Perry, 2019. "Valuing product innovation: genetically engineered varieties in US corn and soybeans," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(3), pages 615-644, September.
    13. Larissa Flister & Viktoriya Galushko, 2016. "The impact of wheat market liberalization on the seed industry’s innovative capacity: an assessment of Brazil’s experience," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-20, December.
    14. Sonia E. Monroy & Hernando Diaz, 2018. "Time series-based bibliometric analysis of the dynamics of scientific production," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1139-1159, June.
    15. Venot, Jean-Philippe, 2016. "A Success of Some Sort: Social Enterprises and Drip Irrigation in the Developing World," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 69-81.
    16. Leach, Melissa & Nisbett, Nicholas & Cabral, Lídia & Harris, Jody & Hossain, Naomi & Thompson, John, 2020. "Food politics and development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    17. Paget, Nicolas & Le Gal, Pierre-Yves & Goulet, Frédéric, 2024. "Motivations and challenges of intrapreneurship in research organizations. The case of decision support systems in agricultural research for development," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    18. Dominique Foray, 2019. "On sector-non-neutral innovation policy: towards new design principles," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 1379-1397, November.
    19. Mariana Mazzucato & Caetano C.R. Penna, 2016. "Beyond market failures: the market creating and shaping roles of state investment banks," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 305-326, October.
    20. Frédéric Goulet & Claudia Job Schmitt & Eric Sabourin & Jean-François Le Coq & Octavio Sotomayor, 2019. "Sistemas y políticas de innovación para el sector agropecuario: elementos de introducción," Post-Print hal-05174348, HAL.
    21. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:39:y:2021:i:5:p:789-810. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/odioruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.