IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/rffdps/10476.html

Obstacles to a Doubly Green Revolution

Author

Listed:
  • Blackman, Allen

Abstract

Increasingly, conventional wisdom dictates that agrarian policy in developing countries should foster a "doubly green revolution" that both protects the environment and boosts output. Like the first green revolution, such a transformation will entail convincing millions of farmers to adopt new practices and, as a result, will confront well-documented barriers to technological change in developing-country agriculture. It will also face a number of new obstacles, including a divergence between the interests of policymakers and farmers, a policy environment biased in favor of input-intensive agriculture, and the fact that many environmentally friendly technologies entail relatively high set-up costs. At least in the short run, institutional constraints will limit the contribution of agricultural biotechnology to overcoming these obstacles. Hence, the first green revolution may serve as an overly optimistic model for a shift to a more sustainable agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Blackman, Allen, 2000. "Obstacles to a Doubly Green Revolution," Discussion Papers 10476, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:rffdps:10476
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.10476
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/10476/files/dp000048.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.10476?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ramirez, Octavio A. & Schultz, Steven D., 2000. "Poisson Count Models To Explain The Adoption Of Agricultural And Natural Resource Management Technologies By Small Farmers In Central American Countries," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(01), pages 1-13, April.
    2. Lutz, Ernst & Pagiola, Stefano & Reiche, Carlos, 1994. "The Costs and Benefits of Soil Conservation: The Farmers' Viewpoint," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 9(2), pages 273-295, July.
    3. Holden, Stein T. & Shiferaw, Bekele & Wik, Mette, 1998. "Poverty, market imperfections and time preferences: of relevance for environmental policy?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 105-130, February.
    4. Scherr, Sara J., 1995. "Economic factors in farmer adoption of agroforestry: Patterns observed in Western Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 787-804, May.
    5. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-298, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Shively, Gerald E., 1997. "Consumption risk, farm characteristics, and soil conservation adoption among low-income farmers in the Philippines," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 17(2-3), pages 165-177, December.
    2. Rick S. Llewellyn & Brendan Brown, 2020. "Predicting Adoption of Innovations by Farmers: What is Different in Smallholder Agriculture?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 100-112, March.
    3. Shively, Gerald E., 2001. "Poverty, consumption risk, and soil conservation," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 267-290, August.
    4. Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Cocchi, Horacio & Solís, Daniel, 2006. "Adoption of Soil Conservation Technologies in El Salvador: A Cross-Section and Over-Time Analysis," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 2894, Inter-American Development Bank.
    5. Ali, Jabir, 2011. "Adoption of Mass Media Information for Decision-Making Among Vegetable Growers in Uttar Pradesh," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 66(2), pages 1-14.
    6. Gebremedhin, Berhanu & Swinton, Scott M., 2001. "Sustainable Management Of Private And Communal Lands In Northern Ethiopia," Staff Paper Series 11680, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    7. Shiferaw, Bekele & Holden, Stein, 1998. "A Farm Household Analysis of Land Use and Soil Conservation Decisions of Smallholder Farmers in the Ethiopian Highlands," 1998 Fourth AFMA Congress, January 26-30, 1998, Stellenbosch, South Africa 187624, African Farm Management Association (AFMA).
    8. Templeton, Scott R. & Scherr, Sara J., 1999. "Effects of Demographic and Related Microeconomic Change on Land Quality in Hills and Mountains of Developing Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 903-918, June.
    9. Rico García-Amado, Luis & Ruiz Pérez, Manuel & Dahringer, Guillaume & Reyes Escutia, Felipe & Barrasa García, Sara & Contreras Mejía, Elsa, 2013. "From wild harvesting to agroforest cultivation: A Chamaedorea palm case study from Chiapas, Mexico," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 44-51.
    10. Bekelc Shiferaw & Stein T. Holden, 1998. "Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation technologies in the Ethiopian Highlands: A case study in Andit Tid, North Shewa," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 18(3), pages 233-247, May.
    11. Mariano, Marc Jim & Villano, Renato & Fleming, Euan, 2012. "Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of modern rice technologies and good management practices in the Philippines," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 41-53.
    12. Daniel Solís & Boris E. Bravo-Ureta & Ricardo E. Quiroga, 2007. "Soil conservation and technical efficiency among hillside farmers in Central America: a switching regression model ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(4), pages 491-510, December.
    13. Carletto, Calogero & Kirk, Angeli & Winters, Paul C. & Davis, Benjamin, 2010. "Globalization and Smallholders: The Adoption, Diffusion, and Welfare Impact of Non-Traditional Export Crops in Guatemala," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 814-827, June.
    14. Bekele, Genanew & Mekonnen, Alemu, 2010. "Investments in Land Conservation in the Ethiopian Highlands: A Household Plot-Level Analysis of the Roles of Poverty, Tenure Security, and Market Inventives," RFF Working Paper Series dp-10-09-efd, Resources for the Future.
    15. Yesuf, Mahmud & Köhlin, Gunnar, 2008. "Market Imperfections and Farm Technology Adoption Decisions: A Case Study from the Highlands of Ethiopia," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-04-efd, Resources for the Future.
    16. Joanna Noelia Kamiche, 2005. "Los Pobres Y El Medio Ambiente: An√Ålisis De La Condici√Ìn De Pobreza Y Decisi√Ìn De Uso De Fertilizantes En Los Hogares De Nicaragua," Documentos CEDE 3177, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    17. Maria Vrachioli & Spiro E. Stefanou & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2021. "Impact Evaluation of Alternative Irrigation Technology in Crete: Correcting for Selectivity Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 551-574, July.
    18. Lim, Krisha & Wichmann, Bruno & Luckert, Martin, 2021. "Adaptation, spatial effects, and targeting: Evidence from Africa and Asia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    19. Liu, Hongmei & Huang, Qiuqiong, 2013. "Adoption and continued use of contour cultivation in the highlands of southwest China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 28-37.
    20. Zabala, Aiora & Pascual, Unai & García-Barrios, Luis Enrique & Mukherjee, Nibedita, 2025. "Drivers to adopt agroforestry and sustainable land-use innovations: A review and framework for policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:rffdps:10476. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.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.