Draft version for this Conference use only. Do not quote without author’s permission.

The as a process of global transfer: plants, practices and people.

Jonathan Harwood (University of Manchester & Kings College London) ([email protected])

______

Abstract: The ‘Green Revolution’ is usually portrayed as an agricultural development programme in which crop varieties and expertise were transferred essentially from North to South. Thus the earliest programmes were initiated by U.S. foundations and a U.S. government agency. The Revolution’s technology had already been introduced in western Europe and the U.S. from the late 19th century. And the experts who ran these programmes initially came from U.S. agricultural universities. I will argue, however, that this picture is highly misleading. Many varieties, practices and people central to these programmes in fact originated in the South. Moreover several important approaches to improvement have been developed through the fusion of knowledge and expertise from both hemispheres. The Green Revolution is thus better characterised as a collaborative achievement of North and South. ______

2 Old and New Worlds: the Global Challenges of Rural History | International Conference, Lisbon, ISCTE-IUL, 27-30 January 2016 2

1. Introduction The ‘Green Revolution’ is usually portrayed as an agricultural development programme in which crop varieties, cultivation practices and expertise were transferred essentially from North to South. Thus the earliest programmes in Latin America were initiated by the Rockefeller Foundation and a U.S. government agency. The improved agricultural technology which was introduced had first been introduced in western Europe and the U.S. from the late 19th century. And the experts who ran these programmes during the early decades came from U.S. agricultural universities. In this paper, however, I will argue that this picture is highly misleading. Many varieties, practices and people central to these programmes in fact originated in the South. Moreover several important practices have been developed through the fusion of knowledge and expertise from both hemispheres. The Green Revolution is thus better characterised as a collaborative achievement of North and South.

2. The Green Revolution in outline For those unfamiliar with the Green Revolution (GR), let me sketch briefly its key features. The term itself is commonly used to refer to a set of agricultural development programmes introduced in the global South after 1945 whose declared aim was to alleviate poverty and hunger by increasing food production. The first of these programmes, designed and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, began in in 1943 and served as a model during the 1950s for programmes elsewhere in Latin America and in India. In 1949 the U.S. government launched a similar policy of ‘technical cooperation’ - including technical assistance provided by staff from U.S. agricultural universities - which was targetted especially at countries in the global South. During the 1950s the Ford Foundation also began to fund rural development in India and elsewhere, and by the 1960s and ‘70s GR programmes had been established in many Asian countries, funded predominantly by northern foundations or governments. Central to these programmes was the belief that hunger could be eased by increasing the food supply through more efficient production. Thus GR programmes typically offered a ‘technological package’ which promised big increases in crop yields (primarily of cereals such as maize, rice and ). The package on offer - improved plant varieties, commercially produced mineral fertiliser and pesticide as well as mechanisation - was very similar to the technology which had already been introduced in North America and western Europe from the late 19th century. Since developing countries after 1945 generally lacked the capacity to produce either fertiliser or tractors, the technology initially provided was generally manufactured by western firms. The high-yielding cereal varieties central to the package, though not of commercial origin, had been produced using methods developed at American universities or by U.S. breeders working in GR programmes. Technical support from the North, however, was envisioned as merely a temporary measure. Eventually such expertise was to be provided by agricultural scientists from the host countries, and to make that possible many of the early programmes included an element of training. In Mexico, for example, the Rockefeller Foundation provided fellowships so that promising young Mexican agronomists could receive research training at U.S. universities before returning home to assume positions at Mexican agricultural colleges or experiment stations. During the 1950s, similarly, the newly independent Indian government asked for (and received) the Foundation’s help in strengthening what was then regarded as a rather small and inadequate system of agricultural research, education and extension. From the early 1970s, to be sure, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations elected to hand over much of their responsibility for the GR to a new international organisation - the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) - whose task was to fund and administer a network of international 3 Old and New Worlds: the Global Challenges of Rural History | International Conference, Lisbon, ISCTE-IUL, 27-30 January 2016 3 agricultural research centres located in the South. But among their responsibilities these centres also provided training for scientists from the South. On face of it, therefore, the GR entailed a series of transfers from North to South. Programmes were initiated by northern institutions; the technology and practices central to the GR had previously been developed and introduced in the North; and the agricultural experts who implemented these programmes were generally trained in the North. In fact, however, this tidy picture of ‘one-way traffic’ is highly misleading. As I will argue below, much of what appears at first sight to be ‘northern’ was actually of southern derivation. Moreover when agricultural experts in the South borrowed useful technology and practices from other countries, the donors were often not from the North.

3. Global transfer from South to North Just how important the South was as a source of innovation can be seen if we consider the high-yielding plant varieties at the centre of the GR. Take the case of wheat. As is well documented, the wheat varieties which proved so successful in India, Pakistan and elsewhere in South Asia during the 1960s and ‘70s had been developed as part of the Rockefeller-funded Mexican Agricultural Program during the 1950s (Dalrymple 1986). The person who is usually credited with this achievement is the American breeder, Norman Borlaug, who was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1970. Perhaps because of his fame, some accounts of Borlaug’s work (eg, Willis 2006) fail to mention that by the time Borlaug began to work on wheat in Mexico, the short type of wheat which he set out to improve - and which later proved so successful - did not originate in the US nor anywhere else in the North, had been known for nearly a century, and had already been used by others to breed successful high-yielding . It is worth looking more closely, therefore, at the route by which Borlaug obtained this key raw material (for an overview see Perkins 1997, 210ff). In 1953 he had received a short variety from a US breeder, Orville Vogel at the agricultural experiment station at Washington State University (Kihara 1983, 13) and began to use it as a parent in crosses with various Mexican varieties (Athwal 1971).1 Thus Borlaug received his breeding-material from the North, but where did Vogel himself get this short variety? Vogel’s source was an American agricultural scientist who had been in Japan serving as agricultural advisor to the US Army after the war. While there he noticed a strikingly short variety (Norin 10) growing at an experiment station and brought it to the US in 1946. The following year he made it available to breeders (Reitz 1968; Dalrymple 1986, 13), one of whom was Orville Vogel. Then in 1949 Vogel began to cross this Japanese variety with various US varieties (Athwal 1971), and finally in 1953 he provided Norman Borlaug with a promising short variety derived from one of these crosses (Dalrymple 1986, 14). So effective were the varieties derived from this Japanese parent line that by the 1980s it had become the major world source of genes for short stature in wheat (Dalrymple 1986, 13). The most important wheat variety of the GR, therefore, arrived in Mexico from Japan (then a developing country). What we know about its Japanese origins (as well as its other destinations), however, is equally interesting. Short wheat varieties appear to have existed in Japan since at least the 1870s because in 1873, while leading an agricultural advisory group

1 The strategy was to make ‘hybrid’ offspring which would have useful traits from both parents. In this case the desired offspring would have the short stature of the Japanese parent and be better adapted to local conditions like the Mexican parent.

4 Old and New Worlds: the Global Challenges of Rural History | International Conference, Lisbon, ISCTE-IUL, 27-30 January 2016 4 visiting Japan, an American Commissioner of was much impressed by the extremely short wheats he observed and concluded that ‘The Japanese farmers have brought the art of dwarfing to perfection’(quoted in Dalrymple 1986, 11). It is not clear whether the Commissioner brought such varieties to the US or distributed them to breeders there, but in view of the subsequent history of the GR, it is ironic that into the 1940s US wheat breeders took remarkably little interest in these Japanese varieties, believing that only tall wheats had potential for high yield (Dalrymple 1988, 26-27). To be sure, elsewhere in the North the reception was more enthusiastic. French breeders, for example, introduced short varieties from Japan already in 1867; by 1880 they were regarded as among the best wheats in the country, and some were sold commercially until 1904 (Dalrymple 1986, 11-12). In Italy, too, the wheat-breeder Nazareno Strampelli obtained a short variety from Japan in 1911, crossed it with a local variety, and produced the first of a series of high-yielding varieties which revolutionised Italian wheat-breeding after 1918 (Iori 2011). Moreover, one of Strampelli’s varieties played a key role in the development of Mexican GR wheats, and in the 1980s Italian varieties were grown in several north African countries (Dalrymnple 1986, 13). Thus the starting material for Norman Borlaug’s influential work owed its existence to the skill of Japanese farmers a century earlier. And by the time Borlaug undertook that work, other breeders had long since recognised the promise of short Japanese varieties. But it was not only the GR’s wheat varieties which flowed from southern origins into the hands of northern breeders. The story with rice was similar. The most famous of these (again, very short) varieties, ‘IR-8’, was developed at the International Rice Research Institute soon after its founding in 1962 (Anderson et al. 1991). But both of IR-8’s parents were of East Asian origin. One of them (‘Peta’) was a tall, disease-resistant variety from Indonesia which had been developed by Dutch breeders in the late 1930s (Barker & Herdt 1982, 430). The other (‘Dee- geo-woo-gen’) was a short native (ie, farmer-bred) variety which was observed at Taiwan’s experiment station in 1906 (Athwal 1971, 12). Many of the short, high-yielding varieties important for IRRI’s breeding programme had earlier been bred at Taiwanese experiment stations. One of these was ‘Taichung Native 1’ (Athwal 1971, 5), which was released in 1956 (Barker & Herdt 1982) and was very popular in Taiwan by the 1960s (Athwal 1971, 5-6). Although IRRI was funded by northern foundations and staffed initially by scientists predominantly from the North, therefore, the all-important raw material for its breeding programme came from countries in the South.

4. Movement within the southern hemisphere To demonstrate that personnel, knowledge and materials moving from South to North were crucial for the GR, however, is only part of the story. As historians of colonial science have emphasised, the circulation of such things in colonial empires did not take place solely between the European ‘centre’ and the southern ‘periphery’ (a process dominated largely by the former). Instead the movement of people and things also occurred within the so-called ‘periphery’, and the same applies to the GR. As we have already seen, for example, the wheat varieties which India and Pakistan planted in the 1960s had been developed elsewhere in the South (Mexico) a decade earlier. Other instances can be cited for the decades preceding the GR. When Japanese breeders began work in Taiwan (a Japanese colony from 1906), they brought with them short Japanese rice varieties with the aim of adapting them to the Taiwanese climate.(REF) Similarly, rice breeders in interwar Bengal obtained varieties from the Philippines, Guyana and Nigeria (Anderson et al 1991, 239). As a general rule, breeders - then as now - are avid collectors of plant material from anywhere in the world so long as it looks promising as raw material. 5 Old and New Worlds: the Global Challenges of Rural History | International Conference, Lisbon, ISCTE-IUL, 27-30 January 2016 5

Nor were plant varieties the only things which flowed from place to place within the South; improved cultivation practices did as well. During the 1950s, for example, Indian agricultural scientists spoke of an ‘Indian rice revolution’, made possible by the introduction from Japan of improved rice-growing practices (Glover 2013). During the early 1960s Taiwanese breeders introduced short rice varieties to Sierra Leone and demonstrated how double-cropping could be done in swampy areas (Richards 1997, 210). And in the 1940s and ‘50s agricultural scientists in Sri Lanka learned during visits to Tanzania about the importance of ecologically distinct rice- growing zones (Pain 1986, 760-761).

5. The consequences of global movement That the flow of plants, practices and people did not take place solely from North to South may help to correct the assumption in some quarters that the GR was devised in the North and exported to the South. But it is also important to recognise that these movements constituted a process of circulation; things moved back and forth between the hemispheres, sometimes changing in the process. We have already seen an example of this in the case of the wheat variety, Norin 10, whose genes for short stature moved from Japan to the US and Italy, from there to Mexico and on to India and Pakistan. A similar story might be told about Norin 10’s own ancestry. As noted above, one of its parents was probably of Korean origin, but the other parent was ‘Turkey’ (Reitz & Salmon 1968), a wheat variety which Japanese breeders had obtained in the late 19th century from the US (where it was grown very widely into the 1940s). At first sight, this looks like a case of movement from North to South, but in fact Turkey had been brought to the US in the early 1870s by immigrants from Russia who had obtained it from a valley in Turkey (Quisenberry & Reitz 1974, 104). Thus this variety had circulated from Turkey to Russia to the US to Japan and back to the US before moving in the 1950s to become central to Mexico’s GR programme. Just as the GR’s plants have circulated between North and South, so also have its experts, some of them learning a good deal in the process. Between the late 19th century and the Second World War European agricultural scientists often found employment in colonial agricultural services where they devoted their time, for the most part, to increasing the productivity of export crops and supporting large-scale development schemes. When such schemes failed, as they often did, some of these scientists began to question the prevailing assumption that indigenous cultivation practices were ‘backward’ and instead developed a respect for the rationality of peasant farming, calling for more research on these practices (Beinart et al. 2009; cf. references cited in Harwood 2012, 129-130). During the period of decolonisation after 1945, many of these experts returned to the northern hemisphere where they found employment at the World Bank, FAO and other development organisations. Once one takes these patterns of circulation into account, the Green Revolution becomes less a ‘heroic’ achievement of northern expertise than a collaborative undertaking whose resulting varieties and practices drew upon the resources of both South and North. In an ideal world this kind of circulation of experts might have meant that their colonial experience would come to inform northern agencies’ development policy. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests otherwise. Several of these experts evidently looked on in disbelief as post-1945 development programmes ignored colonial experience and proceeded to make the same mistakes all over again (Hodge 2010; Frey & Kunkel 2011). In at least one case, however, there are indications that the colonial experience of northern experts - eventually - contributed to what was seen as an innovative approach to improving peasant agriculture in the South: ‘farming systems research’. As the term implies, FSR starts from the premise that farming cannot be adequately understood if the analyst focuses 6 Old and New Worlds: the Global Challenges of Rural History | International Conference, Lisbon, ISCTE-IUL, 27-30 January 2016 6 narrowly upon the cultivation of single crops. For every farm actually operates as a system of interconnected parts, including crops, animals and (often) trees but also climate and growing conditions, the economic context, and social and cultural meanings attached to farming. If one wants to increase the productivity of the farm, therefore, one has to take into account the effects of all parts of the system. So where did FSR come from? The usual story told by its practitioners is that it emerged in the 1960s and took off during the 1970s (eg, Brush & Turner 1987). In 1964 the American soil scientist, Richard Bradfield, joined the International Rice Research Institute and argued that more attention needed to be paid to the needs of small farmers, in particular to their systs of cropping and the diversity of growing conditions in which they worked. Though initially ignored, by 1968 he had a small group working on multiple cropping, and there was recognition at IRRI that more work needed to be done on the ecological, social and economic environments in which rice was grown. In 1972, accordingly, IRRI established a Cropping Systems Program for him, and during the 1970s FSR took off as the approach was established at several national and regional institutes as well as at other international agricultural research centres. By the 1980s some felt that FSR had become a ‘dominant concept’ (Tripp et al 1990: 384). As various commentators have pointed out, however, some of the ideas central to FSR were developed much earlier during the colonial period. Many years ago, Michael Worboys noted that during the 1930s the British colonial agricultural service began to shift away from a focus on single crops toward a concern with agricultural systems as a whole (Worboys 1979, 369ff), and since then others have made similar observations (Tripp et al. 1990, 385; Maat & Glover 2012, 137-138). In India Albert Howard drew attention to the practice - common on peasant farms - of growing mixed crops on a single plot (intercropping), complaining that although the practice appeared to be effective, orthodox agricultural science had paid it very little attention (Marglin 1996, 222ff). The situation in East Africa during the 1930s seems to have been similar (Belshaw 1980). The question arises, of course, whether the resemblance between this colonial work and FSR is merely an accident - a case of independent discovery - or whether past and present are genealogically connected. Some evidence suggests they are. One expert with extensive experience in this field, for example, has observed that quite a lot of work on FSR in the 1960s and ‘70s was done by scientists who had colonial experience (Collinson 2000), and there is supportive evidence from the history of colonial development policy (Joseph Hodge, pers. comm.). Here is thus a possible connection worth exploring further. The case of FSR tentatively suggests that on occasion the global movement of people and things, by bringing cultures together, makes learning (on both sides of the encounter) possible, and circulation brings the learner back home a little wiser. A better documented demonstration of this process can be seen in another area of agricultural science relevant to development: agroecology. In several respects agroecology is similar to FSR. Both focus not upon single crops but upon systems. In agroecology this means the ecological system in which cultivated plants and domestic animals interact with wild species, soil, and climate. And as with FSR, the task of the agroecologist is to improve existing farming practices (rather than imposing radically different ones). But the central issue for agroecology is the vulnerability of industrial agriculture as well as the damage which it inflicts upon the environment. Thus agroecologists seek to improve peasant farming by developing cultivation methods which are not only more productive but also more environmentally (and economically) sustainable than those employed by the GR.2

2 One example of such a method is integrated pest management which has sought to develop biological methods of pest control to replace the use of pesticides as far as possible (Conway 1997). 7 Old and New Worlds: the Global Challenges of Rural History | International Conference, Lisbon, ISCTE-IUL, 27-30 January 2016 7

So when did agroecology emerge? In the development literature it is often portrayed as a post-1945 phenomenon. Much of the early work contributing to the new discipline is said to have appeared in the 1950s, ‘60s & ‘70s. Some agroecological practices were introduced in the global South during the 1960s, but rapid expansion of the agroecological literature stems from the early ‘70s (Hecht 1987), almost certainly fostered by the growing environmental movement, criticism of the ecological impact of the GR, and the oil crisis of 1973-74. Latest by the 1980s and ‘90s ‘sustainability’ had become a central theme of development funding and programmes (Rist 2008, 178ff). Agroecology thus became visible in development circles since the 1960s, but how and where did it take shape as a body of concepts and practices? A clue lies in the fact that agroecology is a hybrid discipline which draws not only upon ecological theory but also upon farmers’ knowledge. Its empirical basis is provided by the long-established agricultural systems in the global South which have remained productive, if at a modest level, for centuries.3 Since these systems’ longevity indicates that they are ecologically sustainable, they can provide the ecologist with models that are helpful in designing improved cultivation systems (Altieri 2004). Thus the discipline ‘walks on two legs’ which complement each other (Pimbert 1994). On the one hand, farmers possess detailed knowledge of particular ecological settings and the kinds of practices which - as they know from their own experience as well as that of previous generations - do and do not work there. And on the other, this empirical knowledge provides agroecology with an essential foundation (Gliessman 2013, 22-24) precisely because ecologists rarely possess such knowledge. Since each traditional agecosystem has a specific character, agroecology does not attempt to focus on the particularities of each one but looks instead for the underlying ecological principles common to many of them (Altieri 2004). Thus the agroecologist draws upon ecological theory in order to account for the sustainable success of such systems. And once an agroecosystem has been understood in this way, the aim is to use theory to improve upon existing farming methods. As a discipline, therefore, agroecology represents a fusion of knowledge and practice from both South and North. That fact prompts the question, naturally, as to how these two bodies of knowledge encountered one another in the first place. And once again there are hints in the literature that the colonial agricultural service was one such site. We know, for example, that the agroecological approaches to pursued in both Sri Lanka and Bengal by the 1950s were developed there between the wars (Pain 1986). Some ecologists in Northern Rhodesia during the 1930s observed that peasant farmers took their environment into account in devising cultivation methods (Speek 2014). And among the early pioneering work by anthropologists on indigenous agriculture systems was Audrey Richards’ 1939 study of the composting methods used by a Central African tribe (Hecht 1987). Despite the social and cultural obstacles which often hinder communication and learning between southern farmers and northern experts, therefore, the evidence indicates that where these can be overcome, the consequences for knowledge and practice are considerable. And that is one reason why following the global flows of people and their cultures is apt to be illuminating.

3 For example, European explorers in the New World observed the intercropping of maize, beans and squash in Central America as well as the use of lady bugs in Peru to control cotton insects (Denevan 1995).

8 Old and New Worlds: the Global Challenges of Rural History | International Conference, Lisbon, ISCTE-IUL, 27-30 January 2016 8

6. Who benefits from the Green Revolution? As I have argued here, the global circulation of plants, people and practices has been an important source of innovation in the GR. It has also, of course, been of major economic significance. As is well-known, the transfer of crop species from one hemisphere to another has been going on for several thousand years. Following the ‘Columbian exchange’, however, such transfer has often entailed the exploitation of southern resources by northern interests, not only during the colonial era but right up to the present in the form of ‘biopiracy’. Many would cite the GR as an important contribution to agricultural development in the South and, with qualifications, that is undeniable. But while the nominal aim of the GR was to foster agricultural production in the South, little attention has been paid to the fact that northern economies have also gained substantially. As is well-known, much of the development aid provided by northern donor agencies has been granted on the condition that the recipient country would use the loan to purchase northern services or equipment. Not surprisingly, therefore, northern fertiliser companies were enthusiastic about the GR, sometimes serving on donors’ advisory committees (Unger 2010), and the same evidently applies to American tractor companies (Biggs & Justice 2015, 24-25). The consequence of this system, as one executive director of the World Bank noted in 1980, is that for every dollar lent by the Bank seven dollars came back to firms in industrialised countries (Goldman 2005, 298). Less widely appreciated is the fact that both varieties from the South as well as those bred in the GR have also paid a rich dividend to northern breeders, farmers and agribusiness. Consider the three main cereals which have been improved. Given the scale of maize-growing in the U.S., it comes as no surprise that breeders there have been keen to gain access to the enormous diversity of traditional maize varieties in Latin America. The Rockefeller Foundation’s GR program in Mexico, for example, began to collect Mexican varieties on a small scale from 1943. Later in the ‘40s a seed company in Iowa collaborated with Iowa State University to set up a maize research project in Guatemala. As the firm’s president explained, ‘…experience has taught us not to confine our search [for disease-resistant varieties] exclusively to [the US]’ (quoted in Kloppenburg 1988, 159). And in 1951 the first coordinated effort to collect, preserve and classify maize varieties from the entire western hemisphere was launched by the (US) National Academy of Sciences in cooperation of the Rockefeller Foundation and several Latin American governments, with funding from the US Department of State (Chang 1979, 94). The economic value of GR varieties for the North is quite clear from the case of wheat. In 1984 about twenty percent of the US wheat acreage was planted in varieties whose ancestry came either from the Rockefeller’s Mexican GR programme or its successor, the International Centre for Maize and Wheat Improvement (CIMMYT). And of the ten leading wheat varieties in the US in 1984, four had CIMMYT ancestry (Dalrymple 1986, 34, 96). Although rice is a much less important crop in the US, US growers have also benefitted from work conducted at the International Rice Research Institute and from southern breeders more generally. In performance trials in Texas and Louisiana, for example, breeders found that the highest yielding varieties were from Taiwan and from IRRI itself (Athwal 1971, 23). As a result US growers soon shifted to growing short varieties, and by the 1980s three-quarters of this acreage was planted in varieties with IRRI ancestry (Dalrymple 1986, 113-115). In the media development aid is often implicitly portrayed as a gift from the ‘generous’ North to the impoverished South. In the case of the GR, however, it may be more accurate to think of the North as having invested in the South, and there are signs that the returns on that 9 Old and New Worlds: the Global Challenges of Rural History | International Conference, Lisbon, ISCTE-IUL, 27-30 January 2016 9 investment were considerable.4 If so, it will be important in future to establish to what extent the exploitative relations between North and South so characteristic of colonialism have been perpetuated by the GR.

Acknowledgements: I am indebted to Dr. Dana Dalrymple, formerly of USAID, for generously sharing with me several valuable but little known articles on short wheat varieties. Many thanks, too, to Dominic Glover and Harro Maat for commenting on a draft of this paper.

REFERENCES

Altieri, Miguel. "Linking Ecologists and Traditional Farmers in the Search for Sustainable Agriculture." Frontiers in Ecology and Environment [Ecological Soc. of Amer.] 2, no. 1 (2004): 35-42. Anderson, Robert S., Edwin Levy, and Barrie M. Morrison. Rice Science and Development Politics: Research Strategies and Irri's Technologies Confront Asian Diversity (1950- 1980). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Athwal, D.S. "Semidwarf Rice and Wheat in Global Food Needs." Quarterly Review of Biology 46, no. 1 (1971): 1-34. Barker, Randolph, and Robert Herdt. "Setting Priorities for Rice Research in Asia." In Science, Politics and the Agricultural Revolution in Asia, edited by Robert S. Anderson and et al., 427-61. Boulder: Westview, 1982. Beinart, William, Karen Brown, and Daniel Gilfoyle. "Experts and Expertise in Colonial Africa Reconsidered: Science and the Interpenetration of Knowledge." African Affairs 108, no. 432 (2009): 413-33. Belshaw, Deryke. "Taking Indigenous Technology Seriously: The Case of Inter-Cropping Techniques in East Africa." In Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development, edited by D. Brokensha and et al., 195-201. Washington, DC: Univ. Press of America, 1980. Biggs, Stephen, and Scott Justice. Rural and Agricultural Mechanisation: A History of the Spread of Small Engines in Selected Asian Countries (Ifpri Discussion Paper No. 01443). Intern. Food Policy Research Institute, 2015. Brush, S.B., and B.L. Turner. "The Nature of Farming Systems and Views of Their Change." In Comparative Farming Systems, edited by B.L. Turner and S.B. Brush, 11-48. New York: Guilford Press, 1987. Chang, T.T. "Crop Genetic Resources." In Plant Breeding Perspectives, 1879-1979, edited by J. Sneep and A.J. Hendriksen, 83-103. Wageningen: Centre for Agricultural Publishing & Documentation, 1979. Collinson, M. "My FSR Origins." In A History of Farming Systems Research, edited by M. Collinson, 34-39. Wallingford and Rome: CABI Publishing and FAO, 2000.

4 One study estimates that US benefit from work at CIMMYT has been about two hundred times the size of US expenditure on that institute (Puente-Rodriguez 2010, 39).

1 Old and New Worlds: the Global Challenges of Rural History | International Conference, Lisbon, ISCTE-IUL, 27-30 January 2016 100

Conway, Gordon. The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the 21st Century. London: Penguin, 1997. Cullather, Nick. The Hungry World: America's Cold War Battle against Poverty in Asia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010. Dalrymple, Dana. "Changes in Wheat Varieties and Yields in the US, 1919-1984." Agricultural History 62, no. 4 (1988): 20-36. ———. Development and Spread of High-Yielding Rice Varieties in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: U.S.Agency for International Development, 1986. ———. Development and Spread of High-Yielding Wheat Varieties in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: US Agency for Intern. Development, 1986. Denevan, William M. "Prehistoric Agricultural Methods as Models for Sustainability." Advances in Plant Pathology 11 (1995): 21-43. Frey, Marc, and S. Kunkel. "Writing the History of Development: A Review of the Recent Literature." Contemporary European History 20, no. 2 (2011): 215-32. Gliessman, Stephen "Agroecology: Growing the Roots of Resistance." Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37, no. 1 (2013): 19-31. Glover, Dominic. " Tracing the Roots of The "Root Revolution": Exploring the Origins of the System of Rice Intensification." In 24th International Congress of the History of Science, Technology and Medicine. University of Manchester, UK, 2013. Goldman, Michael. Imperial Nature: The World Bank and Struggles for Social Justice in the Age of Globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005. Harwood, Jonathan. Europe's Green Revolution and Others Since: The Rise and Fall of Peasant- Friendly Plant-Breeding. London: Routledge, 2012. Hecht, Susanna B. "The Evolution of Agroecological Thought." In Agroecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture, edited by Miguel Altieri, 1-20. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1987. Hodge, Joseph M. "British Colonial Expertise, Post-Colonial Careering and the Early History of International Development." Journal of Modern European History 8, no. 1 (2010): 24- 45. Iori, Luca. "Electrical Hybrids." In Electricity and Life: Episodes in the History of Hybrid Objects, edited by Giuliano Pancaldi. Bologna: Universita di Blogna, Dipartimento di Filosofia, 2011. Jennings, Bruce H. Foundations of International Agricultural Research: Science and Politics in Mexican Agriculture. Boulder/London: Westview Press, 1988. Kihara, Hitoshi. "Origin and History of 'Daruma', a Parental Vareity of Norin 10." In 6th Intern. Wheat Genetics Symposium, edited by Sadao Sakamoto, 13-19. Kyoto, 1983. Kloppenburg, Jack. First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology, 1492-2000. 1st. ed. ed. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Maat, Harro, and Dominic Glover "Alternative Configurations of Agronomic Experimentation." In Contested Agronomy: Agricultural Research in a Changing World, edited by J. 1 Old and New Worlds: the Global Challenges of Rural History | International Conference, Lisbon, ISCTE-IUL, 27-30 January 2016 111

Sumberg and J . Thompson, 131-45. London: Routledge, 2012. Marglin, Stephen A. "Farmers, Seedsmen and Scientists: Systems of Agriculture and Systems of Knowledge." In Decolonizing Knowledge: From Development to Dialogue, edited by Frederique Apffel-Marglin and Stephen A. Marglin, 185-248. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Pain, Adam. "Agricultural Research in Sri Lanka: An Historical Account." Modern Asian Studies 20, no. 4 (1986): 755-78. Perkins, John. Geopolitics and the Green Revolution: Wheat, Genes and the Cold War. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Pimbert, Michel. "The Need for Another Research Paradigm." Seedling (publ. by GRAIN & on its website) July (1994): 20-25. Puente-Rodriguez, Daniel Redesigning Genomics - Reconstructing Societies: Local Sustainable Biotechnological Developments (Ph.D. Diss., Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam). Zutphen: Wöhrmann Print Service, 2010. Quisenberry, K.S., and L. P. Reitz. "Turkey Wheat: The Cornerstone of an Empire." Agricultural History 48, no. 1 (1974): 98-110. Reitz, Louis P. "Short Wheats Stand Tall." Yearbook of Agriculture 1968 (1968): 236-39. Reitz, L. P., and S.C. Salmon. "Origin, History and Use of Norin 10 Wheat." Crop Science 8, no. 6 (1968): 686-89. Richards, Paul. "Toward an African Green Revolution? An Anthropology of Rice Research in Sierra Leone." In The Ecology of Practice: Studies of Food Crop Production in Sub- Saharan West Africa, edited by Endre Nyerges, 201-52. Amsterdam: Gordon & Breach, 1997. Rist, Gilbert. The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith. 3rd ed. ed. London: Zed Books, 2008. Speek, Sven. "Ecological Concepts of Development? The Case of Colonial Zambia." In Developing Africa: Concepts and Practices in Twentieth CenturyColonialism, edited by Joseph Hodge, Gerald Hödl and Martina Kopf, 133-54. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2014. Tripp, Robert et al. "Farming Systems Research Revisited." In Agricultural Development in the Third World (2nd Ed), edited by Carl K. Eicher and John M. Staatz, 384-99. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990 Unger, Corinna R. "Industrialization Vs. Agrarian Reform: West German Modernization Policies in India in the 1950s and 1960s." Journal of Modern European History 8, no. 1 (2010): 47-65. Willis, Katie. "Norman Borlaug." In 50 Key Thinkers on Development, edited by David Simon, 45-50, 2006. Worboys, Michael. Science and British Colonial Imperialism, 1895-1940 (Ph.D. Diss., University of Sussex), 1979.