The Dictionary of Human Geography

Revolution, a number of important problems
emerged: first, increasing pest and weed prob-
lems; second, problems of storage and pro-
cessing; and, third, ecological deterioration
(especially loss of germ plasm, water depletion
and toxicity). All of these direct and indirect
consequences initiated a still ongoing debate
over the consequences of HYVs (see Shiva,
1991, 1996).
At the heart of the impact question are
equity,povertyandsocial justice. In the
early years, the adoption of HYV packages
(and the recognition that the packages were
notscaleneutral) prompted much specula-
tion about new forms of social differentiation
among peasantries, ofclassconflict between
adopters and non-adopters, of deteriorating
labour conditions, as HYVs were labour-
displacing rather than labour-saving – of the
‘green revolution turning red’. As the Indian
case shows, there was in fact no simple polar-
ization of landholding, though there has been
the consolidation of aclassof increasingly
commercialized and organized rich peasants
who have benefited from the Green Revolu-
tion (these are the heart of the New Farmers
Movement in India, which has changed the
face of local and national politics: seesocial
movements). The impact onlabour markets
(new forms of migration, changing forms
of labour permanency and tenancy), on land-
holding (cf. land tenure) and on social
inequality is enormously complex, in part
because of the linkages and off-farm employ-
ment (Hazell, 1987). On balance, the mech-
anization that has followed the HYV adoption
has been labour displacing and has favoured
those with concentrated capital displacement.
New forms of inequality have emerged, but
this is often attributed by the proponents
of the HYVs to population growth and state
rent-seeking rather than technologyper se. The
debate continues.
The Green Revolution has unquestionably
increased food output per capita, but this has
not necessarily increased food availability for
the poor (Dreze and Sen, 1989), and nor has it
improved the lot of the poor (Lipton, 1989).
The first issue turns less on output than on
availability and entitlements – in short, the
social component of the Green Revolution
(including land reform). The second speaks
to the problems of both the uneven adoption
of HYVs and the biases built into the breeding
programmes themselves. The miracle seeds
are often not pro-poor and do not speak
to the circumstances of the land-poor and
landless.

There is a debate over whether the Green

Revolution has ‘ended’ in the sense that there

are no new seed breakthroughs likely in the

worldstaplecrops. The pessimists foresee a

Malthusian nightmare offamineand pesti-

lence, compounded by the growth of Chinese

staple food imports. Nonetheless, the Green

Revolution has entered a second phase associ-

ated with the breakthroughs of molecular

science and recombinant DNA. Here, the

issue is increasingly the power of large trans-

national seed and pharmaceutical companies,

who develop new crops with built-in require-

ments for particular inputs, and the intellec-

tual property rights that attend to the

concentration of power inagribusinesscom-

panies (Shiva, 1996). Genetically modified

HYVs (whether soy or corn) have become

part of an embattled agricultural landscape in

which environmental questions have been tied

to corporate power and the pressures exerted

through theworld trade organizationby

First World states to liberalize protected

agricultural sectors in the global south.

Many of the most vociferous of theanti-

globalization movements have often ex-

pressed concerns over the ways in which the

second phase of the Green Revolution is now

refiguring the international food order, now

dominated by corporate power and a new

round of privatized agricultural and seed tech-

nologies (Rosset, 2006). The current debates

over farmer breeding rights, genetically modi-

fied crops andintellectual property rights

suggests that the next Green Revolution will

be as fraught as the first. mw

Suggested reading

Bayliss-Smith and Wanmali (1984); Grigg (1989).

greenhouse effect Seeglobal warming

gross domestic product (GDP) A monet-

ary estimate of the value (at current market

prices) of final goods and services produced

within aneconomy(usually national) during

a given period. Capital expenditure, indirect

taxes and subsidies are excluded, as is the

value of intermediate products (such as raw

materials) which is included in the value of

final goods. GDP is often favoured over

gross national product(gnp) as a measure

of economic activity because it excludes net

income from abroad. International compar-

isons of GDP, either in aggregate or per capita,

are difficult because of fluctuations in currency

values through floating exchange rates, and

some attempt to standardize for this using

Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_G Final Proof page 319 2.4.2009 6:30pm

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP)