Modern Varieties, International Agricultural Research, and the Poor

Plan t breeders select f o r roots , leaves and s ta lks , making efficient and stable use of waterr n u t r i e n t s and l ight . Therefore, i n many environments, modern v a r i e t i e s (MV) now produce higher y i e l d s of less c o s t l y c a l o r i e s and less vulnerabili ty t o drought and disease, even without purchased inputs , per ton of food. Physical r i sks (e.g. the narrow genet ic base of sane p lan t s , and " s o i l mining") a r e r e a l , but have been exaggerated. The bio-econanic impact of MVs should be e spec ia l ly favorable t o smaller farmers, hired workers, and poor consumers, y e t much of t h i s "pro-poor poten t ia l" has been l o s t due t o (a) i n s e r t i o n of MVs i n t o social systems favoring urban groups and the b ig farmers who supply them, (b) demographic dynamics making labor cheaper relative t o land, and (c) research s t r u c t u r e s p r i o r i t i z i n g fashionable t o p i c s rather than genuine needs of the poor. Too much research i n t o "how MVs affect the poor" still focuses on small farmers i n MV-affected areas. I n general these adopt MVs l a t e r than bigger farmers, bu t then a t t a i n a t least as high adoption r a t e s , i n t e n s i t i e s , y i e l d s , and efficiency. Only except ional ly a r e they dispossessed before they can gain from MVs. But e a r l y adopters , who go t better prices, gained more from MVs (see (a) above). Alsor most poor farmers i n South Asia and Africa are still ou t s ide MV areas . As producers they have probably l o s t from MVs. Especially i n South and Southeast Asia, the r u r a l poor are increas ingly l abore r s rather than farmers. MVs raise demand f o r l abor per acre and clearly re su l t ed i n r a i sed employment around 1965-75. More recently, farm employers