Theodore W. Schultz, “Knowledge, Agriculture and Welfare,” Science Studies 2, no. 4 (Oct. 1972), 361-368.

Notes

• 361-2 – “The main reasons for the residual confusion are the following: (1) An oversimplification of the linkage between the Green Revolution and the sciences. (2) A lack of understanding of necessary economic requirements for the efficient adoption and use of the new, superior agricultural inputs. (3) Seeing the welfare implications of such gains in agricultural production in terms of the detailed effects upon different classes of farm people in an area, and not seeing the more general effects of cheaper food grains on the welfare of a total population. (4) A lack of clarity about ways of developing efficient systems of agricultural research, in spite of many decades of experience with organized agricultural research, and the worthwhile lessons that could be drawn from this rich experience.// I shall elaborate briefly on each of these four reasons for the confusion that still continues to hamper and delay the modernization of agriculture.”
• 362 – “The Green Revolution reveals clearly the value of organized agricultural research. It demonstrates once again that nothing succeeds like success. But what is not revealed is that the new varieties of wheat and rice are only a part of the contributions of the sciences. Modern agriculture would be impossible were it not for advances in scientific knowledge. From an economic point of view, this knowledge, when it has become transformed into inputs, techniques and into the skills of man, is the most important factor in production.”
• “There is a long history of pre-science agriculture, during which there were some innovations, some discoveries and some learning from trial and error. But pre-science agriculture, then and now (for it still prevails in many parts of the world) is at the mercy of the vicissitudes and niggardliness of nature. Raw land and brute labour are not sufficient to dispel the ancient fear of starvation . . ..”
• “The first lesson of the Green Revolution is that modernization of agriculture is dependent upon a wide array of scientific knowledge — physics, chemistry, and biology; and also upon engineering, with respect to irrigation and transport facilities, and agricultural machinery. There is, however, a strong tendency, which is all very human, to claim too much for that bit of new knowledge about which the particular scientist or engineer is an expert. The second lesson, which is not obvious, is that the large gains to be had from the improvements in the technical production possibilities of agriculture depend in large measure upon the combinations of technical factors and the gains from the interactions among them.”
• “R. A. Fisher, distinguished for his small-sample theory, designed agricultural field experiments to control for, and to take account of, interactions. Charles Kellogg, the soil scientist, extended the concept to the more aggregative interplay between the state of the soil, a new variety, additional fertilizer, better control of water and more effect pest control.”
• 363 – “In short, the old maxim of turning swords into ploughshares should now be interpreted to mean turning defence-oriented science towards agricultural scientific endeavours.”

• There’s a lot to this analogy about the relationship between the the state, science, and foreign policy

• “Turning next to the motivation and capability of farm people in adopting and in using efficiently the new scientific inputs, there are several necessary economic requirements. These requirements include efficient economic incentives, adequate information, and the learning of new farming skills.”
• 364 – “it is unfortunately true that the dominant elite view, both in capitalistic and socialistic countries, tends to be that farmers are dullards, inherently backward, strongly inclined to farm in accordance with tradition, and fundamentally indifferent to any new and better economic opportunities. Thus, they have long been maligned. One of the main purposes of my book . . . was to lay to rest this widely held, mistaken view about farm people. The Green Revolution has undoubtedly accomplished much more than my book did in establishing the fact that farmers in Mexico, or in India, or in any other country, are not indifferent to real opportunities to improve their economic lot.”
• 365 – “Much of what is being written on the welfare implications of the Green Revolution is wrong. There are two unsettled questions. Who is to be the judge in determining welfare? What is the evidence? The thrust of the misleading welfare argument against the Green Revolution runs as follows: although the gains in agricultural production are being attained efficiently on narrow economic grounds, they are bad in terms of welfare. It is asserted that rich farmers profit and poor farmers become poorer; landless labourers become even worse off than they were before; and the welfare of the country is impaired.”