Hello, this is Yves. In this concise yet crucial article, Jomo delves into how the Green Revolution paradoxically undermined food security despite increasing agricultural output.
The initial driving force behind this movement was government-led initiatives. However, over time, it became dominated by large multinational agribusinesses that expanded Green Revolution practices beyond their optimal benefits for involved nations—this includes the U.S., albeit with relatively less severe consequences in comparison to poorer countries.
It is important to recognize that neoliberalism prioritizes efficiency above all else. While this focus on efficiency may streamline systems, it often overlooks safety. Ensuring food security requires establishing reserves and other protective measures, which can disrupt the speed of an overly optimized system when crises arise. The world is on the brink of facing the dire repercussions of neglecting essential survival protections that, while adding friction and costs, are necessary for a resilient system.
This article is by Jomo Kwame Sundaram, a former economics professor and former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development. He has been awarded the Wassily Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought. Contributions also come from Kuhaneetha Bai Kalaicelvan, a keen researcher on policy at the Khazanah Research Institute, and Nurina Malek, an economics graduate from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, currently focusing on policy research. Additional insights are from Professor Felice Noelle Rodriguez, Director of the Centre for Local History and Culture at Universidad de Zamboanga in the Philippines. Originally published at Jomo’s website.
Transnational agribusinesses increasingly dictate food policies on a global scale. They claim to be the solution to contemporary food security issues, but predominantly focus on maximizing profits from advancements in food production, processing, and distribution.
Post-War Food Security
Since World War II, food policies in the Global South have undergone significant changes, particularly after many Asian and African nations achieved independence, often following periods of severe food deprivation during the war.
The early post-war years and the era of decolonization witnessed a renewed emphasis on food security, largely due to the harsh realities of food shortages experienced before, during, and after the conflict.
During this time, widespread starvation and acute malnutrition were rampant. The infamous Bengal famine in India claimed over three million lives, as Churchill prioritized British imperial interests and military objectives over humanitarian concerns.
Post-war, colonial powers manipulated food supplies for counter-insurgency and population control, particularly aimed at suppressing anti-imperialist sentiments. Many victims were not combatants but ordinary citizens suffering from intentional food shortages created by these policies. Therefore, prioritizing food security became a crucial political objective in the aftermath of the war.
Western-led research organizations, including the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), gained significant influence, shaping the frameworks of food security in post-colonial nations.
The Green Revolution
Numerous public research institutions were created in developing countries, many of which were linked to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).
The initial focus of the Green Revolution was to boost the yields of staple crops like wheat, maize, and rice. These initiatives led to an uneven increase in cereal production during the 1960s and 1970s.
Rooted in Malthusian thinking, there was a belief that increasing life expectancies would lead to population growth outpacing food production, limited by the available agricultural land.
As funding from affluent nations diminished, powerful corporate entities and philanthropic organizations began to exert greater influence, often advocating for their interests at the expense of farmers, consumers, and the environment.
In the 1970s, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) was founded, channeling a fraction of the oil windfall into agricultural development.
Shortly thereafter, the U.S. transformed its Public Law (PL) 480 program into the World Food Programme (WFP), leading to a shift of some FAO responsibilities to UN funds and programs controlled by donor nations, also based in Rome.
A troubling FAO report revealed that food supplies for WFP were deliberately withheld from Somalia to prevent them from being seized by the ‘Islamist’ Al-Shabaab militia. Chatham House estimated that this decision led to two to three hundred thousand deaths.
Neoliberalism
The counter-revolution against national development initiatives in the 1980s undermined government fiscal capabilities, import-substituting industrialization, and efforts surrounding food security.
Neoliberal structural adjustment policies promoting economic liberalization were imposed on deeply indebted developing countries, particularly those in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa.
The Global North advocated for trade liberalization, which dismantled prior protections for agricultural and industrial production.
Fierce food conglomerates funded and promoted import-oriented food security measures that weakened the efforts of the FAO and various civil society organizations working towards advocacy and research.
Countries producing minimal food were undeservedly rated highly on food security indices, spurring civil society organizations to respond with their own evaluations, heavily leaning towards food sovereignty
approaches.
Trump 2.0
A new chapter began with Donald Trump’s re-election as U.S. president.
The “Trump 2.0” approach has weaponized economic tactics and agreements, including food supplies, presenting significant challenges for countries striving for autonomy.
Economic and military threats are leveraged for various purposes, from achieving economic and political objectives to more personal motivations. Tariffs and sanctions have become tools in this arsenal, deployed for a range of strategies.
Governments are at risk of facing tariffs and sanctions for personal vendettas; for example, Trump urged the liberation of Brazilian ex-President Jair Bolsonaro following his unsuccessful coup attempt after losing the most recent presidential election.
Such economic warfare has intensified the ongoing global economic stagnation, exacerbating contractionary and inflationary pressures fueled by various threats stemming from Trump’s economic and military policies.
The U.S.-controlled WFP has a history of providing food aid selectively, yet Washington’s regard for other nations’ food security issues has dwindled considerably.
In a bid to reduce federal expenditures, Trump has discontinued official development and humanitarian assistance, including food aid, while the U.S. remains a leading global food exporter.
However, unexpected measures to boost farmers’ revenues might be introduced to garner electoral support ahead of the November mid-term elections.
The manipulation of food aid took a worrying turn during the Israeli siege of Gaza, with food access calibrated to enable selective ethnic cleansing.
During this crisis, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation drew hungry residents to its food centers, only for desperate families seeking assistance to face violent repercussions.
Poverty primarily manifests as inadequate access to food, while the FAO regards income as the main factor influencing food insecurity.
Though World Bank measures of poverty have generally shown a decline, FAO indicators imply a reversal of progress made in food security over the last decade.
These conflicting trends highlight the challenges of accurately estimating and understanding poverty and food security, suggesting that the resulting policies may be ill-informed or worse.
