The Major Advances Witnessed During the Green Revolution

The Green Revolution

The Green Revolution refers to the technological advances in agriculture that changed the way farmers in this country managed their farms. These changes allowed farmers to grow and harvest more crops with less manpower. The increase in the amount of food produced allowed them to export crops to other countries. The increase in production also resulted in the price of food decreasing in this country. The main objective of this paper is to discuss the effects the Green Revolution had on Third World countries.

The Green Revolution myth goes like this: the miracle seeds of the Green Revolution increase grain yields and therefore are a key to ending world hunger. Higher yields mean more income for poor farmers, helping them to climb out of poverty, and more food means less hunger. Dealing with the root causes of poverty that contribute to hunger takes a very long time and people are starving now. So we must do what we can which is to increase production.

The Green Revolution buys the time Third World countries desperately need to deal with the underlying social causes of poverty and cut birth rates.3 In any case, outsiders, like the scientists and policy advisers behind the Green Revolution cant tell a poor country to reform its economic and political system, but they can contribute invaluable expertise in food production.

The Green Revolution benefited primarily those landowners who could afford the investment necessary for such intensive agriculture. Without a certain dosage of expensive nitrogen fertilizers per hectare, the high-yield varieties would not grow properly.

Get quality help now
Sweet V

Proficient in: Green Revolution

4.9 (984)

“ Ok, let me say I’m extremely satisfy with the result while it was a last minute thing. I really enjoy the effort put in. ”

+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

Rich farmers tended to obtain bigger yields while smallholders were unable to benefit from the new methods.

The Green Revolution greatly affected Third World countries. It is defined as “the name given to the massive transfer of technology coordinated through agricultural agencies. This effort, which began in the 1960s, transplanted the range of agricultural technologies from rich countries to poor countries. Such technologies included new seed strains, irrigation, fertilizers, tractors to replace oxen, and mechanization. In agriculture, the change in methods of arable farming was instigated in the 1940s and 1950s in Third World countries. The intent was to provide higher quality and quantity of food for its populations, although it relied heavily on chemicals and machinery. It was abandoned by some countries in the 1980s. Much of the food produced was exported as cash crops therefore the local diet did not always improve.

In Third World countries this affected agriculture and rural populations after the Second World War. The United States government bought a lot of the surplus farm production so the price of food did not drop enough to hurt the farmers in this country. The government then sold or gave this food away to Third World Countries. This resulted in the food becoming less expensive to import than to grow in the native country.

I always thought that the United States gave all the surplus food to the Third World countries. I learned that a large amount was not given away but sold for profit. Initially, I thought that the sale of food was wrong but after thinking about it I now think that giving the food away in situations another than emergencies is worse. By giving food away, Third World farmers would no longer have any incentive to grow food because of the cheap importation. Thus, farmers would change their occupations and if thereafter the price of the food was raised substantially the Third World countries would be ill-prepared to again resume their food production. There have been many greater advances in agricultural technology in the United States. These advances allow United States farmers to produce substantial amounts of food with less overhead. Low production costs of food enable the farmer to produce more goods thus creating a surplus. Much of this surplus is then sold to the Third World countries. Although we keep aiding them by supplying them with food, this gives them no benefit if at some point we stop giving or subsidizing the food. This may very well be the political aim of the United States to keep them dependent.

The United States food aid policies and the so-called Green Revolution on Third World countries affected agriculture and rural populations after the Second World War. The United States should limit the aid that they are giving to the Third World countries, therefore, making them more independent. The United States should also aid in helping these countries to develop new machinery and technology to make them more self-sufficient.

I came across other surprising things about the United States’ food aid policies. I always thought that the United SStates’gift of surplus foods to the Third World countries was strictly for humanitarian reasons; however, there were other reasons for these policies. A large amount was not given away but sold for profit. This in itself is not reprehensible if the profits are not exorbitant. I also learned that there have been many greater advances in agricultural technology in the United States. These advances allow United States farmers to produce substantial amounts of food with less overhead. Low production costs of food enable the farmer to produce more goods thus creating a surplus. Much of this surplus is then sold to Third World countries. Although we keep aiding them by supplying them with food, this gives them no benefit to them if we stop the giveaway or subsidy of the food. Our generosity somewhat falsely represents the U.S.s incentives behind this free giveaway Yes, of course, a reason is partly out of pure humanitarianism, however, a major part of this is a quest to obtain various things in return. Some examples are to open new markets for commercial sales of our farm products and thereby offset trade deficits. That is if we sell the products to these countries at an artificially low price to force the local farmers out and then raise the price. In some cases, it is to obtain support for the United States military interventions in the Third World.

I believe what these countries need is agricultural technology to be able to produce food for themselves. However, this is not exactly as simple as it sounds. Producing food requires necessary machinery and agricultural knowledge, which are very costly. I came to understand that if we keep giving away food to underdeveloped countries, they are going to readily accept it. By accepting what is offered to them, these countries obviously will not want to or know how to grow food for themselves. It makes it impossible for the country’s small food producers to compete, and, as a result, many producers are frequently forced to sell their land. They do not stop farming because they do not want to work but because they can no longer survive by doing so. It is indeed extremely cheap for these Third World countries to import our products, however, in the long run, it puts many hard-working bbusinesses

South Korea, a Third World country, is a perfect example of how the United States affected its agriculture and rural populations negatively. South Korea has been the second-largest recipient of our country’s food aid. The United States maintained cheap prices on grain imported into South Korea. Because of our huge surplus of food we were able to sell our products to Korea for a cheaper price. This was not the case for the Korean farmer, who was unable to sell his goods at such low prices. It forced them out of the labor market. Since the farmers could not make a good living, many moved into the cities. Between 1963 and 1976, the rural population of Korea fell from one-half to about a third of the total population.

In terms of production, the Green Revolution was initially successful in southeast Asia. India doubled its wheat yield in fifteen years, and the rice yield in the Philippines rose by seventy-five percent.14 However, yields have leveled off in many areas. Some critics say these gains are outweighed by the damage to the environment from the chemicals and traditional farming methods.

Another example of the Green Revolution technology in India. The negative outcomes of the Green Revolution, such as loss of productivity for pulses, fruits, and vegetables and unbalanced use of fertilizers are the two major factors that are threatening the agri-future of the country, R.S Paroda, Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) says. 16 In Green Revolution the emphasis was given mainly on cereals like rice and wheat whose growth is declining worldwide.17 According to Paroda, the growth rate of cereals has dropped dramatically within the last few years.18 India cannot feed populations by planting the same crops year after year. They have to rotate their crops periodically to keep the production high because the same production of cereal year after year greatly decreases the fertility of the soil, thus making it very difficult for the production of other commodities such as vegetables and fruits. The present rate of fruit and vegetable production would not cope with the future demand as the population is increasing continuously, says Paroda.19 Parado feels that the creation of new technologies or new crop varieties is aisthe only solution to the problem. It was once felt that the Green Revolution would eliminate the problem of food production in Third World countries, however, India’s example makes it clear that in countries with fast increasing populations, even with the Green Revolution technologies, it still may not be possible to feed the population.

I believe that the United States should aid the Third World countries with the export of agricultural science and technology. Solely giving them food will not help them at all because they come, they will even learn was good. My true would start to become dependent on the United States. Making the countries less dependent on the United States farmers, however, will hurt the United States’ ability to make a profit by selling their surplus of goods to them. The answer is not easy. Countries should not be dependent on others for food. If we concentrate our aid on helping them build more markets and educate them more on agricultural science, they will eventually be able to become independent and their hunger problem will improve. An important fact that I learned was that there is plenty of food to go around to feed the world, however, not everyone could always get the food. My true opinion on the matter is that the United States should continue to aid these countries, but limit this to giving away aid in food to emergencies. Instead, we should give them a certain amount of money each year to fund newer technology and encourage them to become more self-sufficient. This will also improve United States relations with the country. This problem will not be solved right away but I think that over time this will occur and our world’s hunger problem will be greatly suppressed.

Cite this page

The Major Advances Witnessed During the Green Revolution. (2022, Jun 19). Retrieved from

Let’s chat?  We're online 24/7