Question: Advocates of the Green Revolution have argued that the technologies employed are "scale neutral." That is, seeds and fertilizers are easily divisible, and no appreciable change in unit costs is involved in altering the quantities used. Therefore, they hypothesized, the Green Revolution should benefit both poor and wealthy farmers alike, without an appreciable relative advantage to one or the other in use. Contrast this technical view of the impact of the Green Revolution with a more "institutional" view.
a Assuming that the unit cost of inputs are nearly "scale neutral," why did the many institutionalists predict that the Green Revolution would increase intraregional and interregional income disparities rather than diminish them?
b What other considerations are there besides costs of the new inputs in deciding whether to use a new seed, a new fertilizer, or any new technology in agriculture?
- c Can the response of poorer and richer farmers differ? Why?