Abstract
Marxist social scientists have argued that the relationship between social and technical change is one of mutual interaction; innovation in the modes of production affects social organization, and social organization, in turn, has an impact on the development of novel modes of production. This consideration is of fundamental importance for the construction of any economic development policy. However, analyses of this critical relationship have been elaborated within a conceptual framework which most social scientists and policy makers who work within the framework of neoclassical economic thought find difficult to understand. When marxists argue that technical innovations are the product of a class conflict, non-marxist social scientists are left wondering about what the exact meaning of such a statement. Because marxists have been unable to communicate their message, their important insights into the relation between social and technical change have not been incorporated in contemporary development policy; this situation has often resulted in great social costs. In the past fifteen years, however, Yujiro Hayami and Vernon Ruttan have attempted to analyze the critical interaction of social and technical change using neo-classical economic concepts. I argue that their approach can be utilized to express marxist insights in a language accessible to non-marxist social scientists. The careful and critical adoption of this approach could provide the grounds for a more fruitful dialogue about the interaction of social and technical change, and aid the construction of a new development policy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baracca, A. S. Ruffo, A. Russo.Scienza e Industria, 1848–1915. Rome: Editori Laterza, 1979.
Berlan, J. P. & R. C. Lewontin, “The political economy of hybrid corn.”Monthly Review. 38, 3(1986): 35–47.
Bernal, J. D.,The Social Function of Science, [1939]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1967.
Booth, D., “Marxism and development sociology: Interpreting the impasse.”World Development. 13(1985): 761–787.
Brenner, R., “The origins of capitalist development: A critique of neo-smithian marxism.”New Left Review. 104(1977): 25–92.
Bukharin, N. “Theory and practice from the standpoint of dialectical materialism.” In:Science at the Crossroads. London: Kniga, 1931. Pgs. 11–33.
Burmeister, L. L., “The South Korean Green Revolution: Induced or directed innovation?”Economic Development and Cultural Change. 35,4(1987): 768–790.
Buttel, F. H., “Farm structure and rural development.” In: D. E. Brewster, W. D. Rasmussen & G. Youngsberg eds.Farms in Transition. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1983. Pgs. 103–124.
De Janvry, A., “Social structure and biased technical change in Argentine agriculture.” In: H. P. Binswanger & V. W. Ruttan eds.Induced Innovation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978, Pgs. 297–323.
De Janvry. A.,The Agrarian Question and Reformism in Latin America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981.
De Janvry A. & J. J. Dethier, “Technological innovation in agriculture. The political economy of its rate and bias.” CGIAR Study Paper no. 1. Washington D.C.: The World Bank, 1985.
De S.Silva, J. S. D. Deo, W. B. Lacy, L. M. Busch & N. Mosheni, “Agricultural biotechnology in India and Brazil. Creating new technological dependencies” Paper prepared for presentation at the meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science. Pittsburgh, October 23–26, 1986.
Doyle, J.,Altered Harvest. New York: Penguin, 1986.
Dupree, A. Hunter.Science in the Federal Government. [1957]. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986.
Gramsci, A., “Problems of marxism.” In: Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith ed. & trans.Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers, 1971. Pgs. 378–472.
Gunder, Frank A. “The development of underdevelopment.”Monthly Review. 18,4(1966): 17–31.
Hayami, Y. & V. W. Ruttan.Agricultural Development. Revised Ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.
Heilbroner, R. L.,Marxism, For and Against. New York: W. W. Norton, 1981.
Hessen, B., “The social and economic roots of Newton'sPrincipia.” In:Science at the Crossroads. London: Kniga, 1931. Pgs. 151–212.
Hiskes, A. L. & R. P. Hiskes,Science, Technology, and Policy Decisions. Boulder: Westview Press, 1986.
Knudson, M., “The research and development of a biological innovation: the case of hybrid wheat.” University of Minnesota Strategic Management Research Center. Discussion Paper no. 56 (1986).
Koppel, B. & E. Oasa, “Induced innovation theory and Asia's Green Revolution: A case study of an ideology of neutrality.”Development and Change. 18(1987): 29–67.
Latour, B. “Le centre et la périphérie: à propos du transfert des technologies.”Prospective Et Santé. 24(1982): 37–45.
Lee, J. E., “Some consequences of the new reality in U.S. agriculture.” In: D. E. Brewster, W. D. Rasmussen & G. Youngsberg eds.Farms in Transition. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1983, Pgs. 3–22.
Lipton, M. & R. Longhurst, “Modern varieties, international agricultural research, and the poor.” CGIAR Study Paper no. 2. Washington D.C.: The World Bank, 1985.
Lewontin, R. C. & J. P. Berian, “Technology, research, and the penetration of capital: the case of US agriculture.”Monthly Review. 38,3(1986): 21–34.
Mann, S. A. & J. M. Dickinson, “Obstacles to the development of a capitalist agriculture.”Journal of Peasant Studies. 5(1978): 466–481.
Mac Kenzie, D., “Marx and the machine.”Technology and Culture. 25(1984): 473–502.
Paul, D. B. & B. A. Kimmelman, “Mendel in America: Theory and practice, 1900–1919.” In: K. Benson, J. Maienschein, & R. Rainger eds.The American Development of Biology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988(?)
Richards, A.,Development and Modes of Production in Marxian Economics: A Critical Evaluation. Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1986.
Roemer, J. E., “Methodological individualism and deductive marxism.”Theory and Society. 11,4(1982): 513–520.
Ruttan, V. W., “Lectures on technical and institutional change in agricultural development.” Lectures in Development Economics no. 6, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad, 1987.
Schuh, G. E., “The political economy of rural development in Latin America: Comment.” In: C. K. Eicher & J. M. Staatz eds.Agricultural Development in the Third World. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984. Pgs. 96–109.
Schmitt, G., “Toward a theory of induced institutional innovation?”Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture. 26(1987): 131–144.
Science, (1984): 1368–1369.
--, (1987): 1221.
Supple, B. “The State and the Industrial Revolution.” In: C. M. Cipolla ed.The Fontana Economic History of Europe: The Industrial Revolution. Glasgow: Collins, 1973. Pgs. 301–357.
Thirtle, C. G. & V. W. Ruttan,The Role of Demand and Supply in the Generation and Diffusion of Technical Change. Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1987.
Vergopoulos, K., “Capitalism and peasant productivity.”Journal of Peasant Studies. 5(1978): 446–465.
Wallerstein, I.The Modern World System, Vol. 1 New York: Academic Press, 1974.
Weber, A., “Review with reflections and remarks on Hayami-Ruttan'sAgricultural Development.” University of Minnesota Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. Staff Papers Series P86-43 (1986).
Wise, G., “Science and technology.” OSIRIS, 2nd ser., 1(1985): 229–246.
Additional information
Paolo Palladino is a graduate student in the History of Science and Technology Program, at the University of Minnesota. His dissertation is concerned with the conceptual development of Integrated Pest Management during the 1960s and early 1970s, and its relations to contemporary developments in ecology. He is studying these relations within the context of the "environmental crisis", which, he argues, has had a profound impact on the intellectual, social and institutional interactions between economic entomologists and ecologists. He thereby hopes to shed some light on the interactions between basic and applied science, and on the effect of social and institutional factors on these interactions.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Palladino, P. Science for whom? Agricultural development and the theory of induced innovation. Agric Hum Values 4, 53–64 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01530642
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01530642