Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 4, Issue 2–3, pp 53–64 | Cite as

Science for whom? Agricultural development and the theory of induced innovation

  • Paolo Palladino


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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baracca, A. S. Ruffo, A. Russo.Scienza e Industria, 1848–1915. Rome: Editori Laterza, 1979.Google Scholar
  2. Berlan, J. P. & R. C. Lewontin, “The political economy of hybrid corn.”Monthly Review. 38, 3(1986): 35–47.Google Scholar
  3. Bernal, J. D.,The Social Function of Science, [1939]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1967.Google Scholar
  4. Booth, D., “Marxism and development sociology: Interpreting the impasse.”World Development. 13(1985): 761–787.Google Scholar
  5. Brenner, R., “The origins of capitalist development: A critique of neo-smithian marxism.”New Left Review. 104(1977): 25–92.Google Scholar
  6. Bukharin, N. “Theory and practice from the standpoint of dialectical materialism.” In:Science at the Crossroads. London: Kniga, 1931. Pgs. 11–33.Google Scholar
  7. Burmeister, L. L., “The South Korean Green Revolution: Induced or directed innovation?”Economic Development and Cultural Change. 35,4(1987): 768–790.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. De Janvry. A.,The Agrarian Question and Reformism in Latin America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Doyle, J.,Altered Harvest. New York: Penguin, 1986.Google Scholar
  14. Dupree, A. Hunter.Science in the Federal Government. [1957]. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Gunder, Frank A. “The development of underdevelopment.”Monthly Review. 18,4(1966): 17–31.Google Scholar
  17. Hayami, Y. & V. W. Ruttan.Agricultural Development. Revised Ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  18. Heilbroner, R. L.,Marxism, For and Against. New York: W. W. Norton, 1981.Google Scholar
  19. Hessen, B., “The social and economic roots of Newton'sPrincipia.” In:Science at the Crossroads. London: Kniga, 1931. Pgs. 151–212.Google Scholar
  20. Hiskes, A. L. & R. P. Hiskes,Science, Technology, and Policy Decisions. Boulder: Westview Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  21. 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).Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Latour, B. “Le centre et la périphérie: à propos du transfert des technologies.”Prospective Et Santé. 24(1982): 37–45.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Lipton, M. & R. Longhurst, “Modern varieties, international agricultural research, and the poor.” CGIAR Study Paper no. 2. Washington D.C.: The World Bank, 1985.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. Mann, S. A. & J. M. Dickinson, “Obstacles to the development of a capitalist agriculture.”Journal of Peasant Studies. 5(1978): 466–481.Google Scholar
  28. Mac Kenzie, D., “Marx and the machine.”Technology and Culture. 25(1984): 473–502.Google Scholar
  29. 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(?)Google Scholar
  30. Richards, A.,Development and Modes of Production in Marxian Economics: A Critical Evaluation. Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1986.Google Scholar
  31. Roemer, J. E., “Methodological individualism and deductive marxism.”Theory and Society. 11,4(1982): 513–520.Google Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. Schmitt, G., “Toward a theory of induced institutional innovation?”Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture. 26(1987): 131–144.Google Scholar
  35. Science, (1984): 1368–1369.Google Scholar
  36. --, (1987): 1221.Google Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. Vergopoulos, K., “Capitalism and peasant productivity.”Journal of Peasant Studies. 5(1978): 446–465.Google Scholar
  40. Wallerstein, I.The Modern World System, Vol. 1 New York: Academic Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  41. 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).Google Scholar
  42. Wise, G., “Science and technology.” OSIRIS, 2nd ser., 1(1985): 229–246.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Palladino

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations