Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Why agronomy in the developing world has become contentious

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we argue that over the last 40 years the context of agronomic research in the developing world has changed significantly. Three main changes are identified: the neoliberal turn in economic and social policy and the rise to prominence of the participation and environmental agendas. These changes have opened up new spaces for contestation around the goals, priorities, methods, results and recommendations of agronomic research. We suggest that this dynamic of contestation is having important effects on how agronomic research is planned, managed, implemented, evaluated and used, and is therefore worthy of detailed study. This is particularly so at a time when food security, rising food prices and the potential impacts of climate change on agriculture are in the policy spotlight. We outline a research agenda that should help illuminate the drivers, dynamics and impacts of this new ‘political agronomy’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akram-Lodhi, A.H. 2007. Land reform, rural social relations and the peasantry. Journal of Agrarian Change 7: 554–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almekinders, C.J.M., and A. Elings. 2001. Collaboration of farmers and breeders: Participatory crop improvement in perspective. Euphytica 122: 425–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M.A. 2002. Agroecology: The science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 93: 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J.R. 1998. Selected policy issues in international agricultural research: On striving for international public goods in an era of donor fatigue. World Development 26: 1149–1162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, J., and K.E. Giller. 2012. On heretics and God’s blanket salesmen: contested claims for Conservation Agriculture and the politics of its promotion in African smallholder farming. In Contested Agronomy: Agricultural Research in a Changing World, ed. James Sumberg, and John Thompson. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, J.A., A.R. Braun, T. Gracia, M.P. Guerrero, L.A. Hernandez, C.A. Quiros, and J.A. Roa. 2000. Investing in Farmers as Researchers: Experiences with Local Agricultural Research Committees in Latin America. Cali: CIAT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardwell, L.V. 1991. Problem-framing: A perspective on environmental problem-solving. Environmental Management 15: 603–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, R.H. 1981. Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, E. 1981. Accelerated Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Agenda for Action. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, S.D. 1995. Farming systems research and rural poverty: Relationships between context and content. Agricultural Systems 47: 161–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijman, J. 2001. Restructuring the life science companies. Biotechnology and Development Monitor 44–45: 26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonneuil, C. 2000. Development as experiment: Science and state building in late colonial and postcolonial Africa, 1930–1970. Osiris 15: 258–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, S., and S.E. Johnson-Beebout. 2012. Contestation as continuity? Biofortification research and the CGIAR. In Contested Agronomy: Agricultural Research in a Changing World, ed. James Sumberg, and John Thompson. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L. 1981. Science and agricultural development. In Science and Agricultural Development. Totowa, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F.H. 2005. Ever since Hightower: The politics of agricultural research activism in the molecular age. Agriculture and Human Values 22: 275–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F.H., and L. Busch. 1988. The public agricultural research system at the crossroads. Agricultural History 62: 303–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byerlee, D. 1998. The search for a new paradigm for the development of national agricultural research systems. World Development 26: 1049–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byerlee, D., and G.E. Alex. 1998. Strengthening National Agricultural Research Systems: Policy Issues and Good Practice. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • CGIAR. 2003. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Annual General Meeting and Stakeholder Meeting, October 29–30 (2003, Nairobi, Kenya: Summary Record of Proceedings Washington,. DC: Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • CGIAR. 2006. A Strategic Framework for Engagement Between the CGIAR and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)—The CGIAR Perspective.. Washington, DC: Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Secretariat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. 1993. Challenging the Professions: Frontiers for Rural Development. London: IT Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. 1986. Normal Professionalism, New Paradigms and Development. Brighton: IDS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. 1997. Whose Reality Counts: Putting the Last First. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R., and B.P. Ghildyal. 1985. Agricultural-research for resource-poor farmers: The farmer-first-and-last model. Agricultural Administration 20: 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L.A. Thrupp (eds.). 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: IT Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chivenge, P.P., H.K. Murwira, K.E. Giller, P. Mapfumo, and J. Six. 2007. Long-term impact of reduced tillage and residue management on soil carbon stabilization: Implications for conservation agriculture on contrasting soils. Soil & Tillage Research 94: 328–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D., and J.N. Druckman. 2007. Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science 10: 103–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collinson, M.P. (ed.). 2000. A History of Farming Systems Research In A History of Farming Systems Research. Wallingford: CABI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway, G. 1985. Agroecosystem analysis. Agricultural Administration 20: 31–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K.A. 1989. The environmental era of U.S. agricultural policy. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 44: 362–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, B. 2003. A new continuity with colonial administration: Participation in development management. Third World Quarterly 24: 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, B., and U. Kothari. 2001. Participation: The new tyranny? In Participation: The New Tyranny?, ed. B. Cooke, and U. Kothari. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornwall, A. 2003. Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender and participatory development. World Development 31: 1325–1342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale, C. 1981. Agricultural research as state intervention. In Science and Agricultural Development, ed. L. Busch. Totowa, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, T.J., and R.G. Guei. 2003. Productivity gains from rice genetic enhancements in West Africa: Countries and ecologies. World Development 31: 359–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daviter, F. 2007. Policy framing in the European union. Journal of European Public Policy 14: 654–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawe, D., R. Robertson, and L. Unnevehr. 2002. Golden rice: What role could it play in alleviation of vitamin A deficiency? Food Policy 27: 541–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jager, A., D. Onduru, M.S. van Wijk, J. Vlaming, and G.N. Gachini. 2001. Assessing sustainability of low-external-input farm management systems with the nutrient monitoring approach: A case study in Kenya. Agricultural Systems 69: 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Janvry, A., and E. Sadoulet. 2010. Agriculture for development in Africa: Business-as-usual or new departures? Journal of African Economies 19: ii7–ii39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Lattre-Gasquet, M., and J.F. Merlet. 1996. Agricultural research networks in sub-Saharan Africa: An analysis of the situation and its consequences. Knowledge, Technology & Policy 9: 36–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobermann, A. 2004. A critical assessment of the system of rice intensification (SRI). Agricultural Systems 79: 261–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairhead, J., and M. Leach. 1996. Misreading the African Landscape: Society and Ecology in a Forest-Savanna Mosaic. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fairhead, J., M. Leach, and K. Amanor. 2012. Anthropogenic dark earths and Africa: A political agronomy of research disjunctures. In Contested Agronomy: Agricultural Research in a Changing World, ed. James Sumberg, and John Thompson. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, B.H. 1981. The “Green Revolution” in South Asia. Geography 66: 202–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, Shelley, and Stephen Biggs. 2012. The politics of international assessments: the IAASTD process, reception and significance. Journal of Agrarian Change 12: 144–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foresight. 2011. The future of food and farming: Challenges and choices for global sustainability. Final Project Report. The Government Office for Science: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franke, R., and B. Chasin. 1980. Seeds of Famine: Ecological Destitution and the Development Dilemma in the West African Sahel. Montclair/New York: Allanheld, Osmun/Universe Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire, P. 2007. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, B., and W. Lesser. 2003. International agricultural research as a global public good. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 692–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GFAR. 2011. The GCARD Road Map: Transforming Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) Systems for Global Impact. Rome: GFAR/FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giller, K.E., M. Corbeels, J. Nyamangara, B. Triomphe, F. Affholder, E. Scopel, and P. Tittonell. 2011. A research agenda to explore the role of conservation agriculture in African smallholder farming systems. Field Crops Research 124: 468–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giller, K.E., E. Witter, M. Corbeels, and P. Tittonell. 2009. Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics’ view. Field Crops Research 114: 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glover, D. 2010. The corporate shaping of GM crops as a technology for the poor. Journal of Peasant Studies 37: 67–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberger, J.R. 2008. Non-governmental organizations, strategic bridge building, and the “scientization” of organic agriculture in Kenya. Agriculture and Human Values 25: 271–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govaerts, B., N. Verhulst, A. Castellanos-Navarrete, K.D. Sayre, J. Dixon, and L. Dendooven. 2009. Conservation agriculture and soil carbon sequestration: Between myth and farmer reality. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 28: 97–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gow, D., and J. Vansant. 1983. Beyond the rhetoric of rural development participation: How can it be done? World Development 11: 427–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gowing, J.W., and M. Palmer. 2008. Sustainable agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa: The case for a paradigm shift in land husbandry. Soil Use and Management 24: 92–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenland, D.J., E.T. Craswell, and M. Dagg. 1987. International networks and their potential contribution to crop and soil management research. Outlook on Agriculture 16: 42–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadwiger, D.F. 1982. The Politics of Agricultural Research. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A., G. Bockett, S. Taylor, M.V.K. Sivamohan, and N. Clark. 2001. Why research partnerships really matter: innovation theory, institutional arrangements and implications for developing new technology for the poor. World Development 29: 783–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harwood, R.R., F. Place, A.H. Kassam, and H.M. Gregersen. 2006. International public goods through integrated natural resources management research in CGIAR partnerships. Experimental Agriculture 42: 375–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haverkort, B., J. van der Kamp, and A. Waters-Bayer. 1991. Joining Farmers’ Experiments: Experiences in Participatory Technology Development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, P.R. 2007. Conservation agriculture: What is it and why is it important for future sustainable food production? Journal of Agricultural Science 145: 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, P.R., K. Sayre, and R. Gupta. 2008. The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 363: 543–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, Kees, and Aarti Gupta. 2009. Anticipating the future: `Biotechnology for the poor’ as unrealized promise? Futures 41: 436–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jayne, T.S., J. Govereh, A. Mwanaumo, J.K. Nyoro, and A. Chapoto. 2002. False promise or false premise? The experience of food and input market reform in Eastern and Southern Africa. World Development 30: 1967–1985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenrich, M. 2011. Potential of precision conservation agriculture as a means of increasing productivity and incomes for smallholder farmers. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 66: 171A–174A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassam, A., T. Friedrich, F. Shaxson, and J. Pretty. 2009. The spread of conservation agriculture: Justification, sustainability and uptake. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7: 292–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, J., and I. Scoones. 2003. Understanding Environmental Policy Processes: Cases from Africa. Earthscan: London & Sterling VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lal, R. 2009. Sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 28: 90–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latif, M.A., M.R. Islam, M.Y. Ali, and M.A. Saeque. 2005. Validation of the system of rice intensification (SRI) in Bangladesh. Field Crops Research 93: 281–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, M., I. Scoones, and I. Stirling. 2010. Dynamic Sustainabilities: Technology, Environment, Social Justice. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leal, PabloAlejandro. 2007. Participation: the ascendancy of a buzzword in the neo-liberal era. Development in Practice 17: 539–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lele, U., and C. Gerrard. 2003. Global public goods, global programs, and global policies: Some initial findings from a World Bank evaluation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 686–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loevinsohn, M.E. 1987. Insecticide use and increased mortality in rural Central Luzan, Philippines. Lancet 8546: 1359–1362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Low, A.R.C. 1994. Environmental and economic dilemmas for farm-households in Africa: When low-input sustainable agriculture translates to high-cost unsustainable livelihoods. Environmental Conservation 21: 220–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maat, H., and D. Glover. 2012. Alternative configurations of agronomic experimentation. In Contested Agronomy: Agricultural Research in a Changing World, ed. James Sumberg, and John Thompson. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maredia, M.K., D. Byerlee, and P. Pee. 2000. Impacts of food crop improvement research: Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy 25: 531–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maredia, M.K., and D.A. Raitzer. 2010. Estimating overall returns to international agricultural research in Africa through benefit-cost analysis: A “best-evidence” approach. Agricultural Economics 41: 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marongwe, L.S., K. Kwazira, M. Jenrich, C. Thierfelder, A. Kassam, and T. Friedrich. 2011. An African success: The case of conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9: 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, A.J., P.R. Hobbs, and S.J. Riha. 2006. Does the system of rice intensification outperform conventional best management? A synopsis of the empirical record. Field Crops Research 96: 31–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, A.J., P.R. Hobbs, and S.J. Riha. 2008. Stubborn facts: Still no evidence that the system of rice intensification out-yields best management practices (BMPs) beyond Madagascar. Field Crops Research 108: 188–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, ShawnJ. 2008. Path-dependency in plant breeding: Challenges facing participatory reforms in the Ethiopian Sorghum Improvement Program. Agricultural Systems 96: 139–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, B.D., H.R. Herren, J. Wakhungu, and R.T. Watson. 2009. Agriculture at a Crossroads: IAASTD Global Report. In Agriculture at a Crossroads: IAASTD Global Report. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. 2008. Peasants make their own history, but not just as they please. Journal of Agrarian Change 8: 205–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moock, J. (ed.). 1986. Understanding Africa’s Rural Households and Farming Systems. In Understanding Africa’s Rural Households and Farming Systems. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, C.M., and C.B. Barrett. 2003. The disappointing adoption dynamics of a yield-increasing, low external-input technology: The case of SRI in Madagascar. Agricultural Systems 76: 1085–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naseem, A., D.J. Spielman, and S.W. Omamo. 2010. Private-sector investment in R&D: A review of policy options to promote its growth in developing-country agriculture. Agribusiness 26: 143–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nkala, P., N. Mango, M. Corbeels, G.J. Veldwisch, and J. Huising. 2011. The conundrum of conservation agriculture and livelihoods in Southern Africa. African Journal of Agricultural Research 6: 5520–5528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okali, C., J. Sumberg, and J. Farrington. 1994. Farmer Participatory Research: Rhetoric and Reality. London: IT Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, A. 2003. Integrated pest management for resource-poor African farmers: Is the Emperor naked? World Development 31: 831–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, A., and J.M. Ritchie. 2004. Learning from failure: Smallholder farming systems and IPM in Malawi. Agricultural Systems 79: 31–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, S., J. Sumberg, O. Erenstein, and A. Oswald. 2008. Funding international agricultural research and the need to be noticed: A case study of NERICA rice. Outlook on Agriculture 37: 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owenya, M.Z., W.L. Mariki, J. Kienzle, T. Friedrich, and A. Kassam. 2011. Conservation agriculture (CA) in Tanzania: The case of the Mwangaza B CA farmer field school (FFS), Rhotia Village, Karatu District, Arusha. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9: 145–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, R. 2009. Food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 36: 663–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearse, A. 1980. Seeds of Plenty, Seeds of Want: Social and Economic Implications of the Green Revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez, C., C. Roncoli, C. Neely, and J.L. Steiner. 2007. Can carbon sequestration markets benefit low-income producers in semi-arid Africa? Potentials and challenges. Agricultural Systems 94: 2–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, WolfgangH, and Bonnie McClafferty. 2007. HarvestPlus: Breeding crops for better nutrition. Crop Science 47: S88–S105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piepho, H.P. 1998. Methods for comparing the yield stability of cropping systems—A review. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 180: 193–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D., and M. Pimentel. 1990. Comment: Adverse environmental consequences of the Green Revolution. Population and Development Review 16: 329–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pingali, P., and M. Rosengrant. 1994. Confronting the Environmental Consequences of the Green Revolution in Asia. EPTD Discussion Paper No 2. Washington, DC: IFPRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pistorius, R. 1997. Scientists, Plants and Politics: A History of the Plant Genetic Resources Movement. Rome: International Plant Genetics Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plucknett, D.L., and N.J.H. Smith. 1984. Networking in international agricultural research. Science 225: 989–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raitzer, D.A., and T.G. Kelley. 2008. Benefit-cost meta-analysis of investment in the International Agricultural Research Centers of the CGIAR. Agricultural Systems 96: 108–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raitzer, D., and G.W. Norton. 2009. Prioritizing Agricultural Research for Development: Experiences and Lessons. Wallingford: CABI.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reij, C., and A. Waters-Bayer (eds.). 2001. Farmer Innovation in Africa: A Source of Inspiration for Agricultural Development. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reijntes, C., B. Haverkort, and A. Waters-Bayer. 1992. Farming for the Future. An Introduction to Low-External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture. Leusden, NL: ILEIA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, P. 1985. Indigenous Agricultural Revolution: Ecology and Food Production in West Africa. London: Hutchinson & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roe, E.M. 1991. Development narratives, or making the best of blueprint development. World Development 19: 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruttan, V. 1982. Agricultural Research Policy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandbrook, R. 1985. The Politics of Africa’s Economic Stagnation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Satyanarayana, A., T.M. Thiyagarajan, and N. Uphoff. 2007. Opportunities for water saving with higher yield from the system of rice intensification. Irrigation Science 25: 99–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scoones, I. 2009. The politics of global assessments: The case of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Journal of Peasant Studies 36: 547–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scoones, I., and J. Thompson (eds.). 1994. Beyond Farmer First: Rural people’s knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice. London: Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scoones, I., and J. Thompson (eds.). 2009. Farmer First Revisited: Innovation for Agricultural Research and Development.. London: Practical Action Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senthilkumar, K., P.S. Bindraban, T.M. Thiyagarajan, N. de Ridder, and K.E. Giller. 2008. Modified rice cultivation in Tamil Nadu, India: Yield gains and farmers’ (lack of) acceptance. Agricultural Systems 98: 82–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheehy, J.E., S. Peng, A. Dobermann, P.L. Mitchell, A. Ferrer, J.C. Yang, Y.B. Zou, X.H. Zhong, and J.L. Huang. 2004. Fantastic yields in the system of rice intensification: fact or fallacy? Field Crops Research 88: 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrum, Wesley, and Patricia Campion. 2000. Are scientists in developing countries isolated? Science Technology and Society 5: 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silici, L., P. Ndabe, T. Friedrich, and A. Kassam. 2011. Harnessing sustainability, resilience and productivity through conservation agriculture: The case of likoti in Lesotho. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9: 137–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, S.K., and J. Talati. 2007. Productivity impacts of the system of rice intensification (SRI): A case study in West Bengal, India. Agricultural Water Management 87: 55–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, MichaelB. 2001. Silence, Miss Carson!” science, Gender, and the reception of “Silent Spring. Feminist Studies 27: 733–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperling, L., J.A. Ashby, M.E. Smith, E. Weltzien, and S. McGuire. 2001. A framework for analyzing participatory plant breeding approaches and results. Euphytica 122: 439–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperling, L., and P. Berkowitz. 1994. Partners in Selection: Bean Breeders and Women Bean Experts in Rwanda. Washington DC: CGIAR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spielman, D.J., F. Hartwich, and K. Grebmer. 2010. Public-private partnerships and developing-country agriculture: evidence from the international agricultural research system. Public Administration and Development 30: 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spielman, D.J., and R. Pandya-Lorch (eds.). 2009. Millions Fed: Proven Successes in Agricultural Development. Washington, DC: IFPRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoop, W.A., A. Adam, and A. Kassam. 2009. Comparing rice production systems: A challenge for agronomic research and for the dissemination of knowledge-intensive farming practices. Agricultural Water Management 96: 1491–1501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoop, W.A., and A.H. Kassam. 2005. The SRI controversy: A response. Field Crops Research 91: 357–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoop, W.A., N. Uphoff, and A. Kassam. 2002. A review of agricultural research issues raised by the system of rice intensification (SRI) from Madagascar: opportunities for improving farming systems for resource-poor farmers. Agricultural Systems 71: 249–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streeten, P. 1987. Structural adjustment: A survey of the issues and options. World Development 15: 1469–1482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumberg, J. 2002. The logic of fodder legumes in Africa. Food Policy 27: 285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumberg, J. 1998. Mixed farming in Africa: The search for order, the search for sustainability. Land Use Policy 15: 293–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumberg, J. 2005. Systems of innovation theory and the changing architecture of agricultural research in Africa. Food Policy 30: 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumberg, J., R. Irving, E. Adams, and J. Thompson. 2012a. Success making and success stories: agronomic research in the spotlight. In Contested Agronomy: Agricultural Research in a Changing World, ed. James Sumberg, and John Thompson. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumberg, J., C. Okali, and D. Reece. 2003. Agricultural research in the face of diversity, local knowledge and the participation imperative: Theoretical considerations. Agricultural Systems 76: 739–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumberg, J., J. Thompson, and P. Woodhouse. 2012b. Contested agronomy: Agricultural research in a changing world. In Contested Agronomy: Agricultural Research in a Changing World, ed. James Sumberg, and John Thompson. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tansey, G., and T. Rajotte (eds.). 2008. The Future Control of Food: A Guide to International Negotiations and Rules on Intellectual Property, Biodiversity and Food Security. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatum, L.A. 1971. The southern corn leaf blight epidemic. Science 171: 1113–1116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teubal, M. 2009. Agrarian reform and social movements in the age of globalization Latin America at the Dawn of the twenty-first century. Latin American Perspectives 36: 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The World Bank. 2007. Agriculture for Development: World Development Report 2008. Washington DC: The World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J., and I. Scoones. 1994. Challenging the populist perspective: Rural people’s knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice. Agriculture and Human Values 11: 58–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, R. 2005. Self-Sufficient Agriculture: Labour and Knowledge on Small-Scale Farming. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uphoff, N., A. Kassam, and W. Stoop. 2008. A critical assessment of a desk study comparing crop production systems: The example of the ‘system of rice intensification’ versus ‘best management practice’. Field Crops Research 108: 109–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bueren, E.T.L., P.C. Struik, and E. Jacobsen. 2002. Ecological concepts in organic farming and their consequences for an organic crop ideotype. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 50: 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Huis, A., and F. Meerman. 1997. Can we make IPM work for resource-poor farmers in sub-Saharan Africa? International Journal of Pest Management 43: 313–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanloqueren, G., and P.V. Baret. 2009. How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Research Policy 38: 971–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Kaufmann, R. 2007. Integrated agricultural research for development: Contributing to the comprehensive Africa agricultural development programme (IAR4D in CAADP). In Advances in Integrated Soil Fertility Management in sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and Opportunities, ed. A. Bationo, B. Waswa, J. Kihara, and J. Kimetu. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyland, K. 1996. Neopopulism and neoliberalism in Latin America: Unexpected affinities. Studies in Comparative International Development 31: 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wield, D.V., J. Chataway, and M. Bolo. 2010. Issues in the political economy of agricultural biotechnology. Journal of Agrarian Change 10: 342–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, J. 1993. Democracy and the Washington consensus. World Development 21: 1329–1336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolmer, W., and I. Scoones. 2000. The science of ‘civilized’ agriculture: the mixed farming discourse in Zimbabwe. African Affairs 99: 575–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, P. 2010. Beyond industrial agriculture? Some questions about farm size, productivity and sustainability. Journal of Agrarian Change 10: 437–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, P. 2012. Water in African agronomy. In Contested Agronomy: Agricultural Research in a Changing World, ed. James Sumberg, and John Thompson. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the very useful comments of three reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RE, UK

    James Sumberg & John Thompson

  2. School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Philip Woodhouse

Authors
  1. James Sumberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philip Woodhouse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Sumberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sumberg, J., Thompson, J. & Woodhouse, P. Why agronomy in the developing world has become contentious. Agric Hum Values 30, 71–83 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9376-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9376-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation