Seeds of Discontent: An Independent Study

Final Report: Seeds of Discontent

Introduction

This independent study, Seeds of Discontent: Farmer Protests and Global Stirrings sought to explore the roots of the global agrarian crisis, focusing on the intersection of history, economics, and sustainability. The investigation began with an analysis of the legacy of the Green Revolution of the 1960s and the 1980s wave of neoliberal reforms before addressing economic growth reports and literature, specifically focusing on India as a case study. By examining the problem of farmer protest from different vantage points with different priorities, the study aimed to mesh the political imperatives of policymakers and constituents with the cultural and financial interests of farm communities, factoring in climate concerns and economic growth models. The key tension is not just between modernization and tradition,  but between economic efficiency and progressive wealth transfer, globalization and local autonomy, and food security and sustainable agriculture.

Key Findings

Historical Arm

The Green Revolution & Its Criticisms

The Green Revolution transformed agricultural productivity in the developed and developing world in the mid-20th century, introducing mechanized agriculture, high-yield crop varieties, chemical fertilizers, and irrigation infrastructure. The Revolution paved the way for surpluses—in short, it stocked shelves and filled fridges. It arrested large-scale famines in India for example, and contributed to alleviating chronic hunger worldwide. As far as global food security, the Green Revolution was a hit. However, in recent decades research has highlighted the ecological consequences that accompanied the changes, related to soil depletion, groundwater contamination, and the loss of indigenous crops and other sorts of biodiversity—Smrita Narula’s concept of “ecological violence” in Confronting State Violence: Lessons fr onting State Violence: Lessons from India om India's Farmer Pr armer Protests. With water pollution and pesticide residues running rampant, scholars have welcomed the Revolution’s economic implications while decrying its climate-insensitive ramifications.

Neoliberal Reforms & Their Criticisms

The 1980s saw the rise of neoliberal policies emphasizing market liberalization, reduced state intervention, and global trade integration. These reforms often dismantled protective mechanisms like subsidies and price supports, exposing farmers to volatile global markets. While proponents, including the IMF, have praised these reforms for spurring economic growth, others have highlighted their role in intensifying rural poverty—at least in comparative terms—and contributing to a regressive wealth transfer. As the old saying goes:

For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. (Matthews 25:29)

Marc Edelman’s discussion of such reforms is indicative of the general criticism directed at them. In his 2024 book, Peasant Politics of the 21st Century, he chronicles the history of agrarian discontent, offering a compelling analysis of the late 20th century’s market dynamics to build the case against neoliberal policies. By highlighting the impact of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the 1970s energy crisis, and the Latin American debt crisis on production costs and commodity prices, Edelman insists that we choose to play dice with farmers’ livelihoods and our food security, to the detriment of all involved.

Economic Arm

Perspectives on Trade Liberalization

The 2001 IMF memo Global Trade Liberalization and the Developing Countries frames liberalizing reforms as essential to poverty reduction and economic growth in the Global South. Eliminating trade barriers, inviting competition, and integrating developing economies into global markets has facilitated large-scale development and improved living standards. The memo contends that more aggressive liberalizing reforms can even address concerns regarding unequal distribution of economic growth.

In his 2007 paper, The Role of Trade Liberalization in Economic Growth Theories, Evidence, and Challenges, H.N. Syal builds on the IMF’s basic framework while introducing some critical nuance. While acknowledging the potential of trade liberalization to stimulate economic growth, he emphasizes the need for strong institutional frameworks and domestic reforms to avoid uneven application, particularly in rural economies. He highlights the lack of empirical evidence to suggest universal benefits of liberalization, insisting that complementary domestic policies—such as infrastructure investment and social safety nets—will appropriately shield vulnerable populations from market volatility. Syal seeks to bridge the gap between the theoretical promises of trade liberalization and its applied real-world challenges but without specific analysis of any particular policies to balance growth and equitable development.

Case Studies in India & China

With the above papers mostly dealing with high-level debates of economic theory, the need to examine applied, real-world examples was certainly felt. India provides a compelling case study of the complexities of neoliberal reforms. The rise of farmer protests across the country—most notably in 2021—highlights the disconnect between recent policies and rural sentiments. These demonstrations, constituting the largest mass protest in human history, were aimed at three farm laws that sought to reform markets, contract farming, and stockpiles. The laws provoked widespread protests, particularly among Sikh and Punjabi farmers, who feared the destruction of price supports and other protections for farmers and viewed the policies as an endorsement of corporate exploitation. The protests highlighted deeper systemic issues—from stagnant rural incomes to the cultural significance of farming in rural India. Further, the liberalizing reforms followed a period of intensified distress in farm communities, with the incurrence of crushing cycles of debt and a related rise in suicide rates. Scholars and activists like Narula have characterized government practices as comprising a policy of “state violence,” framing the laws within a broader context of ecological and economic marginalization. Farmers’ demands—after the protest’s success in rolling back the three farm laws—centered around bolstering minimum support prices. Scholars have also advocated for introducing crop disaster assistance packages—accounting for a rise in the variability of environmental conditions due to climate change—as well as direct income-support programs. These calls were empowered by the repeal of the laws, which evidenced the potential of collective action to challenge top-down reforms and advocate for policies that prioritize farmers’ livelihoods over big corporations’ profit margins.

However, Nin-Pratt, Yu, & Fan’s 2009 study, Comparisons of Agricultural Productivity Growth in China and India, responds in many ways to the heightened calls for the reinstatement of protections for farmers. A very different case study, it evaluates total factor productivity (TFP) growth since both countries pursued economic liberalization in the late 20th century. TFP is a metric that evaluates the relationship between the total agricultural inputs relative to an amalgamation of all outputs. The study ultimately concludes that China is 7x more efficient than India in terms of agricultural output. This disparity is chalked up to a few key reasons: first, China liberalized in 1979, 12 years before India; second, China pushed out a brand-new set of incentives for farmers with the land-privatization reforms; and third, China invested heavily in infrastructure—irrigation systems, rural roads, and electrification. Perhaps most importantly, China’s industrial transformation absorbed surplus labor from agriculture, creating the perfect conditions for capital investment and technical innovation. Finally, and perhaps most consequently for Indian farmers, China tore down institutional guardrails like subsidies, MSP, and public-procurement that discourage policies that discourage investment, innovation, and efficiency measures. The study demonstrates the transformative potential of market-oriented reforms in China. India’s comparatively cautious, piecemeal approach suggests that gradualism may allow protective measures to stifle innovation and competition.

Taken together, these perspectives highlight a critical tension in global agricultural policy: the balancing act between liberalization’s efficiency gains and the economic stability of rural communities. The IMF’s theoretical framework, Syal’s domestic-reform-oriented critique, Indian farmers’ demonstrations, and the TFP study’s empirical insights collectively make the case for a blended approach that accounts for local circumstances. This approach would have to combine neoliberal policies with targeted interventions to mitigate exploitation—without discouraging investment and innovation.

Outstanding Questions

1. How can agricultural policies reconcile food production targets with goals of combatting inequality and environmental irresponsibility?

2. Does the path down global trade liberalization lead somewhere other than industrial-scale agriculture and the erosion of rural livelihoods?

3. Can grassroots movements effectively lobby for reform without the significant financial backing that corporations and big agriculture wield?

4. Will climate-friendly policies always favor big companies over small farmers?

5. What is the role of the academy in studying and combating agrarian discontent and threats to the global food system?

Oversights of the Study

1. Due to time constraints, the study investigated the impact of climate concerns on agriculture policy in a very limited way.

2. The study was also limited in geographical scope—failing to do justice to the experience of farmers elsewhere in the global south on the African and South American continents.

3. The study did not adequately consider legal and regulatory frameworks in EU countries and their roles in shaping present distress.

Conclusion

800 million people suffer from chronic hunger. 3 billion can’t afford a healthy diet. Yet 2.5 billion are overweight, and ⅓ of all food is wasted. By investigating the cost of agricultural innovation, competing perspectives on neoliberalism, geopolitical implications on global supply chains, climate concerns, and the political imperatives of policymakers and constituents, Seeds of Discontent highlighted the intricate dynamics of the global agrarian crisis. The study is situated within the rise of “critical agrarian studies,”—also known as “peasant studies”—an emergent academic subfield in the 21st century. Moving forward, a nuanced approach that prioritizes equitable development, environmental accountability, and economic productivity will be essential to ensure the future of the global food system.