Twenty percent of the world population, or 1.2 billion live on less than $1 per day; 70% of these are rural and 90% in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Research led technological change in agriculture generates sufficient productivity growth to give high rates of return in Africa and Asia and has a substantial impact on poverty, currently reducing this number by 27 million per annum, whereas productivity growth in industry and services has no impact. The per capita "cost" of poverty

Applying programming techniques to detailed data for 406 rice farms in 21 villages, for 1997, produces inefficiency measures, which differ substantially from the results of simple yield and unit cost measures. For the Boro (dry) season, mean technical efficiency was 69.4 per cent, allocative efficiency was 81.3 per cent, cost efficiency was 56.2 per cent and scale efficiency 94.9 per cent. The Aman (wet) season results are similar, but a few points lower. Allocative inefficiency is due to overuse of labour, suggesting population pressure, and of fertiliser, where recommended rates may warrant revision. Second-stage regressions show that large families are more inefficient, whereas farmers with better access to input markets, and those who do less off-farm work, tend to be more efficient. The information on the sources of inter-farm performance differentials could be used by the extension agents to help inefficient farmers. There is little excuse for such sub-optimal use of survey data, which are often collected at substantial costs.

How important is agricultural growth to poverty reduction? This article first sets out the theoretical reasons for expecting agricultural growth to reduce poverty. Several plausible and strong arguments apply -including the creation of jobs on the land, linkages from farming to the rest of the rural economy, and a decline in the real cost of food for the whole economy -but the degree of impact is in all cases qualified by particular circumstances. Hence, the article deploys a cross-country estimation of the links between agricultural yield per unit area and measures of poverty. This produces strong confirmation of the hypothesised linkages. It is unlikely that there are many other development interventions capable of reducing the numbers in poverty so effectively.How important is agricultural growth to alleviating poverty in a world in which farming's share of total output is in decline?We can assess the impact of agricultural growth on poverty in general and rural poverty in particular, in two ways. One draws on theory, building plausible arguments about how changes in agricultural production may affect the numbers of poor and the depth of their poverty. The other takes an empirical approach, by observing directly changes in agricultural productivity and poverty, and then estimating the degree to which they are related. This article deploys both approaches.

The historical background shows that the price spike was much less severe than in the 1970s. The conventional wisdom that prices of the main food commodities were falling prior to 2006 is questioned. Most ceased falling and were quite stable from the 1980s. The paper separates the causes of the spike from the underlying changes driving the long run trends. The literature on the causes of the spike is critically reviewed and summarised. There is a reasonably broad consensus on most of the causes, but much less on the impact of the depreciation of the US Dollar. There are also concluding speculations on the future.