The new World Bank programme for the self‐liquidation of the third world peasantry

Life expectancy in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union

“…The first concerns the destabilising financial effects of open capital accounts, exchange rate appreciation and the need to preserve international competitiveness and external equilibrium (Ocampo, 2016[122]). The second relates to a more sophisticated understanding of the micro-dynamics of technical change, in which Fernando Fajnzyler (1983 [123]) played a leading role.…”

A Critic Unfettered: The Legacy of Ernest Feder

“…The quintessential paper in this vein was ‘McNamara's Little Green Revolution: World Bank Scheme for Self‐Liquidation of Third World Peasantry’, (Feder 1976b), one of the significant outcomes of his time at the ISS, which explicitly addressed the question of why the World Bank, under the leadership of ‘one of the foremost spokesmen of big business and banking, former US secretary of defense during the escalation of the Vietnam War’ (Feder, n.d.: 2), was proposing a ‘small green revolution’ that, to the extent that it benefitted any smallholders, would in Ernest's view just make them ‘attractive real estate to be acquired or usurped by the large landowners’ (Feder, 1976a: 352). This challenging, counter‐intuitive article would appear in various forms, most notably in the Journal of Peasant Studies (Feder, 1976a) and in Economic and Political Weekly (Feder, 1976b), with slightly different titles, but all would affirm his view — and the significance he attached to it — that the ongoing marginalization of subsistence cultivators as a result of the Green Revolution was not an unintended consequence of an essentially benevolent development strategy on the part of the Bank and its collaborators. At a stroke, Feder's message changed the nature of the growing critique of market‐led agricultural modernization in a way that is equally compelling today (cf.…”

“…: 2), was proposing a 'small green revolution' that, to the extent that it benefitted any smallholders, would in Ernest's view just make them 'attractive real estate to be acquired or usurped by the large landowners' (Feder, 1976a: 352). This challenging, counter-intuitive article would appear in various forms, most notably in the Journal of Peasant Studies (Feder, 1976a) and in Economic and Political Weekly (Feder, 1976b), with slightly different titles, but all would affirm his view -and the significance he attached to it -that the ongoing marginalization of subsistence cultivators as a result of the Green Revolution was not an unintended consequence of an essentially benevolent development strategy on the part of the Bank and its collaborators. At a stroke, Feder's message changed the nature of the growing critique of market-led agricultural modernization in a way that is equally compelling today (cf.…”

The Anthropology of the Malay Peasantry: Critical Reflections on Colonial and Indigenous Scholarship<SUP>1</SUP>

“…Despite the 'relative autonomy' of the postcolonial state (Alavi, 1972), it still mediates the penetration of capital albeit in new forms (such as through rural development programmes like the Green Revolution). Th ough the state is no longer the instrument of solely foreign capital, as in the colonial phase, capital is still capital whether it takes the form of 'state capitalism', comprador or foreign capital (see Cleaver, 1972;Feder, 1979).…”