# **2. Green Revolutions as a path out of rural poverty**

There are several potential pathways out of poverty for rural households, although none is easy. Family members from poor households often leave rural areas, migrating to cities or to other countries to earn incomes outside of agriculture. Still studies suggest that potential migrants are often hampered by mismatched skills and anchored by illiquid land assets and place-specific social capital that provides informal protection against a variety of otherwise uninsurable risks (Larson, Anderson and Varangis, 2004). Additionally, the benefits of moving from agriculture decline with age. Consequently, the window for sectoral migration is brief and constrained. As a result, the pace of structural transformation is exceedingly slow and takes generations to achieve (Larson and Mundlak 1997; Gardner, 2000; Butzer, Mundlak and Larson 2003). In many African countries, it is a process that is far from complete. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAOSTAT, 2015), Sub-Saharan Africa’s population is expected to remain primarily rural through 2033 and the absolute number of people living in rural areas will continue to climb through 2050.

Rural nonfarm income activities offer another path out of poverty and can be key to achieving food security (Otsuka and Yamano, 2006; Dethier and Effenberger, 2012). However, agriculture is often the engine that drives local non-farm income opportunities, and when it does not, proximity to urban areas is key (Dorosh and Thurlow, 2014). Conversely, a large number of remote farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa have no access to nonfarm income at all (Frelat et al., 2015). In addition, there is evidence that better off farmers also have better nonfarm opportunities, which weakens the links between nonfarm income gains and poverty reduction (Bezu, Barrett and Holden 2012; Haggblade, Hazell and Reardon 2010; Djurfeldt and Djurfeldt 2013).

In contrast, technological transformations in agriculture can occur in a single generation. During Asia’s Green Revolution, new seeds and new farming practices spread quickly, especially among rice and wheat farmers (David and Otsuka, 1994; Evenson and Gollin, 2003a). As a result, rural incomes grew directly from on-farm productivity gains. Businesses catering to agriculture and farming households benefited as well, spurring growth in nonfarm employment. Rural families were able to invest in the health and education of their children, helping them to prepare for jobs in other sectors. In short, Asia’s Green Revolution transformed rural economies and engendered a type of economic growth that benefited the poor (Rosegrant and Hazell, 2000; Hayami and Kikuchi, 2000; Hazell, 2009).

Furthermore, the dynamics of Asia’s success are relevant globally. A wide-range of cross-country and country studies suggest that productivity gains in agriculture is a powerful catalyst for poverty reduction and economic growth (Irz, Lin, Thirtle, Lin, and Wiggins, 2001; Anríquez and López, 2007; BravoOrtega and Lederman, 2009; de Janvry and Sadoulet, 2010; Diao, Hazell, and Thurlow, 2010; Christiaensen, Demery and Kuhl, 2011). Conversely, past efforts to promote other sectors at the expense of agriculture slowed growth and lowered incomes instead (Mundlak, Cavallo and Domenech, 1989; Coeyman and Mundlak, 1992; Bautista and Valdés, 1993). It is worth pointing out that the results are consistent across a wide range of farm structures that include the small farms of Africa and Asia.

3