Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
outcomes. However, closer inspection of the historical precedents is not quite so in-
spiring.
First, these upheavals took place with scant regard for actually solving the prob-
lem of hunger in the non-industrial world. Mike Davis's account of the creation of
world food markets along the lines of empire (in his case, in India) clearly linked
this 'solution' to the food supply crisis in the industrial core with the simultaneous
deaths of tens of millions of peasants in the colonies (Davis, 2001). Similarly, the
post-Second World War return towards privileging domestic producers in the cause
of food security in the Developed World, and the various political projects of the Se-
cond Food Regime post-Second World War, seemed to have no positive impact on
reducing the number of starving people in the world. The ambiguous outcomes of
the green revolution and the intensification of agriculture in the Developed Coun-
tries were successful only if viewed as a mehanism to support farm incomes in the
Developed World, as well as stimulating the economic development of global ag-
ribusiness. While threats to the food security and stability of food supply in the in-
dustrial countries certainly acted as the spur to major hanges in food systems, solv-
ing world hunger was not the explicit or intended target of the resulting responses.
Second, while history demonstrates some important cases of dramatic reconfig-
uration and experimentation, the kinds of resulting models for agriculture do not
pose a useful solution for solving world hunger - even if the arhitects of these solu-
tions sometimes hoped, or rhetorically suggested, that solving world hunger was
part of the deal. The US model - particularly the export-oriented, aid-leveraged mod-
el of the Second Food Regime - has been credited with widespread destruction of
local food systems in the Developing World; the migration of hundreds of millions
of peasants to the slums of Developing World mega-cities; the creation of elite food
'export platforms' that provide new economic opportunities only for those with cap-
ital to invest (none of whom are actually hungry); and for establishing a style of
industrial agriculture that is widely blamed for creating the conditions for ongoing
ecological unsustainability of agriculture.
In contrast, the European multifunctional model atempts, at least, to address
economic, ecological and cultural dynamics of agriculture simultaneously. In this
sense, the multifunctional model provides the closest point of purhase between
idealized Developed and Developing World models of agriculture. However, it is also
extremely inward-looking and is clearly aimed at reproducing a particular European
style of agriculture. The ability of this model to operate successfully in a more inter-
