DANIEL BORNSTEIN
27
duction in light of the recent crisis, most new initiatives largely occur within the prevailing framework of the Green Revolution development paradigm. They also assume that increased funding is the sole path to confronting food insecurity, with no regard for the power imbalances pervading the global food system. Look no further than the great fanfare that greeted the World Bank’s 2008 World Development Report on agriculture (focused on the productivist model) compared with the near silence that accompanied the release of the IAASTD (which called for a fundamental transition)34. Though the 2008 food crisis lead to the growing realization of the danger of the neoliberal model and reliance on outside food markets, there seems to be an emergence of a localized form of neoliberalism that brands itself as compatible with IRRG VHOI VXIĂ€FLHQF\ 7KLV LV LQGLFDWHG E\ VWDWH LQYHVWPHQW LQ GRPHVWLF DJULFXOWXUH WKDW is oriented toward enhancing “enabling conditionsâ€? for future capital accumulation – the very function of the state envisioned by proponents of export production. “Enabling conditionsâ€? has become a buzzword in agricultural development discourse; it requires states to seek to open opportunities for the private sector. It suggests that the state’s role in development is a short-term exercise and that the private sector will XOWLPDWHO\ Ă€OO WKH YRLG 7KH SUHVHQFH RI SULYDWH LQYHVWPHQW WKHQ LV FRQVLGHUHG WR indicate the government’s effectiveness in establishing the enabling conditions; there LV QR H[DPLQDWLRQ RI ZKR KDV EHQHĂ€WHG DQG ZKR KDV EHFRPH PRUH YXOQHUDEOH $UH ZH ZLWQHVVLQJ D EOXUULQJ RI WKH GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ SXEOLF DQG SULYDWH LQYHVWPHQW" As seen in the examples below, this emphasis on enabling conditions may signal the emergence of a more localized form of neoliberalism: the targeting of smallholder farmers and the growth of public-private partnerships. Smallholder farmers Development programs, such as USAID’s Feed the Future initiative and the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, attempt to place an explicit emphasis on smallholder farmers through the dissemination of crop technologies. But there are several problems with this approach. First, many of these technologies are unaffordable for the poorest farmers, as evidenced by the uneven outcome of the Green Revolution. In addition, farmers could become more vulnerable despite higher yields if they are forced into debt by the purchase of expensive technologies. Second, the targeting of small farmers fails to take into account the wider economic context35. Given that the diffusion of innovation model favors large-scale farmers, these farmers are likely to outcompete the poorest farmers on markets, even when poorer farmers have crop technologies. Development programs that fail to confront the social structure underlying agriculture – and that continue to be guided by technology transfer – will only widen the disparities that have driven food crisis. In response to the malnutrition crisis, the Gates Foundation and AGRA are breeding “orphanâ€? crops, crops that have long been neglected. In the process, however, they are trampling upon farmers’ rights. Multinational seed companies control orphan crops, but the seeds contain traits found in locally-adapted, traditional crop varieties. Agribusiness takes copies of farmers’ local seed varieties, add new genetic traits, and then sell the seeds back to