Europe's Green Revolution and its Successors

The Rise and Fall of Peasant-Friendly Plant Breeding

Jonathan Harwood

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• eBook ISBN: 9781136307461
• Topic: Economics
• Subtopic: Agribusiness
• Index: Economics

How best to foster agricultural development in the Third World has long been a subject of debate and from a European perspective the persistent failure to design peasant-friendly technology is puzzling. From the late 19th century, for example, various western European countries also underwent 'green revolutions' in which systematic attempts were made to promote the adoption of technological innovation by peasant-farmers.

This book focuses on the development of public-sector plant-breeding in Germany from the late nineteenth century through its fate under National Socialism. Harwood uses this historical case study in order to argue that peasant-friendly research has an important role to play in future Green Revolutions.

1 The origins of peasant-friendly research in Germany

Where did European peasant-friendly plant breeding come from? More particularly, what were the circumstances which made possible the establishment of the plant-breeding stations which are central to my story? Part of the answer, as we shall see in the next chapter, is to be found in conditions specific to south Germany as a region. But the stations’ emergence was also facilitated by more far-reaching developments, both economic and political, throughout many of the German states in the late nineteenth century. And it is here that we begin.

As is well known, public-sector institutions for research and extension emerged in many western countries in the late nineteenth century and have played a significant role in the transformation of agriculture during the twentieth (e.g. Rossiter 1979; Brassley 2000). The question I address here is: what prompted states to establish them? The usual answer encountered in the literature is an economic one: that these institutions were intended to help farmers adapt to rapidly changing markets as international competition forced down prices from the 1870s. In Europe countries responded with several different strategies. One was to redirect production toward less competitive markets; another was to reorganize farmers so as to increase efficiency; and a third was to intensify production so as to reduce costs. In each case farmers were thought to need expert help, whether it was economic advice on farm management or technical advice on the best cultivation methods. And that meant that state-funded institutions providing testing, experiment and extension had an important role to play.

Occasionally, to be sure, there are hints in the literature that economic imperatives may not have been the whole story. Some historians have suggested, for example, that the reason why the British government allocated funding for agricultural research around 1900 was in order to quell farmers’ anger at the fact that, unlike France and Germany, Britain was not going to introduce protective tariffs (cf. literature cited in Palladino 1990). And in Belgium from the 1880s agricultural research and education were part of a wide-ranging programme of measures designed to secure the peasantry as a ‘bulwark’ against socialism (Van Molle 2008). More recently, as we shall see in Chapter 6, historians of the Green Revolution have shown that one of the principal aims behind the US government’s promotion of agricultural development in the global South after 1945 was the hope that it would lure the peasantry away from a ‘red revolution’. Nevertheless, systematic attempts to place the late nineteenth century emergence of research institutions within a political context are as yet few and far between.

In the case of Germany the existing historiography has been part of the problem. For as several authors have pointed out, there has been an unfortunate division of intellectual labour which separated the agricultural history of Germany from its social and political history (Dipper 1987; Farr 1986; Moeller 1986b). Into the 1980s, for example, social historians working on rural Germany during the period 1871 to 1933 tended to focus upon the political behaviour of estate owners and peasants, driven by a concern with these classes’ eventual role in the rise of National Socialism. They were not particularly interested in the social, economic or technical aspects of agriculture.¹ On the other hand, until the 1980s most historians of German agriculture have been largely concerned with the economic and technical dimensions of the eighteenth and nineteenth century agricultural transformation while paying little attention to social and political conflict, as though these were irrelevant to what was essentially an economic process (e.g. Haushofer 1963; Klein 1973; Henning 1978). And although these historians did recognize the importance of the state, their focus was almost invariably upon trade policy such as tariffs and other protectionist mechanisms. Surprisingly little attention was paid to development policy, such as supporting credit facilities, cooperatives, land reform, education or research. Over the last decade or so, however, historians have begun to call for more attention to be paid to these areas (Reif 1994; Aldenhoff-Hübinger 2002; Hanisch 2002).² And since the 1980s, to be sure, there has been a substantial shift in the historiography of German agriculture, giving long overdue attention to social history (Finlay 2001; Zimmermann 1998; Friedeburg 2004), but as Ulrich Kluge (2000) has observed, very little of this work has been concerned with production (and thus with the associated issues of research, extension or education). As a result, the wide gap between studies of production and analyses of political context persists, at least for the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.³

In this chapter, therefore, I draw upon the political history of the period in order to illuminate agricultural historians’ accounts of the latter nineteenth century agricultural transformation, knitting the two together where possible with primary sources. The picture that emerges is a dynamic and complicated one, characterized by rapid economic change, a proliferation of new farmers’ organizations, and political conflict. In the first half of the century, as industrialization increased the demand for food, German agricultural officials responded with measures to promote technical modernization, and farmers began to organize themselves so as to take better advantage of improved methods. By the 1890s, however, economic crisis had wreaked havoc. Farmers frustrated by government agricultural policy cast about in search of organizations that would defend their interests – be they those of estate owners or of smallholders – while state officials looked for ways to contain the situation. The challenge the latter faced was twofold. On the one hand, noticing the economic viability of peasant farming, officials sought to direct more resources toward the technical modernization of small farms. On the other, they also wanted to quell political unrest in the countryside by creating a new, attractive and more representative farmers’ organization, hoping that this would drain support away from militant lobby groups. One of the measures that they devised embodied both of these aims. The ‘chambers of agriculture’ were a new kind of institution designed to improve the provision of research and extension for peasant farmers while also giving them a larger voice in agricultural policy.

1 Industrialization stimulates growth: the 1830s to 1860s

Although the transformation I am calling ‘Europe’s Green Revolution’ occurred from the late nineteenth century, important forms of technical modernization in the German states also took place earlier. Population growth, for example, prompted late eighteenth century governments to encourage the use of some innovations previously developed in England, such as the use of mineral fertilizers, stall-feeding, the enclosure of common land and especially improved systems of crop rotation (Klein 1973; Bittermann 1956: 109–110; Rösener 1997: 91–94; Teuteberg 1977). In Prussia, however, the state took only limited interest in agriculture until the nineteenth century.⁴ After the Napoleonic Wars, in an attempt to reinvigorate the Prussian economy, the state introduced measures aimed at furthering the technical improvement of agriculture. The most important of these was land reform which gave peasants the right to purchase land from estate owners that they had previously farmed (Schissler 1978; Goltz 1903). Henceforth, decisions over crops and cultivation method could be taken by individual peasants rather than collectively. In 1811, too, the Prussian king released an ‘edict on agriculture’, outlining various measures which might in future be taken by government as well as dispensing technical advice. Estate owners, for example, were urged to form agricultural societies where farmers could widen their experience through lectures and exhibitions in a spirit of self-help. Over the next few years, however, only a small number of these ‘Agricultural Associations’ (landwirtschaftliche Vereine) were set up, and their impact upon farming practice was slight (Altrock 1917; Pruns 1979; Achilles 1993).

During the 1820s, however, the collapse of agricultural prices prompted state officials to think again, but little was done until the late 1830s when estate owners called for more state support (Pruns 1979). At issue was the growing demand for food due to an industrializing economy. The growing population in industrial areas, higher average incomes, and a rising birth rate increased the demand for food at the same time that the number of people engaged in agriculture was declining.⁵ Some of the demand was met by increased imports (Klein 1973: 122), and the growth of the rail network made it possible for rural areas to meet some of the urban demand. But the circumstances prompted a more fundamental question: whether the state could and should play a larger coordinating role.

Although the local Agricultural Associations had been growing throughout the 1830s,⁶ they had worked for the most part in isolation from each other. By 1840 officials were concerned that Prussian agriculture – and especially its peasant farms – appeared to be among the most backward in Europe. Regarding the Associations as the key to promoting technical advance, they concluded that the Associations’ work ought to be better coordinated and that they should be better integrated with the formulation and execution of state policy. To achieve this, local Associations were linked together to form new regional Associations (Zentralvereine), and the latter were represented on a new body at state level: the State Agricultural Commission (Landes-Oekonomie-Kollegium, est. 1842) (Altrock 1917; Lang 1971).⁷ As the official state body representing the farming community, the Commission was charged with advising the Interior Minister on agricultural matters (there was as yet no agriculture ministry) as well as implementing agricultural policies as directed by the Ministry. Although the Commission’s initial budget was quite modest (compared to state subsidies for commerce), a fourfold increase during the 1840s allowed it to channel funding to the regional Associations which in turn were able over the following decade to establish 15 agricultural secondary schools, several agricultural colleges and experiment stations, and over 60 model farms (Altrock 1917; Finlay 1992; Grantham 1984; Schmiel 1987 and 1991). With the creation of these institutions, the Associations’ promotion of technical innovation was no longer confined to lectures, agricultural shows, prizes, exhibitions of agricultural machinery, and publications. The price of state subsidy, however, was a loss of independence. Although the Associations had originally been founded as voluntary associations funded largely through members’ subscriptions, they increasingly became dependent upon state funding, and government officials usually played a prominent role, at least in the regional Associations.⁸

But technical modernization was not the only reason why states took an increasing interest in agriculture. In Prussia both the Interior Ministry and the State Agricultural Commission were agreed that since farmers constituted the ‘foundations of the state’, subsidies were essential for securing contentment (Pruns 1979). In Baden food riots in the aftermath of poor harvests in the mid 1840s prompted officials to begin thinking about the consequences of an unreliable food supply (Borscheid 1976). Matters then came to a head during the revolutions of 1848. A ‘Congress of Agriculture’ presented a programme of reforms which called, among other things, for improved credit facilities and agricultural education for all farmers. Significantly, the Congress also called attention to the need for a national organization which would represent farmers’ interests to both government and parliament (Haushofer 1963: 118–123). Although the revolutions collapsed, pressure from peasants succeeded in eliminating remnants of their various feudal obligations to estate owners, and officials were forced to rethink agricultural policy. As a result, in 1848 Prussia became the first state to establish a separate Ministry for Agriculture; Saxony and Baden created state agricultural commissions;⁹ and Bavaria established a ‘Ministry of Commerce and Public Works’ whose responsibilities included agriculture (Pruns 1979: 151). In Saxony the minister responsible took a keen interest in intensive cultivation and increased budgets for agriculture; and the state helped to fund its first agricultural experiment station (Finlay 1992). In Baden officials rapidly expanded the budget for agricultural education, introduced reforms to the agricultural secondary curriculum, and established an agricultural lecture series at the University of Heidelberg designed for school teachers who would be teaching peasants’ sons (Borscheid 1976).

Officials were aware, of course, that ‘the farming community’ was not a homogeneous group; the powers, interests and needs of estate owners and peasants were quite different. At the start of the century support had been directed primarily at estate owners, perhaps because in Prussia and elsewhere in Europe large farmers had been the earliest adopters of new technology (Koning 1994; Ballwanz 1978; Teuteberg 1977). And that is not surprising, given that investing in machinery, mineral fertilizer or improved seed required capital or access to cheap credit which estate owners were much more likely to possess than were small farmers. Moreover, peasant farmers were routinely branded in the nineteenth century as ‘stubborn’ and ‘conservative’. While peasants may not have been especially quick off the mark to embrace new technology, however, they observed which of the innovations tried by the local estate owner were successful and adopted those which were appropriate to their own circumstances. Many were interested in experimenting with intensive methods whenever presented with the opportunity, and already in the early nineteenth century they were taking advantage of the changing demand for food due to industrialization (Moeller 1981; Mooser 1992; Zimmermann 1998; Mütter 1988).¹⁰

By the late 1830s Prussian agricultural officials were concluding that smallholders were going to require assistance and had earmarked funding for model peasant farms (Pruns 1979). In 1845 the Minister went further, instructing the State Agricultural Commission to give preference to peasant farming, leading to increased funding for agricultural secondary schools for peasants and the awarding of prizes. Of course, promoting new cultivation practices among small farmers was also one of the roles foreseen for the Agricultural Associations, but by mid century it had become evident that this was not working.¹¹ Peasants were not finding the Associations very helpful, in part because the membership was dominated by estate owners, local professionals, and regional agricultural officials (Landräte), all of whom stood well above the peasantry in the social hierarchy, but also because the Associations’ status as quasi-state organizations prevented them from acting as a farmers’ lobby (Achilles 1993: 339–343; Blackbourn 1984; Crone-Münzebrock 1912).¹²

If smallholders were to advance their interests, therefore, some other form of organization would be necessary. In the 1860s a more promising candidate took shape: the Peasants’ Associations (Bauernvereine). Unlike the Agricultural Associations, these were not only independent of the state but also self-consciously political organizations which sought to take their members’ concerns to government. The first of these was established in Westphalia in 1862, grew very quickly – its membership (mostly peasants with medium and large farms) increasing by tenfold from 1870 to 1880 – and was widely imitated elsewhere. In addition to providing practical services (inexpensive property insurance, credit facilities, advice on taxes), some Associations also ran agricultural secondary schools and experiment stations, reporting the results in their own newspapers which were distributed to members (Moeller 1986a; Fahlbusch and Hartwig 1984; Pyta 1991).¹³ Initially, the Peasants’ Associations met with mistrust from Prussian agricultural officials who saw them as suspiciously ‘political’ and resented the fact that officials were not offered membership (Albers 1999; Ullmann 1988: 36ff.; cf. Muth 1975).

Despite the help that peasants could get from the Peasants’ Associations, however, they still faced financial obstacles if they wanted to intensify production using commercially available inputs because they could not obtain credit on as favourable terms as estate owners enjoyed (Schissler 1978). The situation eased somewhat from 1851 when Prussia – apparently with the aim of securing peasants’ political loyalty (Blackbourn 1997) – established rural state landbanks. These, however, could not meet the scale of the demand, so peasants continued to be dependent upon the private sector for credit. And this was the context in which Friedrich Wilhelm Raiffeisen set up rural cooperatives from the 1860s in order to provide credit to smallholders on more favourable terms than they could get in the marketplace. The new cooperatives found a warm welcome from the Peasants’ Associations, and the Prussian state was also keen, passing a law in 1867 which gave cooperatives legal protection. Although most cooperatives by the end of the century had been organized to provide cheap credit, others were set up to facilitate bulk purchasing of inputs, shared use of machinery, or processing (e.g. butter) (Merl 1994).¹⁴

From the 1830s through the 1860s, therefore, a growing demand for food enabled farmers to enjoy reasonable prosperity, and the Prussian state had begun to target small farmers for special assistance. But continued prosperity relied to a considerable extent upon buoyant cereals prices, and this was not to last.

2 Impending crisis: the 1870s and 1880s

From the 1870s German agriculture had to contend with major changes in the international economic context which, in turn, unleashed a certain degree of domestic political turbulence. A contributory factor was the emergence and diffusion of new technologies which had begun to shift the international balance of agricultural power. Steam shipping and railway systems, in Europe as well as abroad, opened European markets to foreign producers while the development of refrigeration and canning methods made it possible for overseas cattle and dairy farmers to sell on European markets. In places like the US and Argentina, for example, great expanses of inexpensive and uncultivated land meant that farmers had no need to invest in mineral fertilizer; once their land became exhausted, they could simply move on. In this way they were able to produce ver...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Epigraph
• Half Title page
• Other Title
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Figures
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 The origins of peasant-friendly research in Germany
• 2 The movement for peasant-friendly plant breeding, 1880–1905
• 3 Research, development and extension at the south German stations
• 4 Success breeds trouble The controversy over public-sector breeding, 1902–1933
• 5 The fate of peasant-friendly breeding under National Socialism
• 6 The Green Revolution and its critics
• 7 Reforming the revolution Peasant-friendly innovation, 1970–2010
• 8 Three conclusions
• Notes
• Abbreviations
• Archival sources (and abbreviations used)
• Printed primary sources (with abbreviations)
• Bibliography
• Index