When Progress Comes with a Price: The Lasting Impact of India’s Green Revolution

This is our third blog post for the Job Market Paper Series blog for 2024-2025.

Aditi Singh is a PhD candidate in Economics at the Vancouver School of Economics, University of British Columbia. She is an applied microeconomist working at the intersection of development, economic history, behavioral economics, and political economy. Her research focuses on the topics of health, gender, and caste dynamics. You can find her job market paper here.

India has achieved calorie sufficiency, yet it continues to grapple with a persistent crisis of nutritional inadequacy and a growing burden of chronic diseases (FAO, 2024). What explains this paradox? Many experts believe the agricultural changes of the 1960s, brought about by the Green Revolution, may offer part of the explanation. The Green Revolution’s focus on increasing the yields of energy-dense crops like rice and wheat could have unintentionally reduced attention to the production of nutrient-rich crops. India’s predominantly plant-based diet, which provides most of the population’s calories and nutrients, may have made this shift a source of unintended nutritional and health consequences. These overlooked effects could be central to understanding the country’s current health and nutritional challenges.

In my job market paper, I examine the long-term effects of the Green Revolution by addressing three key questions: How did the adoption of Green Revolution technologies impact crop diversity, particularly the production of nutrient-rich crops like lentils and millets? Did the increased caloric availability brought about by these technologies come at the expense of other critical nutrients, such as proteins and micronutrients? And finally, what are the broader health implications for individuals exposed to the Green Revolution during early childhood, particularly in terms of height, metabolic health, cognitive development, and motor function?

The Green Revolution was launched in India in 1966 with the introduction of high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of rice and wheat. Adoption of these technologies and the subsequent increase in yields were most successful in regions with favorable agroclimatic conditions. Therefore, to address these questions, I use a difference-in-differences (DiD) strategy, drawing on the time variation introduced by the 1966 Green Revolution and the cross-sectional variation in exposure to these technologies, based on potential productivity gains from shifting to HYVs according to the agroclimatic suitability of wheat and rice across districts.

The data for this study comes from three primary sources. To measure potential productivity gains, I use the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) models, which estimate the maximum potential yields for wheat and rice at a grid cell level of 9.25 km x 9.25 km. These models account for climatic suitability and distinguish between low input (traditional varieties) and high input (HYV) conditions, under both rainfed and irrigated scenarios. By calculating the difference in yields between these two conditions, I quantify the potential productivity gains from shifting to HYVs and aggregate them at the district level. The second source is a longitudinal district-level dataset that covers 270 districts in India from 1957 to 2007. This dataset provides comprehensive information on agricultural production, area under HYVs, and socio-economic factors, allowing me to explore the Green Revolution’s impact on crop diversity and changes in production. For nutritional availability, I convert crop production data into caloric and nutrient equivalents using the National Food Composition Table (2017).

For health outcomes, I use individual-level data from the 2017 Longitudinal Aging Study in India (LASI), which includes physical, metabolic, cognitive, and motor health measures, along with birth year and district of individuals born between 1945 and 1985. By linking individuals to district-level Green Revolution exposure based on their year and district of birth, I can assess the long-term health effects of early childhood exposure to the Green Revolution. Specifically, I use a continuous difference-in-differences (DiD) framework to isolate the impact of exposure during early childhood (from birth to age one). This framework leverages time variation in exposure to the Green Revolution by comparing individuals born before and after 1966 and cross-sectional variation in potential productivity gains across districts, based on the agroclimatic suitability of their birth district for wheat and rice cultivation.

Green Revolution Drove Decline in Crop Diversity and Nutrient Density

First, I find that districts with the highest potential productivity gains from the Green Revolution saw a significant decline in crop diversity—from an average of 4.3 crops to 2 crops. This shift points to a move away from diverse cropping systems towards near-monoculture, dominated by rice and wheat. This decline is largely driven by reduced cultivation of nutrient-rich crops like barley, pearl millet, chickpeas, pigeon peas, and groundnuts. These crops are packed with protein, fiber, and essential micronutrients such as iron, zinc, and folate, all of which are crucial for a balanced diet. As a result, the drop in these crops likely impacted nutritional security (Longvah, 2017).

Furthermore, my analysis shows that exposure to higher potential productivity gains boosted calorie production by 20%, but it also led to some concerning shifts in nutrient availability. While carbohydrate supply per thousand calories increased by 0.6%, protein supply dropped by 3%, and key micronutrients such as iron, folate, and zinc decreased by 2%, 9%, and 2%, respectively. These findings suggest that while the Green Revolution increased calorie availability, the reduction in nutrient density could have long-term effects on nutritional adequacy and overall health.

Shorter Stature, Weaker Health: The Green Revolution’s Nutritional Trade-offs

Diets rich in calories but poor in essential nutrients may not cause visible deficiencies, but subtle nutrient gaps combined with excess energy intake can lead to physiological disruptions, especially in early childhood. In fact, this mismatch in calorie and nutrient intake is linked to long-term health consequences, making early life exposure to the Green Revolution a critical factor in understanding adult health outcomes (Christian and Stewart, 2010).

My analysis reveals significant health effects for individuals born after the Green Revolution, particularly in districts with higher potential productivity gains. Specifically, I find that these individuals are, on average, 0.3 cm shorter than those born before the Green Revolution. This difference represents approximately 9% of the height gap between individuals from the poorest and wealthiest quintiles, 9% of the gap between those with no education and those with a college education, and 10% of the height gap between scheduled and general caste groups in India (Perkins et al., 2011). This result is especially striking when considering that the average height in India increased by just 4 cm during the 20th century (NCD-RisC, 2016). Furthermore, cohorts born in areas with higher potential gains show a 3-percentage point increase in hypertension and a 1.5 percentage point rise in diabetes, indicating a clear decline in metabolic health. Although I find positive effects on cognitive imbalance and motor deficits, the results are insignificant. Despite the significant rise in caloric production, the accompanying nutritional deficiencies seem to undermine the potential health benefits of increased caloric access.

Policy Implications

As we look to Green Revolution 2.0, which emphasizes environmentally responsible agricultural systems, it’s essential to prioritize both food security and nutrition. While the original Green Revolution increased caloric availability, it also reduced the cultivation of nutrient-dense crops like lentils and millets, leading to a mismatch between calorie intake and essential micronutrients. My research highlights the long-term health implications of this shift. To align with the Sustainable Development Goals, future agricultural policies should focus on responsible production and consumption by boosting yields, diversifying crops, and prioritizing nutrient-rich foods.