Quick questions on Agriculture, resources and uneven development explained: H2 History

Most of Southeast Asia entered independence as predominantly agricultural, with the great majority of the population working the land and economies shaped by the export of agricultural produce and raw materials. Agriculture was therefore not a backdrop but the foundation of the economy, and what happened to it shaped the whole development path. A productive, reformed agriculture could feed a growing population, supply raw materials and savings for industry, and provide a market for manufactured goods, underpinning broader development. A stagnant, unequal agriculture, by contrast, could trap the rural majority in poverty, hold back the wider economy, and breed the rural grievance that threatened political stability.

A major theme of the period was the effort to raise agricultural productivity, above all through the spread of new high-yielding crop varieties, fertilisers, irrigation and improved techniques, a transformation often called the Green Revolution. Where it succeeded, it sharply increased food production, helped feed growing populations, reduced the risk of famine, and could raise rural incomes and free resources for industry. But its benefits were uneven: it tended to favour farmers with the land, water and capital to adopt the new methods, and could widen rural inequality between those who could and could not afford the inputs. Agricultural improvement was therefore powerful but double-edged, capable of underpinning development while also deepening rural divides.

Explain what is meant by the "resource curse." [4 marks]

Explain why raising agricultural productivity could both help and divide rural society. [12 marks]

"Development was uneven in Southeast Asia because of policy, not endowments." How far do you agree? [20 marks]