{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018413597733711047, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00141643059490085, 'mean_word_length': 5.728571428571429, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
From Green Revolution to Biorevolution: Some Observations on the Changing Technological Bases of Economic Transformation in the Third World

For over a decade the theory and practice of rural and agricultural development in the Third World have revolved largely around alternative postures regarding the so-called Green Revolution. Proponents of the Green Revolution have tended to see the further penetration of factor markets (and, accordingly, of product markets) in the Third World as, on balance, desirable. Proponents have argued that the substantial productivity improvements afforded by the transfer of Green Revolution practices have far outweighed the socioeconomic dislocations that resulted from the superimposition of new technical forms on "modernizing" social structures.' Green Revolution detractors, on the other hand, have placed major emphasis on these dislocations. Critics have rejected the assumption that developing nations can or should develop along the same path as the present industrial/high-income countries.2 These critics have argued that the Green Revolution strategy has exacerbated class inequality and/or differentiation and led to "premature" rural emigration and urbanization.3 To be sure, the positions taken by advocates and critics have become somewhat less polarized in recent years. Advocates in academic circles and in national and multilateral agencies have recognized