ABSTRACT
This synthesis finds Africa and Asia no clear-cut opposites. No case-study country has solved its hunger problem. Food consumption fluctuated, and in two, it remained below requirements. All embarked on intensifying small-scale staple food production in the 1970s, invested in rural development and had violent resettlement programs (with international support). The points of emphasis differed (irrigation in Mali, credit in Bangladesh, input packages in Indonesia, and villagization in Tanzania), documenting national agency. But the intensification of staple food farming remained selective, and three countries raised their food production largely through expanding the cropped area. Capital was accumulated elsewhere, proletarianization took largely place abroad, and with income diversification, there was no death of the peasantry. In three of the countries, export crops stagnated, and the integration in the world economy was limited and mostly in continental spheres. Foreign ODA’s influence was limited because of faulty design and small resource flows to rural areas. Often ‘aid’ spurred inequality because certain locals appropriated its funds. Foreign-imposed privatization of the trade with staples and inputs came late with mixed, often detrimental, effects. Foreign imperialism worked more through the convergence of development concepts in permanent negotiation, as the history of aid consortia shows.
