G. Pascal Zachary is a journalist with an unusually (and refreshingly) positive outlook on African development, and he writes in The Wilson Quarterly about The Coming Revolution in Africa–an agricultural one:

Despite the horrors of Darfur, the persistence of HIV/AIDS, and the failure to end famines and civil wars in a handful of countries, the vast majority of ­sub-­Saharan Africans neither live in war zones nor struggle with an active disease or famine. Extreme poverty is relatively rare in rural Africa, and there is a growing entrepreneurial spirit among farmers that defies the usual image of Africans as passive victims. They are foot soldiers in an agrarian revolution that never makes the news.

Agricultural productivity in Africa is far below where it ought to be, and raising it is probably the single most powerful anti-poverty tool at the disposal of governments and NGOs. For all that, it sometimes seems to attract all too little attention. It’s nice to see Zachary righting that wrong.

In the article, Zachary points out the positive role that agribusiness can play in the green revolution. In northern Uganda, where I’ve been working the past few years, agricultural development programs are the exception rather than the norm among NGOs, and the government recently suspended (not increased) its extension services. This is a pity. Correction: this is a travesty. The organization probably contributing the most to agricultural development in the north? If I had to guess: Dunevant, the US cotton giant.

Good for Dunevant. I am hesitant, however, to leave the green revolution to the private sector, and would sincerely like to see the state in Africa playing a larger role. Agricultural extension services to underserved farmers; aid to the poorest and most vulnerable; local research centers developing and impoving local seed varieties and agricultural methods; stimuli and access to capital for communities to develop fish farms and breeding centers and other projects. Such services have been evidently helpful in green revolutions elsewhere in the developing world.

Another thought: a green revolution is undoubtedly a means to reduce poverty in Africa, but is it a path to economic growth? Only partly. In fact, the surest sign of development in Africa will be a (relative) shrinking of the sector.

Something close to forty percent of GDP in Kenya is produced by four percent of the workforce–the ones in the (small and struggling) manufacturing sector. (A sector, by the way, that is being pommelled by the current political crisis in the country. Good bye growth and development.)

The math makes it simple: if a Kenya or Ghana or an Ethiopia is going to become a middle income country–and be able to sustain a homegrown education, health care, and social system–they are not going to make this leap without a dramatic jump in production and productivity. A jump that (if other countries are any guide) will only come from a manufacturing and (maybe) a service sector.

An agricultural revolution might be an important step in this direction. Some development theorists think it’s a necessary condition for an industrial sector. Maybe. But a green revolution is certainly not a sufficient condition for manufacturing and service growth.

Zachary is right to focus on the agricultural boom that (I hope) is coming on the continent. But I see far too little talk, enthusiasm, and interest in manufacturing in the aid community and academia for my liking.