Abstract
We highlight the tension in food systems between affordable food for all and prosperity of the rural communities that produce most of that food. Over the past six decades, global efforts to combat hunger have centered on boosting the production of basic food staples, leading to significant reductions in hunger. However, progress has stalled, and food insecurity remains a pressing issue for over two billion people, primarily in low-income countries (LICs), where it is closely tied to poverty.
Current strategies in LICs, rooted in mid twentieth century paradigms, emphasize increasing staple crop yields by smallholder farmers. These approaches unrealistically assume that smallholders can simultaneously produce low-cost staples and achieve economic prosperity. Moreover, the narrow focus on staple crops overlooks the potential of high-value, diversified agriculture to improve rural livelihoods and provide nutritious, balanced diets.
We advocate for a fairer distribution of responsibilities in food provision: smallholders should be supported in transitioning toward higher-value agricultural products and services, with greater emphasis on labor productivity and value chain development. Production of staple foods such as wheat, maize or rice is more suitable for larger areas, and hence mechanization, which further improves labor productivity. Such a more diversified rural economy—extending beyond the farm gate—can foster more prosperous and equitable rural communities, enhance dietary diversity and strengthen resilience to shifting environmental and socioeconomic conditions. Urban food security could be further strengthened by reducing non-food related living costs.
Long-term food security depends on ensuring dignified livelihoods for rural communities and farmers. To achieve a more equitable balance between the welfare of producers and consumers will require re-examination of our farm and food systems.
1 Background
We argue that there is a fundamental tension between the objectives of providing low-cost affordable food for urban populations and ensuring prosperity of the rural communities that produce the food. Sixty years ago, the world faced a significant challenge: the inability to produce enough food to feed its growing population. In response, substantial efforts were made to develop and implement technologies aimed at increasing food production (). These initiatives, exemplified by the Green Revolution, proved largely successful; food production surged and hunger rates plummeted, particularly during periods of rapid growth in many developing nations (). For some time now the world has possessed the technological capacity to sustain global food needs (Penning de Vries et al., 1997; Pradhan et al., 2015). Furthermore, transitions toward more-sustainable food production and consumption could provide food for ~10 billion people without compromising multiple planetary boundaries () and, with a more equitable distribution of food and income within and across countries, food security and better nutrition can be achieved in parallel (United Nations, 2021).
However, despite these positive trends, the past decade has seen a slowdown—and in some regions even a reversal—of progress. After 2030, the number of people in extreme poverty is projected to increase based on current trends (Roser, 2025). Hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition are once again on the rise in numerous countries around the world (World Bank, 2024; ). Currently over 1.1 billion people live in poverty with 84% in rural communities in low-income countries (LICs) (UNDP, 2023). Surprisingly, despite the common association between hunger and poverty, the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) estimates that there are 2.2 billion people moderately to severely food insecure worldwide, with 1.7 billion of them living in urban and peri-urban areas (HLPE, 2024). Although the large HLPE estimates of urban food insecurity appear inconsistent with the smaller estimates of the number of urban poor of the UNDP, the combined data from distinct sources highlight a critical reality: poverty and food insecurity are pervasive issues affecting both urban and rural populations, with a higher proportion of impoverished individuals in rural areas.
Concurrent with the increased capacity to produce more of the basic staple foods and the trends in food security and poverty reduction, the demands on agriculture have changed profoundly. Agriculture is now recognized as integral to achieving broader economic, social and environmental goals (Willett et al., 2019; IPCC, 2023; IPBES, 2019). Attention has shifted beyond merely ensuring sufficient food supply to reduce hunger toward a heightened focus on addressing malnutrition and understanding the crucial role of agriculture and food systems in human health, climate change, biodiversity and environmental protection.
Hunger is intrinsically linked to poverty and low incomes (; ). The complex interplay between poverty alleviation and food security is reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the United Nations Food Systems Summit in 2021, which advocate for a transformative approach to global food production and consumption. A series of demand and supply shocks, including the world financial crisis, the Covid-19 pandemic, the proliferation of wars and conflicts and current challenges to the fundamental premises of international collaboration and trade, alongside environmental concerns and climate change, have exposed the vulnerabilities of food systems and risks to both supply chain and food security (Von Braun, 2008; ; ; World Bank, 2024). The broad consensus that food systems are not sustainable and that transformation of the global food system is necessary underlines the need for a deeper connectedness between food systems and global challenges (Schneider et al., 2025; Tanzer et al., 2022).
As countries grapple with the growing geopolitical volatility and uncertainty as well as domestic economic pressures, there is a temptation to opt for short-term fixes and silver bullet solutions. These attitudes may exacerbate rural-urban divides and deepen the tensions between food producers and consumers. Progress toward building more resilient and sustainable food systems will only be achieved if both food security for the consumers and prosperity for the rural communities are explicitly addressed and the trade-offs between them clearly recognized.
2 Strategies
Agriculture, the mainstay of rural livelihoods, is crucial for poverty reduction in regions with large rural populations (e.g., ; Hossain et al., 2024). However, outside the farm sector agriculture is primarily viewed as a means to provide food security through low-cost food, especially basic staples, for urban populations, rather than as a driver of rural prosperity. Additionally, to satisfy the growing demand for animal protein that is associated with increased wealth, some agricultural policies promote staple crops for animal feed even though food-security outcomes can be negatively impacted when land and calories are diverted to livestock feed rather than human nutrition (). The focus on staple crops limits diversification for both the food producers, the farmers, and the consumers (). This emphasis on low-cost food and feed manifests itself in various ways, including the research and development agenda in many LICs that: (i) focus on production technology up to the farmgate; (ii) prioritize land productivity of staple foods and feeds over labor productivity; (iii) under emphasize profitability and novel sources of rural income; and (iv) favor policies that reduce food prices, especially for the less healthy and nutritious items. These polices have an urban bias (e.g., ; Wen and Chen, 2025; Khan, 2000) which often leads to neglect of rural welfare, despite concerns expressed by higher-level agencies.
Global food security was defined at the World Food Summit 1996 as: when all people at all times have both physical and economic access to sufficient food to meet their dietary needs for a productive and healthy life (World Bank, 2025). Strategies aimed at food security must consider: (i) sufficient food availability; (ii) food access (adequate resources to obtain a nutritious diet); and (iii) food handling (proper food processing, storage, and knowledge of nutrition and hygiene) (World Bank, 2025; Negin et al., 2009). Here we concentrate on food availability and food access as related to agriculture and will only marginally touch on food handling which involves many aspects, such as food safety, hygiene, knowledge, personal discipline and food processing which are beyond the scope of this paper.
People with money don't go hungry; achieving the first of the SDGs-eradicating poverty-would largely resolve the issue of global hunger by increasing peoples capacity to obtain food. However, policy-makers must consider not only the capacity of individuals to obtain food but also that there is sufficient food available to meet the demand. Hence, at the policy level, food security must be understood as a dual challenge: ensuring both the availability of food and the capacity of populations to access it (World Bank, 2024). However, many approaches have largely emphasized a “productivist” approach rooted in a mid twentieth century paradigm that tackles the problem of food security from the standpoint of increasing food availability while largely neglecting the capacity to obtain food (Sonnino et al., 2014).
Food security strategies vary significantly depending on a country's level of development and its role in global food trade. In high-income countries (HICs), food security is primarily a matter of economic access, ensuring that individuals have the means to purchase sufficient, nutritious food. In contrast, in many low-income countries (LICs) food security is contingent on both access and availability, with the livelihood of a significant part of the population associated with smallholder farming.
Despite the dual challenges of accessibility and availability, prevailing strategies in LICs continue to emphasize increased agricultural production, particularly through the adoption of improved technologies for staple crops. In the past such strategies have enabled unprecedented yield increases and averted widespread famine largely by increasing yield per unit land area (). Currently, these predominant “productivist” approaches assume that technological adoption by farmers, many of whom are smallholders, will drive global food supply and hence provide food security.
Today, vast yield gaps continue to persist in many LICs, indicating substantial untapped potential for increasing staple crop production (see for example Yield Gap, 2025). Despite this, the scientific community often gravitates toward the pursuit of novel breakthroughs in yield potential. Realizing this potential requires not only technological innovation but also resilience in the face of emerging threats such as market access, climate change, pest and disease pressure and environmental degradation. This raises a pivotal question for decision-makers, development practitioners, and researchers: should the focus shift from pursuing ever-higher potential yield targets toward safeguarding and realizing, in the field, the potential productivity gains already achieved?
Smallholders have long been seen as the cornerstone of staple food production in LICs (see for example ; McIntire and Dobermann, 2023; Mellor, 1966; ; IFAD, 2021; ). This emphasis reflects a broader narrative that seeks to reconcile two often competing objectives: ensuring affordable food for growing populations and promoting rural prosperity (IFAD, 2021; ).
The prominence of smallholder production is largely predicated on its perceived ability to deliver both objectives by producing low-cost staples while simultaneously generating income and employment in rural areas (Wiggins, 2009; ). However, this dual promise is rarely realized in practice. Smallholders generally lack comparative advantage in the production of low-cost staples. In most circumstances, smallholders cannot simultaneously produce low-cost staples and achieve economic prosperity without substantial government support, which was critical to the success of the green revolution in Asia (Pingali, 2012). Moreover, the smallholder centric model often neglects landless laborers, who represent some of the most vulnerable and food-insecure populations. Current models that rely on smallholder staple production risk perpetuating structural inequalities in rural economies, underscoring the need for policies that address systemic barriers to prosperity (Negin et al., 2009; ).
The smallholder emphasis, coupled with a concentration on a few basic staples can also lead to greatly reduced diversity in the diet. In Zambia, for example, the food system is based on a few staple crops such as maize, cassava, millet, sorghum, sweet potatoes, and a few legumes, mainly groundnuts and beans. Maize is by far the most important crop in terms of production, consumption and sale. It accounts for 53% of the total cultivated area and it is grown by almost 90% of the 1.5 million smallholder farm households in the country (World Bank, 2022; Mofya-Mukuka and Hichaambwa, 2018).
Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa further complicates the smallholder narrative. Despite significant investment in initiatives like The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which aimed at doubling yields of 30 million smallholder farmers, the outcomes have fallen short of expectations. Neither food availability nor rural welfare has improved substantially (Wise, 2020). argue that the mechanisms by which agricultural policies are expected to simultaneously reduce poverty (SDG1) and enhance food security (SDG2) may inadvertently exacerbate both poverty and food insecurity among certain socioeconomic groups. The failure of policies that rely on smallholder adoption of high-yield, capital intensive technologies is evident in persistently low crop yields and widespread rural-to-urban migration, as disillusioned farmers and laborers seek better livelihoods for their children in cities across many LICs (Saunders, 2010; ).
In parallel, the agricultural research and development agenda prioritizes resilience and sustainability in response to climate change and environmental degradation. These are undeniably critically important goals. Achieving them requires context-specific solutions that balance environmental imperatives with economic and societal realities. Agroecology and heritage approaches (Loconto and Fouilleux, 2019; ) and other environmentally attractive systems offer potentially valuable benefits such as biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, amenity value and agro-tourism that may contribute to rural prosperity and resilience. However, these environmentally optimized systems will not realistically meet the increasingly affluent world's demand for food if adopted massively (Penning de Vries et al., 1997; Pradhan et al., 2015). At the same time, a disproportionate intensification of livestock systems for consumption of animal protein in industrialized countries diverts land, water and resource use, creating deeper inequalities in the global good system (Rust et al., 2020; ; Manceron et al., 2014).
3 The way ahead
3.1 Rethinking food security strategies for a changing World
Current food security policies-and the public research and development agenda that support them-have largely concentrated on increasing the availability of low-cost food staples and feed for livestock. In HICs this has been achieved through consolidation of farms and the widespread adoption of mechanized, labor-efficient technologies that deliver high productivity per worker. In contrast, many LICs rely on smallholder farmers who are expected to raise yields of staple crops with limited access to capital-intensive technologies and without the substantial government and official support that sustained the green revolution in Asia. A parallel can be drawn with the cottage textile industry, promoted by Ghandi in India, which resulted in a household industry that failed to compete with high capital and innovative industrial processes. It was eventually replaced by a larger scale, centralized industry (). Serious doubts remain about whether smallholders can meet the food demands of rapidly growing populations, particularly in Sub Saharan Africa. Yet, as observe, concerns over their ability to compete with large scale, mechanized agriculture are rarely voiced openly and are often confined to remarks at rural development workshops or fora, avoiding any controversy. Similarly, observes that some more or less tacit voices support the idea of large-scale commercial farming in poor countries as an alternative to the present focus on smallholders and suggests that the debate be reopened.
We argue that the continued emphasis on smallholder production of staple crops as the cornerstone of food security strategies in LICs warrants re-evaluation. Depending on the contexts, it may be more effective to direct policies, including some of the direct and indirect subsidies currently provided, toward supporting modern, mechanized farming systems for staple production, while repositioning smallholders toward better market access and higher value, diversified agricultural opportunities where they may have a comparative advantage.
The technological advances that have reduced costs of staple foods have not been matched in the production of many more nutritious and other diverse crops. As a result, healthier food options have become relatively more expensive (Rao et al., 2013; ) contributing to poor dietary outcomes (see ). For smallholder farmers, a move into a diverse range of higher value products and services is often hindered by the lack of technical support and the high risks associated with unfamiliar production, processing and marketing techniques. This highlights the need to expand research and direct policies toward enhancing value chains for a broad range of higher value ventures, that may also increase the availability of more nutritious and healthier food, appropriate for the local agro-ecological and socioeconomic contexts.
Recent geopolitical disruptions and trade uncertainties have also reignited concerns about food sovereignty. In principle, food sovereignty strengthens the quality, stability, and sustainability of food systems, empowering smallholder farmers to maintain long-term system stability, thereby improving food security in a more just and lasting way (; Sampson et al., 2021). In response, many countries are pursuing food self-sufficiency, often at the expense of economic efficiency. Producing food in regions without a comparative advantage leads to resource misallocation and may also contribute to environmental degradation. A more strategic approach may lie in maintaining the capacity to produce essential food items through measures such as seed reserves, infrastructure and technical readiness, rather than insisting on continuous domestic production.
The experience of Malawi offers a compelling case study. Between 1994 and 2007, farmers more than doubled the area planted to cassava and achieved a nine-fold increase in total production, largely in response to favorable price shifts relative to maize (Rusike et al., 2010; ). Crucially, Malawi had preserved its capacity to produce cassava even when it was not economically viable, enabling a rapid and effective response when market conditions changed. Similarly, the Seeds for Hope initiative in post-Hurricane Mitch Central America demonstrated how maintaining production capacity can facilitate swift recovery in times of crisis (). This initiative, largely funded by the inflow of free or concessional financing, contributed significantly to the recovery of Central America after Hurricane Mitch (Mechler, 2003). These examples underscore the importance of resilience and flexibility in food systems. Maintaining the capacity to produce key crops, rather than mandating their constant cultivation, may offer a more balanced path to food security and sovereignty.
Profitable, high-volume production of staple crops is typically feasible only on large, mechanized farms with high labor productivity (). In contrast, small, unmechanized farms tend to have low labor productivity, which translates into low wages and persistent poverty. Policies that rely on smallholder production to ensure food security of the basic food items must therefore confront a fundamental trade-off: either accept low rural incomes or impose food prices that are unaffordable for urban consumers. This dilemma presents a persistent challenge for development agencies navigating the complex terrain of food policy. Opportunities exist to repurpose resources currently directed toward these outdated and ineffective policies. This calls for honest trade-off analyses prior to implementing any new policies ().
3.2 Toward equitable agricultural development
Adoption of modern, mechanized farming methods may help meet the demand for low-cost food, but it will not, on its own, deliver rural prosperity. Prosperity in rural communities depends on the productivity and earning potential of those who work in them. Thus, increasing labor productivity must be recognized as a cornerstone of equitable agricultural development (; ; ). Furthermore, for women, who represent approximately half of the agricultural workforce in Sub-Sharan Africa, systemic disparities limit their access to key inputs and services which could boost labor productivity (Piedrahita et al., 2024; ).
Despite significant gains in labor productivity in HICs-often outpacing yield growth-many LICs continue to lag, with labor productivity levels that are orders of magnitude lower (). This disparity underscores the urgent need to elevate labor productivity as a central focus of agricultural policy and research. Furthermore, within the overall necessity for increased labor productivity, the persistent gender gap needs to be addressed.
Increasing labor productivity through technologies such as mechanization and chemical weed control will reduce employment opportunities, particularly for landless rural workers (). A more inclusive strategy to increase labor productivity would involve a shift toward higher value products and services, thus offering the opportunity of entrepreneurship and job creation, that can bring prosperity to both smallholders and those who have no land but work in agriculture or live in rural communities. Such products and services not only offer higher economic returns per unit of labor input but also per unit land area. Additionally, they can also stimulate the development of local service industries such as processing, packaging, and marketing, thus generating additional and diverse employment opportunities for rural communities. Research for development organizations, such as the CGIAR and national programs could gain significantly by adopting a broader lens on rural development, actively exploring opportunities to enhance the economic value of production for smallholders and rural communities.
Importantly, the risk of price collapse due to overproduction of high-value products appears limited. Historical data show that while prices for specialty crops such as fruits and vegetables declined by just 5.3% between 1949 and 2004, prices for field crops fell by approximately 60% (). This suggests that promoting high-value, nutritionally diverse crops could enhance both rural incomes and dietary quality without triggering the same long term price decline seen in staple markets.
As nutrition security becomes increasingly recognized as integral to food security, the quality of food is as important as its quantity (Willett et al., 2019). Agricultural and food policies have prioritized calorie-dense staple crops as a means of achieving food security, but the unintended consequence of these policies is the limitation on the cultivation of diverse, nutrient-rich foods that contribute to healthier, more balanced diets. Improving dietary diversity offers a potential “win-win”: urban consumers are demanding healthier diets and are willing to pay for them, while rural producers can benefit from access to these expanding markets. Moreover, the scope of high-value crops extends beyond food to include fibers, beverages, and medicinal plants, further broadening the economic base of rural communities.
Access to a healthy diet may be constrained by lack of purchasing power (Penne and Goedemé, 2021). Increasing incomes among food-insecure populations, particularly in rural, peri-urban, and poor urban areas, is essential. Current policies that focus on reducing food prices through subsidies, price controls and low-cost imports benefit all consumers, including the wealthy, but often undermine the profitability of rural producers. While some argue that low food prices help landless laborers, this logic is flawed: if agriculture is unprofitable, wages in the sector remain low, perpetuating poverty.
4 Concluding remarks: reaching rural prosperity and food security together
Achieving food security requires a balanced approach that carefully weighs the benefits of affordable food against the need to raise rural incomes. How might such balance be struck in practice? The emphasis on low-cost food for the urban poor places much of the burden of reducing urban poverty and associated hunger on the rural food producer. For urban populations, food security could also be enhanced by reducing other living costs, such as housing and associated utilities, thereby increasing disposable income for food purchases. Ultimately, a fairer distribution of the burden of food security is essential for both social equity and long-term sustainability.
A smallholder farmer has no comparative advantage and is unable to compete with modern mechanized farming in the production of low-cost basic food staples. Furthermore, this inability to compete is unlikely to be resolved by technology that increases yield per unit land area. Policies that prioritize smallholder production of basic staples appear unlikely to deliver both affordable food and rural prosperity. This raises an important question: what alternative strategies could better balance these objectives? How can we guarantee the availability of low-cost basic staples to the poor and simultaneously improve the livelihoods of the smallholders and landless labor who represent a large proportion of the world's poor?
The transition from a productivist approach to alleviate hunger to a more holistic agenda to bring prosperity to rural areas, whilst at the same time providing affordable food, will require a diverse range of actions, with specific activities for a variety of distinct scenarios. Polarized discussions and ideology-driven approaches, such as the insistence on smallholder production of staple foods and idealistic practices that negate the use of modern agricultural methods and inputs will continue to impede progress.
Nevertheless, it is possible to envisage a more prosperous rural sector, the availability of low-cost basic staples and a more diverse and nutritious diet for all. Possible scenarios might include: (i) producing staple foods more efficiently on larger units; (ii) increasing labor productivity in rural communities without undermining employment opportunities or equity; (iii) and the development of high value agricultural product value chains with value added locally to bring prosperity to rural communities while simultaneously providing the population at large with a healthier and more diverse diet. In this context the importance of the smallholder as a producer of a few basic essential food items often for self-sufficiency would decline whilst their role in the food system would shift to providing greater food diversity which would in turn enhance the resilience of the food system. These changes are fraught with the possibility that larger units with modern farming technology will leave the smallholder unable to compete with their traditional products and few employment opportunities for landless labor leading to widespread poverty in the rural communities. Hence, a major challenge will be the transition for smallholders toward a new way of life with a distinct mode of farming with a diverse range of higher value more nutritious foods and differentiated products with strict quality requirements and complex value chains. Recognizing these shifts in focus - and implementing the necessary policies and support - will demand not only significant investments and building of rural business capacity but also a fundamental paradigm shift in how we conceive of food systems. Nevertheless, these changes are essential as food security is unlikely to be achieved unless those who produce our food are guaranteed a dignified and sustainable livelihood.
Our deliberations raise many questions for further debate:
How can policies reconcile affordable urban food prices with rural prosperity without deepening inequality?
Can mechanization and agroecology coexist in strategies for sustainable food systems?
What trade-offs arise when prioritizing labor productivity over employment opportunities in rural areas?
Should smallholders pivot toward high-value crops, and what support systems would make this viable?
How might food sovereignty goals align or conflict with global trade efficiency? What future scenarios for agricultural systems should we prepare for?
What role should international financing play in enabling transitions to diversified rural economies? How can this be coupled with sustainability concerns?
How can we better align ongoing research and development efforts across government agencies, international organizations, funding bodies, civil society, universities, and other key actors relevant to agricultural innovation nationally and internationally?
We would welcome an engaging, respectful and solution-oriented dialogue on these topics.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
Author contributions
JC: Writing – original draft. HM: Writing – original draft. FS: Writing – original draft. IF: Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Acknowledgments
We hope that this article will stimulate discussion and promote a more equitable balance between food and nutrition security and rural prosperity. We thank Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems for helping us to put forward these ideas.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. AI was used to discover peer reviewed articles related to the themes we considered.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AgarwalB.AgrawalA. (2017). Do farmers really like farming? Indian farmers in transition. Oxford Dev. Stud.45, 460–478. doi: 10.1080/13600818.2017.1283010
2
AihountonG.ChristiaensenL. (2024). “Does agricultural intensification pay in the context of structural transformation?” Food Policy122:102571. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102571
3
AlstonJ. M.BeddowJ. M.PardeyP. G. (2009). Mendel vs. Malthus: Research, Productivity and Food Prices in the Long Run. Staff Paper P09-1 January 2009 Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota. Available online at: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/53400/files/SP-IP-09-01.pdf (Accessed April 16, 2021).
4
AlstonJ. M.PardeyP. G.RaoX. (2020). “The Magic Of CGIAR Research: Harvesting $10 From Every $1 Invested.” Available online at: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/337030/files/soar_cgiar_key_findings_final.pdf (Accessed August 7, 2020).
5
AltieriM. A.KoohafkanP. (2014). “Globally Important Ingenious Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS): extent, significance, and implications for development,” in Proceedings of the Second International Workshop and Steering Committee Meeting for the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) Project. (Rome, Italy, FAO), 7–9.
6
AmeyeH.BacheweF. N.MintenB. (2021). The rising price of nutritious foods: the case of Ethiopia. Glob. Food Secur.31:100582. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100582
7
AndersenP. P. (2005). Food and agricultural policy for a globalizing world: preparing for the future. Agricult. Econ.87, 1097–1112. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00796.x
8
BarrettC.BeaudreaultA. R.MeinkeH.AshA.GhezaeN.KadiyalaS.NigussieM.SmithA.TorranceL. (2021). Foresight and tradeoff analyses: tools for science strategy development in agriculture and food systems research. Q. Open1, 1–7. doi: 10.1093/qopen/qoaa002
9
BezemerD.HeadeyD. (2008). Agriculture, development, and urban bias. World Dev.36, 1342–1364. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.07.001
10
BirnerR.ResnickD. (2010). The political economy of policies for smallholder agriculture. World Dev.38, 1442–1452. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.06.001
11
ByaruhangaR.IsgrenE. (2023). Rethinking the alternatives: food sovereignty as a prerequisite for sustainable food security. Food Ethics8:16. doi: 10.1007/s41055-023-00126-6
12
ByerleeD.De JanvryA.SadouletE.TownsendR.KlytchnikovaI. (2008). World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC.
13
ChiarellaC.MeyfroidtP.AbeygunawardaneD.ConfortiP. (2023). Balancing the trade-offs between land productivity, labor productivity and labor intensity. Ambio52, 1618–1634. doi: 10.1007/s13280-023-01887-4
14
CockJ.PragerS.MeinkeH.EcheverriaR. (2022). Labour productivity: the forgotten yield gap. Agric. Syst.201:103452. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103452
15
CostlowL.HerforthA.SulserT. B.CenacchiN.MastersW. A. (2025). Global analysis reveals persistent shortfalls and regional differences in availability of foods needed for health. Global Food Secur.44:100825. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2024.100825
16
DawsonN.MartinA.SikorT. (2016). Green revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa: implications of imposed innovation for the wellbeing of rural smallholders. World Dev.78, 204–218. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.008
17
Di PaolaA.RulliM. C.SantiniM. (2017). Human food vs. animal feed debate. A thorough analysis of environmental footprints. Land Use Policy67, 652–659. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.06.017
18
DixitP.LalR. C. (2019), “Inclusive growth social responsibility - a critical analysis of indian textile industry”, MERC Glob. Int. J. Manag. 7, 202–210. Available online at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-CRITICAL-ANALYSIS-OF-INDIAN-TEXTILE-INDUSTRY%3A-AN-Dixit-Lal/93a1c47f0f0366975b2367149d53a0fc338cc617 (Accessed December 17, 2025).
19
EllisF.BiggsS. (2001). Evolving themes in rural development 1950s-2000s. Dev. Policy Rev.19, 437–448. doi: 10.1111/1467-7679.00143
20
FAO (2009). Food Security and the Financial Crisis. Available online at: www.fao.org/4/k6360e/k6360e.pdf (Accessed February 25, 2025).
21
FAO (2022). Second Joint Statement by the Heads of FAO, IMF, WBG, WFP, and WTO on the Global Food Security and Nutrition Crisis. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/second-joint-statement-by-the-heads-of-fao-imf-wbg-wfp-and-wto-on-the-global-food-security-and-nutrition-crisis/en (Accessed December 17, 2025).
22
FAO IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. (2024). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2024 – Financing to End Hunger, Food Insecurity and Malnutrition in all its Forms. Rome: FAO.
23
FischerR. A.ByerleeD. Edmeades G,.O. (2014). Crop yields and Global Food Security: Will Yield Increase Continue to Feed the World?ACIAR Monograph No. 158.: Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.
24
GertenD.HeckV.JägermeyrJ.BodirskyB. L.FetzerI.JalavaM.et al. (2020). Feeding ten billion people is possible within four terrestrial planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain.3, 200–208. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0465-1
25
GiraldoG.MendezM.BoscoJ.IturbeA. (2000) Seeds for Hope. Available online at: https://agris.fao.org/search/en/providers/123818/records/67235eaa8aa2fad1ce46e9f6
26
GollinD. (2018). IFAD RESEARCH SERIES 34 - Farm Size and Productivity: Lessons from Recent Literature.Rome: FAO.
27
HaggbladeS.ZuluB. (2003). “Conference paper No. 9 the recent Cassava surge in Zambia and Malawi,” in Successes in African Agriculture, 9, 1–43.
28
HardinL. S. (2008). Bellagio 1969: The green revolution. Nature455, 470–471. doi: 10.1038/455470a
29
HatlebakkM. (2025) Smallholders and Food Security in Poor Countries CMI Report. Available online at: https://www.cmi.no/publications/9706-smallholders-and-food-security-in-poor-countries#:~:text=Another%20solution%2C%20at%20the%20individua,smaller%20share%20of%20total%20incomesl (Accessed October 13, 2025).
30
HeadeyD. D.AldermanH. H. (2019). The relative caloric prices of healthy and unhealthy foods differ systematically across income levels and continents. J. Nutr.149, 2020-2033. doi: 10.1093/jn/nxz158
31
HLPE (2024). Strengthening Urban and Peri-Urban Food Systems to Achieve Food Security and Nutrition, in the Context of Urbanization and Rural Transformation. Available online at: www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe (Accessed June 20, 2025).
32
HossainM.MendirattaV.SavastanoS. (2024). Agricultural and rural development interventions and poverty reduction: Global evidence from 16 impact assessment studies. Glob. Food Secur.43:100806. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2024.100806
33
IFAD (2021). Transforming Food Systems for Rural Prosperity. Rural Development Report 2021. IFAD. Available online at: https://www.ifad.org/en/rural-development-report/ (Accessed April 6, 2023).
34
IPBES (2019). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, eds. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo (Bonn: IPBES secretariat), 1148
35
IPCC (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. H. Lee and J. Romero (Geneva: IPCC), 184
36
KhanM. M. H. (2000). Rural Poverty in Developing Countries: Issues and Policies. International Monetary Fund. IMF Working paper. Available online at: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2000/wp0078.pdf (Accessed August 8, 2024).
37
LocontoA. M.FouilleuxE. (2019). Defining agroecology: exploring the circulation of knowledge in FAO's Global Dialogue. Int. J. Sociol. Agricult. Food25, 116–137. doi: 10.48416/ijsaf.v25i2.27
38
ManceronS.Ben-AriT.DumasP. (2014). Feeding proteins to livestock: Global land use and food vs. feed competition. OCL - Oilseeds and Fats. John, and Achim Dobermann. The CGIAR needs a revolution. Glob. Food Secur.38:100712. doi: 10.1051/ocl/2014020
39
McIntireJ.DobermannA. (2023). The CGIAR needs a revolution. Glob. Food Secur.38:100712. Available online at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912423000421 (Accessed December 17, 2025).
40
MechlerR. (2003). Macroeconomic Impacts of Natural Disasters. World Bank. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Reinhard-Mechler/publication/237643342_Macroeconomic_Impacts_of_Natural_Disasters/links/0deec5290c8ead3c74000000/Macroeconomic-Impacts-of-Natural-Disasters.pdf (Accessed July 24, 2025).
41
MellorJ. W. (1966). Production problems and issues in agricultural development. J. Farm Econ.48, 1195–1202.
42
Mofya-MukukaR.HichaambwaM. (2018). Livelihood effects of crop diversification: a panel data analysis of rural farm households in Zambia. Food Secur. 10. 1449–1462. doi: 10.1007/s12571-018-0872-6
43
NeginJ.RemansR.KarutiS.FanzoJ. C. (2009). Integrating a broader notion of food security and gender empowerment into the African Green Revolution. Food Secur.1, 351–360. doi: 10.1007/s12571-009-0025-z
44
PenneT.GoedeméT. (2021). Can low-income households afford a healthy diet? Insufficient income as a driver of food insecurity in Europe. Food Policy99:101978. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101978
45
Penning de VriesF. W. T.RabbingeR.GrootJ. J. R. (1997). Potential and attainable food production and food security in different regions. Philos. Transact. Royal Society B: Biol. Sci.352, 917–928. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1997.0071
46
PiedrahitaN.CostaV.ManeE. (2024). Gender Gap in Agricultural Labour Productivity: A Cross-Country Comparison – Background Paper for the Status of Women in Agrifood Systems. Rome:FAO.
47
PingaliP. L. (2012). Green revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA109, 12302–12308. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912953109
48
PradhanP.FischerG.Van VelthuizenH.ReusserD. E.KroppJ. P. (2015). Closing yield gaps: how sustainable can we be?PLoS ONE10:0129487. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129487
49
RaoM.AfshinA.SinghG.MozaffarianD. (2013). Do healthier foods and diet patterns cost more than less healthy options? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open3:004277. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004277
50
RoserM. (2025). The End of Progress Against Extreme Poverty?” Available online at: 'https://archive.ourworldindata.org/20251125-173858/end- progress-extreme-poverty.html' [Online Resource] (Accessed November 25, 2025).
51
RusikeJ.MahunguN. M.JumboS.SandifoloV. S.MalindiG. (2010). Estimating impact of cassava research for development approach on productivity, uptake and food security in Malawi. Food Policy35, 98–111. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.10.004
52
RustN. A.RiddingL.WardC.ClarkB.KehoeL.DoraM.et al. (2020). How to transition to reduced-meat diets that benefit people and the planet. Sci. Total Environ.718:137208. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137208
53
SampsonD.Cely-SantosM.Gemmill-HerrenB.BabinN.BernhartA.Bezner KerrR.et al. (2021). Food sovereignty and rights-based approaches strengthen food security and nutrition across the globe: a systematic review. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.5:686492. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.686492
54
SaundersD. (2010). Arrival City: How the Largest Migration in History Is Reshaping Our World.London: Random House.
55
SchneiderK. R.RemansR.BekeleT. H. (2025). Governance and resilience as entry points for transforming food systems in the countdown to 2030. Nat. Food6, 105–116. doi: 10.1038/s43016-024-01109-4
56
SonninoR.Ana MoraguesF.AlbinoM. (2014). Sustainable food security: an emerging research and policy agenda. Int. J. Sociol. Agricult. Food21, 173–188.
57
TanzerM.GläselA.EgermannM. (2022). Elucidating the capabilities of international mechanisms to foster procedural just system change – The case of the 2021 UN Food System Summit. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans.45, 72–82.
58
UNDP (2023). Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI): Unstacking Global Poverty: Data for High Impact Action. New York, NY: Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI); Human Development Reports.
59
United Nations (2021). Population, Food Security, Nutrition and sustainable Development. Commission on Population and Development Fifty-fourth session Economic and Social Council. Available online at: https://docs.un.org/en/E/CN.9/2021/2 (Accessed April 23, 2021).
60
Von Braun. J. (2008). Food and Financial Crises: Implications For Agriculture and the Poor, Vol. 20.Washington, DC: Intl Food Policy Res Inst 2008.
61
WenJ.ChenH. (2025). Green innovation and the urban–rural income gap: empirical evidence from China Sustainability17:2106. doi: 10.3390/su17052106
62
WigginsS. (2009). Agriculture is a Key Pathway Out Of Poverty. Can the smallholder model deliver poverty reduction and food security for a rapidly growing population in Africa? FAO Expert Meeting on How to feed the World in 2050. Available online at: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/123456789/2338/FAC_Working~_Paper_08.pdf (Accessed June 18, 2025).
63
WillettW.RockströmJ.LokenB.SpringmannM.LangT.VermeulenS.et al. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet393, 447–492. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
64
WiseT. A. (2020). “Failing Africa's Farmers: An Impact Assessment of the Alliance for a Green Revolution In Africa. Medford, OR: Global Development and and Environment Institute, Tufts University.
65
World Bank (2022). Maize Trade Policies in Zambia: Options for Growth. Washington, DC: World Bank.
66
World Bank (2024). Poverty, Prosperity, and Planet Report 2024: Pathways Out of the Polycrisis. Washington, DC: World Bank
67
World Bank (2025). What is Food Security? Available online at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/brief/food-security-update/what-is-food-security#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%201996%20World,an%20active%20and%20healthy%20life (Accessed November 12, 2025).
68
Yield Gap (2025). Available online at: https://www.yieldgap.org/gygaviewer/index.html (Accessed December 1, 2025).
Summary
Keywords
farming, hunger, labor productivity, nutrition, poverty, smallholders, sustainability, resilience
Citation
Cock JH, Meinke H, Sperling F and Fromm I (2026) Rural prosperity: the key to sustainable farm and food systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 9:1693172. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1693172
Received
26 August 2025
Revised
01 December 2025
Accepted
04 December 2025
Published
28 January 2026
Volume
9 - 2025
Edited by
Rabindranath Bhattacharyya, University of Burdwan, India
Reviewed by
Andualem Muche Hiywotu, Debark University, Ethiopia
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Cock, Meinke, Sperling and Fromm.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: James H. Cock, jamescock@gmail.com; Ingrid Fromm, ingrid.fromm@bfh.ch
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.