Global population is expected to keep rising for the next 50-60 years, because it will take awhile for the demographic force of declining birthrates to overcome the life expectancies. In addition, the world still has lots of very poor people: for example, about 800 million people around the world live below the World Bank extreme poverty line of $3/day, and of course hundreds of millions more are not far above that line. With a rising world population, and one where we hope the standard of living for the poorest will be rising, more food production will be needed. So how is the world doing in this area?
The Global Agricultural Productivity initiative at Virgina Tech University,tackles the big questions of global agricultural productivity in the 2026 GAP Report, Restarting Growth: The Role of Regenerative Agriculture in Productivity Growth and Profitability, with a team effort led by Chellie Maples. Here’s a picture to set the stage:
Growth in total agricultural output can come from several sources: more land, more irrigation, more intensive use of inputs (labor, materials, and capital), and increased productivity given the same amounts of land, irrigation, and inputs (say, from improved farming practices, better weather information, improved seeds, and so on). To do these calculations, gains in agricultural output that cannot be attributed to measurable factors like land, irrigation, and inputs are then ascribed to productivity gains.
In the 1960s, most growth of agriculture came from more intensive use of inputs. By the 1990s and early 2000s, most of the growth of agricultural output was coming from producitvity gains, with very little coming from land expansion or additional inputs. But since about 2011, growth of agricultural output has slumped. Productivity gains are way down, although expansion of land and inputs have made up some of the difference. In a nutshell, this is global challenge of finding ecologically-sound ways of increasing agricultural output.
Of course, these factors vary by region. But even in the areas with relatively rapid growth in agricultural output, that growth is being driven by additional inputs (like South Asia) or by additional land (sub-Saharan Africa).
Part of the answer here is to improve productivity growth in agriculture, especially in the regions where economic and population growth are creating stresses on the food supply. I’ve argued in the past for a rise in global R&D spending in agriculture, especially focused on lower-income areas of the world. (Also, here’s a look at the long-term prospects for agricultural productivity growth from about 25 years back by Vernon Ruttan, a preeminent agricultural economist.)
The particular focus of this year’s GAP report is on “regenerative agriculture,” defined as “a set of contextually appropriate farming and management practices and tools oriented toward improving soil and ecosystem health as a primary goal, with enhanced biodiversity, watershed function, and resilience as downstream benefits. Which practices qualify depends on local soil, climate, and production system conditions. This definition aligns practices, principles, and outcomes, centering ecosystem health as the mechanism through which broader gains are achieved.” In my own mind, this focus starts from the hard fact that additional inputs and land are driving growth of total agricultural output, recognizes that expanding agriculture to marginal and heavily fertilized land will have environmental tradeoffs, and then uses this lens to think about productivity gains that could minimize these environmental consequences. The possibilities in this area seem real, but the report is forthright in noting:
Regenerative agriculture (RA) has drawn growing attention, in part because its practices target the input use and natural capital depletion that the current output growth model largely depends on. Yet the potential contribution of RA practices to TFP [total factor productivity] growth has, thus far, only been a conceptual claim rather than an empirical finding. No study in the current literature directly measures changes in TFP growth attributable to RA. attention, in part because its practices target the input use and natural capital depletion that the current output growth model largely depends on. Yet the potential contribution of RA practices to TFP growth has, thus far, only been a conceptual claim rather than an empirical finding. No study in the current literature directly measures changes in TFP growth attributable to RA.
