A good example of motivated reasoning is found in those who don't understand or embrace technological advancement. Often this is part of a set of norms and preferences rooted in romantic ideas about peasant agriculture. Charles the Dim of England is the poster boy for such thinking, but there are many others so infected.

Consider this opinion post.

Bangladesh experienced widespread diffusion of green revolution technology in rice, its main crop. As a result, rice production has more than doubled since the early 1970s. The spread of green revolution technology is usually expected to boost wages for farm workers. But we found regional differences in rural wages that run counter to the traditional argument.

What does "usually expected" mean in this context? Does anyone with a rudimentary grasp of socio-economic reality expect that there could ever be uniform development across regions? I think what we have here are sceptics about agricultural technology arguing against their own misunderstandings rather than any "traditional argument".

The North-West region of Bangladesh (Rajshahi Division) has some of the highest agroecological endowments in the country . . . But, surprisingly, real agricultural wages were much lower in the Rajshahi Division. Similarly, the probability of employment in the high-wage, non-farm sector was also lower in the North-West. This is puzzling in light of the traditional argument that productivity growth in agriculture raises agricultural wages and also boosts non-farm employment through various production, consumption and labor market linkages. These linkages between the farm and non-farm sectors are assumed to create a virtuous cycle of growth and development in rural areas.

No it isn't surprising unless you don't understand agriculture and economics. There are several important factors left out of this non-argument against misunderstood ag realities.

Our study found that access to large urban markets (as in Dhaka and Chittagong) is by far the most important determinant of high-return, non-farm activities: people are more likely to be employed in better paid wage employment and self employment in the non-farm sector if they are closer to urban centers. The impact of agricultural potential depends on how far the village is from the main urban centers: those who are further away from these centers are even less likely to be in well-paying non-farm jobs even if they are living in areas with greater agricultural potential. This suggests that poor connectivity to major urban markets greatly weakens farm-non-farm linkages.

How far can a low wage worker commute to work? Not far. Duh. But they can move closer to their jobs. The above criticism of agricultural technology and productivity doubling rests on the assumption that there is no mobility. What is the real issue here?

And lack of expansion of better paid non-farm jobs in turn slows down the movement of workers from agriculture to other activities, depressing agricultural wages and impeding long-term growth in agricultural productivity itself.

Greater investment in improving agricultural technology certainly needs to be part of the solution to meet the rising demand for food. But if spatially connective infrastructure (roads and bridges in particular) and complementary services such as agricultural extension are ignored, these findings from Bangladesh suggest that few farmers in lagging but potentially productive regions will benefit, thwarting the goal of raising agricultural productivity.

Poor analysis always yields poor policy prescriptions.

The problem here is lack of mobility - perhaps cultural aversion to emigration or a reciprocal resistance to immigration in places where non-farm work can be found. These are real problems but do not support the anti-technological stance.

A more sensible analysis would lead to a different set of policy prescriptions. Improved infrastructure for transportation and communication directly serves the needs of a region with increasing productivity of any sort, including agriculture. It's part of development.

Education and experience are part of productivity growth. New methods and materials always require practice before they are used most effectively. This isn't necessarily an argument for "agricultural extension" services, especially since that is often code for bureaucratic meddling by outsiders with agendas. And it is in no way an argument against agricultural technology.

Change is always lumpy, messy, and uncomfortable at first. Increased agricultural productivity due to improved agronomic systems isn't magic that solves all problems, it's a first necessary step in development. When there is surplus to export the need for transportation infrastructure becomes both obvious and more affordable. When there is nothing to export then improved infrastructure is senseless - bridges to nowhere. With exports and then infrastructure emigration or longer distance commuting becomes possible.

Increased productivity in a region also draws industry and services out to the region. Suppliers and expertise are drawn in to the emerging market for materials and services. The "virtuous cycle of growth and development" happens, but it doesn't spring full grown from the brow of omniscient bureaucrats, indeed, bureaucratic meddling retards the cycle by displacing local and private efforts.

Development takes patience and perseverance as well as enlightened methods and materials. This isn't news. Anyone with even the most rudimentary grasp of the issues knows this, but bureaucrats and advocates who oppose development try to use the discomforts of change as leverage to insert themselves into the picture. They advance their interests at the expense of those who are truly in need, all the while loudly proclaiming their heartfelt concern for the poor.

As a grower I see a pattern. Agronomic systems have some similarities to socio-economic systems. In both cases it takes times for the results of actions to bear fruit but one must hold the mark - continue to do the right things at the right times - in anticipation of future results. And, it can't all be done at once, there is a succession where one set of improvements enable the next set and they must be done in the proper order. Impatience, changing systems frequently, failure to carry through or improper sequence and timing lead to ruin. I've seen it many times. Those who fail do a poor job of it and then claim that "it doesn't work".

It may be that this isn't a widely shared ability. Holding a relatively large set of contingencies in mind - in effect living as much in an imagined future as in the present - may be a somewhat rare ability. Not everyone is cut out to be a grower. Bureaucrats, certainly, have the wrong skill set, as do political activists. Dealing with them is one more task for a would be grower. They are like pests or bad weather, more things to be avoided or dealt with, more impediments to success. They make the job harder, but not impossible.