The Green Revolution in India appears in the book as a case through which to study social learning and the diffusion of technology. Its significance here is not a detailed account of agricultural change, but its place in a larger argument: knowledge is dispersed among people, and the spread of an innovation depends on how that knowledge moves through a population.

A Case of Social Learning

The cited study is Kaivan Munshi’s research on technology diffusion during the Indian Green Revolution. The book points to it as an example of social learning in a heterogeneous population, linking the historical case to a wider account of how innovations spread through networks of influence. The evidence supplied does not specify particular crops, farming practices, or adoption rates, so the case is presented at the level of the research question rather than as a detailed chronology of agricultural transformation.

Innovation and Distributed Knowledge

The example belongs to a discussion of diffusion: adoption is not simply a matter of an innovation existing, but of people learning about it in a social setting. The book’s broader treatment emphasizes that individuals possess local knowledge and that decentralized systems can generate more information than any single center could hold. The Green Revolution study offers a setting for considering how such knowledge and influence bear on technological adoption, without reducing the process to a single decision-maker or a single source of expertise.

Place in the Book’s Argument

The reference to India serves as an empirical pointer within a broader account of collective intelligence. Elsewhere, the book argues that decentralized actors can specialize and acquire knowledge close to a problem, but that useful information may remain isolated unless it is shared and brought together. Read in that context, the Green Revolution example connects the spread of innovation with the social circulation of knowledge. The supplied material identifies the study and its subject, but does not report its specific findings; the case therefore supports the book’s framing of social learning, not a more precise claim about which farmers adopted which technologies, or why.