Distributional impacts of technological change and/or ‘Green Revolution’ have been mixed despite the fact that spread of this technology has been fastest of all in the history of technological innovations in agriculture. The overwhelming belief in the pursuit of this ‘highinput payoff’ model of agricultural development is due to its potential in increasing foodgrain productivity, employment as well as income (seen in many countries during 1960 – 1970s), thereby, alleviating poverty and hunger. The degree of controversy on the distributional impacts of modern agricultural technology becomes clear in Freebairn (1995), whose analyses on the results of 307 studies undertaken during the period 1970-89 revealed that about 80% of these studies had conclusions that the new technology widened both inter-farm and inter-regional income inequality. Interestingly, he noted that the nature of conclusion drawn in these studies were influenced by ‘regional origin of the authors’, ‘location of the study area’, ‘methodology followed’, and the ‘geographic extension of the study area’. In his words, ‘studies done by Western developed-country authors, those employing an essay approach, and those looking at multi-country region are most likely to conclude that income inequalities increased. By contrast, work done by Asia-origin authors, with study areas located in India or the Philippines, and using the case study method are more likely to conclude that increasing inequality is not associated with the new technology’ (Freebairn, 1995: p265). Scale non-neutrality has been one of the major criticisms of ‘Green Revolution’ (Wharton, 1969; Falcon, 1970; and Griffin, 1974) as well as high capital intensity that favor large farmers who are equipped with better information and financial capability. However, contrasting views (Hossain, 1989; Hossain et al., 1990; Dantwala, 1985; and Mellor, 1978) express that the new technology may benefit the poor in the long run in two ways. One, by reducing the cost of production and, thereby, lowering the prices of foodgrain on which the poor spent most of their money, and two, by generating more non-farm employment opportunities by suppressing real wages down and stimulating demand for non-farm goods and services. In this view, the cause of poverty is seen as the delayed adoption of technological change such that the beneficial effects tend to be offset by high population growth and therefore, slow rate of technological progress will accentuate poverty (Hossain, 1989). Bangladesh, being a predominantly agricultural economy with an extremely unfavorable landman ratio owing to high population density, also sought to pursue the policy of transforming agriculture through rapid technological progress to ‘alleviate poverty’ and widespread hunger. Consequently, over the past four decades, the major thrust of national policies has been directed towards diffusing the ‘Green Revolution’ technology (modern varieties of rice and wheat) with corresponding support in the provision of modern inputs, such as chemical fertilisers, pesticides, irrigation equipment, institutional credit, product procurement, storage and marketing facilities. Differential rate of modern variety adoption, variation in prices, and the impacts of this modern technology on production, employment, and expansion of markets for non-farm goods and services will ultimately affect the level and pattern of income distribution in the rural areas and hence have implications on poverty (Hossain, 1989). As such, the present study is aimed at analysing the distributional consequences of three decades of modern agricultural technology diffusion in Bangladesh, specifically, its impact on income, distribution of income and poverty using a wide variety of measures.