Agricultural Gatekeepers - Real Barrier to Rural Development

I wasn't surprised that Schutjer's first point was simply, "Rural development is more than agricultural development." Of course he's right, but the fact it has to be stated and elaborated once more implies something is wrong! Recently, I read with some anticipation Rural Economic Development for the 90's: A Presidential Initiative, a report from the Economic Policy Council Working Group on Rural Development, chaired by Secretary of Agriculture Clayton Yeutter. It contains some useful recommendations. But, the real case for rural development never gets stated, except with deference to agriculture. For example, "A healthy farm economy is not enough...over 60 percent of all farm families now rely on off-farm income to help support their lifestyles." And, "Agriculture remains the most important industry in rural America, but now employs relatively few people."2

Does the first statement imply that nonfarm employment is mostly for support of a desired agricultural lifestyle for farmers? And, on what basis is it concluded that agriculture is rural America's most important industry, when only 500 of the nation's 2,940 rural counties remain agriculturally dependent? The ultimate subjecting of rural development to the supremacy of agriculture in this report is the recommendation to form a Presidential Council on Rural America to focus on alternative means of rural development. Ten representatives are to be included. The first two positions on the list are for representatives from "production agriculture" and "agri- industry."3 Rural development, if it's to exist, would seem to have to pass through an agricultural gatekeeper. Is the USDA really committed to rural development except as it relates to and is controlled by agriculture?

The state Colleges of Agriculture are no less an agricultural gatekeeper for rural development. When a research or Extension director has funds to allocate for rural development, and has supervisory responsibility only over administrators of agricultural departments, ranging from agronomy to agricultural engineering, it shouldn't be surprising when any "rural development" projects focus on value-added processing of agricultural products. The entire USDA land-grant system has an organizational bias against rural development, unless it has an agricultural underpinning controlled by agriculturists.

Neither the USDA nor land-grant universities have made rural development a priority in its own right; both seem too institutionalized in their commitment to agriculture to allow that to happen. Agriculture should remain an important commitment, but should not serve as the implicit intellectual framework and explicit gatekeeper for all of rural development.

One solution is to move all federal rural development responsibilities and funds outside of the USDA...perhaps to the Small Business Administration, Department of Education, and/or the Department of Labor. Similarly, it can be persuasively argued that an effort to help small businesses would do more for rural development than has anything to date, and therefore funds need to be shifted away from Colleges of Agriculture to Colleges of Business. However, these agencies and business schools, too, are institutionalized toward other objectives that would likely dominate rural development.

A persuasive reason for not risking such a change is what Schutjer identifies as the "Extension edge." Extension does have a unique local presence and working relationship in rural communities that no other agency or segment of most universities has. But, for success to happen, both the USDA and the Colleges of Agriculture must not delude themselves by stating that rural development is important, while deep down reaffirming through their allocations of resources and mechanisms of control that it's only agriculture that really counts.

The lack of a comprehensive theory of rural development described by Schutjer is solvable, but won't be until significant funds are committed to true rural development research and Extension, and not simply agricultural projects dressed up to look that way. The past reluctance of the USDA and state land- grant universities to make such a commitment is all too evident. For example, in 1987, 95% of the USDA/land-grant system's 11,477 scientist positions were allocated to agriculture and only one percent to community and rural development.4 How can a comprehensive theory of rural development be formulated and tested when the scientist commitment is so tiny? The situation in Extension is better, 48% vs. 8% (with the remainder committed to human nutrition, families, consumers, and health).5 The ESCOP report is long overdue and a much needed step in the right direction.

Schutjer is an optimist, seeing a promising future for rural development. A giant step towards proving him right would be for the leadership of the USDA and our state agricultural colleges to accept rural development as an important topic in its own right- not one that must constantly pass the judgment of agricultural gatekeepers. Otherwise, Schutjer will be proven wrong and only future sociological texts will benefit, gaining a classic case of how the forces of institutionalization prevailed over the development needs of rural Americans.

1. Economic Policy Council Working Group on Rural Development, Rural Economic Development for the 90's: A Presidential Initiative (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990), p. 2.

2. Ibid., p. 4.

3. Ibid., p.15.

4. Joint Council on the Food and Agricultural Sciences, Five- Year Plan for the Food and Agricultural Sciences: A Report to the Secretary of Agriculture (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988), p. 82.

5. Ibid., p. 83.