Mature Relationship Requires Shifting Resources

Bloome's article is thoughtful and useful in the growing discussion about the future direction of Extension, and more particularly, about the relationship with commercial agriculture. The situation he describes of only two percent of Americans engaged in farming and of many commercial farmers bypassing Extension as a source of information is undeniable.

The adjustments suggested by Bloome confirm a growing awareness about the changing character and needs of commercial agriculture and appropriate ways of reaching this important group of farmers.1 Extension must continue to "wholesale" its information products as new entrants in the farm information market become active and provide new ways of reaching farm groups. Indeed, as Bloome points out, any reading of the farm press will reveal that much of the contents of those publications is from Extension specialists, albeit from several states. That only reinforces the need for increasingly specialized information and that county level agricultural generalists may no longer be a relevant source for commercial farmers.

The full implications of Bloome's point about the changing political economy are important to re-emphasize and examine more carefully. In public policy education, it's inappropriate for Extension to make a final outcome recommendation. While the alternatives/consequences methodology of public policy education isn't the exclusive domain of economists, most public policy questions have considerable economic content. Yet, many of our staff have little training in this way of thinking. Unfortunately, farmers often look to Extension to be advocates for them in the public policy process. Many Extension staff comply, sometimes knowingly, mostly unwittingly. Indeed, as I argued elsewhere, part of what's at the root of the declining fortunes of Extension is the degree to which it has been captured and held hostage by agricultural interests.2 Advocacy has real costs to those who would be viewed as objective educators!

The land-grant support to agriculture has always been justified on the grounds of a larger public purpose, even though there are considerable private benefits to farmers as well. Increased productivity in the sector that employed as many as 30% of all workers wasn't difficult to justify-the current numbers change that argument.

Industries that are "atomistic" in nature, with many relatively small firms, have great difficulty in organizing their own research and development. Thus, without public funding, agricultural research and Extension wouldn't be done. A commercial agriculture of even one million farms won't be much more likely to directly support its own research and development than it was in the past. The issue isn't affordability, but whether there would be so many free riders that the private financing wouldn't be forthcoming. Even the "checkoff" programs haven't overcome that problem. Inexpensive and safe food to consumers is another major category of benefits, with increasing emphasis on the "safe food."

In making this case, Bloome conveys the sense that all that's needed to make these well-reasoned changes is for Extension to act. If there is a public benefit or public purpose, Extension should do it. If not, then don't. I believe this glosses over some really tough implications. For example, Extension wants to be successful in the competition for public dollars. That competition gets played out in a political marketplace that we describe with terms like "audience support," "contacts," and a variety of other activities central to the institutional maintenance part of our jobs. Soil testing is the classic example of retaining an activity for its political impact that we could approach quite differently if we weren't competing for public funds.

Making the changes that are implied by Bloome's article are likely to outrage both Extension staff and farm interests because his suggestion for "a mature relationship" implies the use of substantially different kinds of resources. From my perspective, it also implies a major shift of resources away from commercial agriculture to be able to compete in the political marketplace for continued public dollars. Without such shifts in resources, without new support, Extension won't be able to serve anyone at all. The shifts in resources will require not just the acquiescence of farm and agricultural interests, but their strong endorsement on grounds of their own self-interest. Does anyone see that kind of visionary leadership on the agricultural horizon?

1. See, for example, David M. Kohl, Leonard A. Shabman, and Herbert H. Stoevener, "Agricultural Transition: Its Implications for Agricultural Economics Extension in the Southeast," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics , XIX (July 1987), 35-43.

2. George McDowell, "The USDA and the Extension System Revisited or If You Haven't Visited Extension Recently, You Better Do It Soon, Cause It Isn't Going To Be There Long" (Paper presented to the National Invitational Workshop, Nashville, Tennessee, April 3-5, 1991).