UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA . DAVIS . , SEP 3 - 1974 OBJECTIVES OF INTERNATIONAL TRAINING IN Ag.ricultural · ·Library /

D. Gale [ohnson The University of Chicago

While perhaps not intended to apply to American training in agri- cultural economics for foreign nationals, the following exchange brings out points that perhaps hav~ troubled each of us:

Q. "You have been sarcastic about what you call technocratic opti­ mism. Does this mean that you don't put much store in the use of modern technology in the underdeveloped countries? Particularly, do you think the so-called green revolution can:not have a signifi- cant effect? · ·

A. "I can tell you a story. I once visited a great university here with a glorious agricultural school located in one of the most glo­ rious agricultural districts. of America. There were a hundred Pakistani and Indian students present and they wanted to see me. When we met, I said: 'What are you doing here? There is nothing you can learn here that·you can possibly apply back home among your mud houses in the villages. ' And they appeared to agree with me. Conditlons in the poor countries are vastly different from those here. Climate. Factor proportions. Social Relations. The tech­ nology they need is different from ours. Of course it should be modern, built on the latest scientific discoveries, but it has to fit their conditions."

The responder was (3, p. 31). What answer can we give to the question: What can young men and women from developing countries learn through the study of agricultural economics in American universities that will help them when they return home? Is the answer, as given.by

Myrdal for a group of students studying some unspecified aspects of agri­ , nothing? Very little? Or a great deal?

Paper to be delivered at annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, College Station, Texas, August 19-21, 1974. 2

As one who believes that science is universal--that the po.wel'." to understand the mysteries of life. may come from any place and any time and can have applicability to other places and times--I was amazed and shocked by Myrdaf's advice to the students from Pakistan and India.

Either Myrdal ~as being sarcastic when he described the institutio~1 that he visited as •~a great u:n:Lvers:Lty . • •. with a glprious agri(:!ultural school •.• " or he has littl,e understanding of the relationship between research and technology. His response s.eemed to imply that all that was b.eing learned from the. American agricultural institution was technology and tl,.e technology being studied was appropriate only to the factor supplies of the United States or perhaps only of the agricultural region where the students were studyi:p.g. The sciences of genetics, nutrition, pathology, physiology, chemistry and hydrology have nothing to do with factor pro­ polc'tions or climate or soeial :relations. Perhaps the s.tudents were studying onl,y technology, but I doubt this very much. And it is clear that there is a great deal of American or European agricultural tech­ n;ology, with some modifications, that can be applied profitably in the developing couhtties. Some examples might be sprinkler irrigation, the

\ control of the cotton ball weevil or the corn borer, the control of many animal diseases~ or construction of irrigation dams.

:Out to speak critically of the position taken by Myrdal does not take us very far in understanding what American training in agricultural . economics.can contripute to the improvement of agriculture and in the developing countries, It is my responsibility to discuss the ob­ jectives of international training in agricultural economics.

It is. my view that the appropriate objectives of graduate education 3

in agricultural economics for s.tudents who are nationals of the developing

co,,m~,ries are the same as the objectives for high quality programs for

Americans. We owe foreig~ nationals who are our students no less than

we ow~ Students from our own country. My coll~agues on this program

will undoubtedly suggest how we can improve the means by which we ap".""

proacI:i our ends or objectives~

The objectives of graduate education in agricultural economics

are·the development of:

· 1. A firm understanding of the major principles and theories of

econo.mics;

2.. A grasp of the fundamentals of empirical analysis adequate to

permit undertaking research on important economic problems involv­

i1;1g the application of economic analysis;

3, An understanding of essentials of the analysis of public policies,.

including an appreciation of the stre)lgths.and limitations of

economic analysis in such evaluations; and

4. The capacity to grow and.develop one's capacity as a scholar, re-·

searcher, adm:Lnis ttator and policy analyst.

Our objecti:ves are not those of providing our graduates with answers to a series of specific questions but rather to provide them with the principles and tools that will permit them to answer the important.ques;... tions that will arise ii1 the years ahead. As oµr own experience indicates.

the most pressing questions of today are likely. . to be replaced by a rather. different set of que:sti,ons tomorrow. If the function of our education was to provide answers to questions, rather than providing .the capacity f:or answering questions, we would almost certainly be answeri1:1g y~sterday' s questions and not even those of today let alone tomorrow's.

I I serva,tJ._i,e ,and do rw.t call .fo.r an .ex:t-ensio,n or bi,qa_deni~g o;f :v.r,hat mPs't of us in ,th.e ,tJniv:ersities think we are nC;')w ,doing. This is a. ,eo,:r.r,eq:t ll>ntei;­ pretation. I be.li.ev:e that the berit,ca,ge <::if eco,nonid.c analy:-sci,s. -a:liid theo~y is fl ,p,!)tilerf:ul ai1d valuable heritage capahle .o;f gr:0¥,th _l;ln.d -d.ev;e:101>meat in the futu;re as in the past. I do not think that I 1~m l>,eing ,J!)eg;rQ,.ch:lal ~he,11

I say that t:H'l oJ~:het so.cial sc:L.ence hc:1.s tAe ric;hes of the:0ry,, aµ._ai~sis arld c:1>p.wroach to the und.erstanging of humc;1,n behavior that ex:ists in ,tl;J.,e ,eoirJ:u.s

ou:fl; to iµdicate that we shoqld •be proud, of what we have to .c,.f,fer.

tt ';ts true that ,ecJ;1110niic anaJ,.y!:!oi~ eneompasses q.nly .a par·t of hunkm i b.ebav::;i,Q.r, thoµgh recent ap.pl.ications Qf econmnic .anal,.ysis to a wider rdnge o-f prob:lems..--,-marriage, crinie, fertility; suicide,...,..:f.;ndicates that we have p.er·hap,a, u.nderestJn,.a;t;:ed the gen.erality of eco-n:om;ic theory and the extent to w:hi,ch eels ts a,nd ben.ef :!,ts affect h111nan behavior. But even as the mo.re

;J:.~ginat::i.ve alllong us extend the range o.f pehavior that ec;onpmic anal,y1:1~s ma,r :l.:J.,l1Jtninate ti;, 1:1ome degree~ 'W'e should e111phasize to qur students that not all important d:ec:isiop.$" whether .pf the farm, the fa1'1:J.ly, the state or the na:t::i,t?cn~ rest $Olely .Qr primarily \!POU the considerations that we ate mo,~t c~pable o-f e~Hcating. This is necessary for at. lec1-e;,t two reasons ... - it i.s_ lru,ce and .:f, t is perhap,S, of help in preventing un<;h.1e ox unnecessart, fr~stration a.nd deS!Pa:lr when what is cleatly good research or good advice

l sa:1-d earlier that I felt that the objectives of gradt1,ate education .;. ' in a,gricultural econo1I1i.cs for foreign nationals a,hould be the s;ime as hi,e obJecttVle~. qf high qt1,ality pro.grams fo-r Americans. There are, per:haps~ ,two 5 differences of ,some significance. that we should recognize ...... •,.. ,, ,· . \ . .

First, iQ. the United. States, Can~da apd other industrial countries. the agi:iGultural has a reasc;,nab+Y ~ccurate perception of the various .roles that. he can perfo:i;-m -in the various institutions of his. . l\nd these institutions have more ,or less .accurate eJt-pectations of what it ~eans, to employ the serviaes of. agricultural ecortomists. But the agricu1tur_al in most devel,oping countries do not. go home to equally w~+l defined situations. Some.may well be the first agricul­ tural economist with a Ph.D .. deg!ee to hold a position in a .particular institutional, setting in their country and perhaps the first agricultural economist with an M.A. or a Ph.D. .We can, if asked, give our American or•

Canadian graduates a reasonably clear description of the expectations and opportunities .. surrounding positions in a large ntiml,er of institutions, whether they be government bureaus, private firms, or universi.ties. But

I suspect that we,often fail to realize how great the difference may be between the roles for which we educate our students and the·actual roles envisaged by the various institutions that employ agricultural economists in many developing countries. As a directly related point, we need to recognJz.e that_, in most developing countries an agricultural economist has, far less support in terms of colleagues, libraries, equipment and competent research personnel than we have. I am not sure that we can do much tq prepare our graduate students for their far more difficult circ1,1ID,stances, except to recognize these conditions and to let.our students know thatsuch difficulties will confront them. ·

Second, a further difference is in the .desirable breadth of. the edu­ cational programs provided to Americans and foreign nationals ..For students o'' . .

fro.nt our: ~7 ,.eeullt't;r,y, faniR -either,- iuiiilitsttrlita,il;, c,ou,ntti!e;s\J W~f)~~~l~ :ea.»r~ ... ·• ...... -.- •.phas!~z~; .a,· .cof!lsid3d~-l;>fl}f11 ci~g4i'~ei 0JiF sp$i?·!lia\iMiz&td'!.on,~. B:\ll!J '1iie\e.:auser:~,; 1l'111.iei, tli'f~, · fe-t:en.it· e:t

ofte1$ fil!!(l)W.IDie· $@±!· 0Ullt QWU\ t'l'ait.iinlit&illsr.. . ffi,ei a;g:l!'1Lc,t.Jili;tJ.lltti,& ,e;e~~tt :~: •~:->0 • • : • • •

:ve'[(il.~l\Jif e~li;itti~a1Efi _;ti$~ .,. lldfkeiilly:· ·t;,Q';- li>!.e· fa.eedi. ,wiiJtiut P,'!'~bilte~sr ,;~- 'lffl!l~ett.~t-_· ·· - ..

a,iuit: Ji,il::s,eaitl! Itiaib:l;i~y,,;,. i,~1t~,na11?:feaa'ili tri;,ariiltl,~,,e iinp,:att" .siabsti-1rlll:tll;C!im\:,,. :a~l!l\: .e,~~~

:ra'.it'e:s: tl;~i if~.1: ~lll'I -~~-$-ea'l\l•; ~~m.'B!a{l. eiupt~.GJWia~ ±fl: -e:i:tme.\1'" •a. ,~Y~t~ ..cl)m;": --~!. .·

.gp¥e11!lllllll~traiat, ;a;g~cw.. .· -· Ji1.0~~•-tre,]yc" oir: n:~t:;,: tn\e• Ar!Ia~tea;n aig;r,t:e~W~~a;il:;

. e:c0n0trtif:s•t' ~•ae,;,:fill'lif.- a~;em~ta~ete:.0if hdl~ ~()ille: asi ,a, :mali'iket:mg ,s{pa

f:a:rmr --:men.ti .-e~:$$'.]l\,tialf!: ,~a;·· whiait' h•awe- }7

. 1-~$nifl C!itl)t:sl!i. a,:, w.-rltii;e;lli:filar• i:u8'ldi.: Rtt-tr· i11l{ .tha .dtev.eili,01':fiq e.c,;~nt~'$.i ~-.:1£~,

¢1:iilhttµ,rai'lt ~:-ds\ttal a,ige, ia,f/.tae.a:t,,, ta.i ·nxitt, ~~ne,·r-ail~•,., ~~c..:ted'. t;i.>: )ae: r;b;e.;

G~ttipe,faa•; ·tt:ai dieia~Z: ,Wjj[;t'~. a, .. -:wj.\• ~~~ ~f .e:e.011tomme :fscsue:s-. :0m~o:ua~, ,, .•t'f•

the; lZ~~li :de: :tlbe.; ~~adttait:e:• Pl!1fJP¥t ilsi ,~&,. be ~p;J)l;0.~Jnat~l),?•··.t;l)l! s:~e ·f~· .

bc0,t\a0 t~~~iis:~ sielllie· .~~:Um;cirest •~ua¼tt lm· madE?:.. ;fai a,ch:l~Vse g,r~~ie~~ ,~~hi; -:t~Jl1···· -~- ·. . .. . · the· ff~,'l!',e,:l\i~ .~ttfl:Q,~als,... · · I\n; ttwe ·.ai£;.s1t~a,e:t i,:tt its, e.n,t p:0.asiibl'.t.e.: t0: aaJ· ·~at: ·.

sho~.tt~ ~ m'li'~e:c: ~; i~; e-;:ir.d'.e.'t; t\:@i plt!'!!>r'Wi

· ·prh.en~ntent\,,;, ~t ]f :be;l!te:-we, :tlira;t: _th,0.~:e C!)i; us. whta ~l;"e• in,v.:b:J.\:¢ed :i\n, e,4lfie·ati1on;ail

..•. p.,l'.~~r.flltia;·_~@iF '-a~1.dr,ci~tur:al e-~~sits, E!()ir° t:hr,e;e d~cW!~p¢bg c6:unt;:dte'l3, 1dr0:ultd

es.trs;;li'tfleili' ·- ~ts ·-.t!»f. ·, ~'ll\'l!'" ·t.i~~lfl\ti0fl·a,l l!'eq.iid:rement;s sli~!Ql:lld,_' bie lll(ltdif::ile,d·. !•' :· . '. .·. o.;~dt~· ·rt,0, fi!Jlimi,.El:e;imt ~1ft1;, ia:e'le'p0!Un'€lis, ta. eet,;~am±c:s:., ·· . . ·1 ·Jiva(Vie, s~ .·fa:i.r ,;em~h.sasc::tze:d/ t'lie, tweanh:&ng_ l!i:f ·p,F:l:ne:tp.ll.es,;, · t~ry ¥1.d! . . t·o.O,ill.$1 ;aa,- .dl,~ .m'itj;~,i;; 01bij:e,w~:lti:vi~~ ,{B QU'lt t,r,a:iim,t~g. f~ s,·t;uden:t.s t~'a,in: d;e-l6f:i:n~

edtlWft\iie~:~ . .,1tm,~lt •< 19i&'t ~ape:rly, elassdf'i.edt as ohj:eet1'ves;; F~~~lloi J:i;l.ce ' . . tm e.mp;'has:.iae• . two;· addi:tico.~al'. way..s.. :i!.n1 wn:li:.en we, may. b:e .ab•.le· ta- pr:avt~e ,s,tJPp,a,tt. 7

and assistance for such students.

The first is a matter of historical perspective or perhaps,a com­

parati,ve ·approach in which the comparisons occur through both time and

space. the cont.rasts between the cµrrent and income of the

industrial and developing countries are obviously evident to any of our·

students. who come. to us f.rom the developing countries. On the whole,

Americans are oriented to the present and the future. It is quite possible.by our emphasis upon current developntents--the new and the emerging--that we give the impression, undoubedly unintentionally, that our agriculture was always pretty much the same as it is tod.ay.

While there are major differences in any productivity measure that you choose for the developing and industrial countries as of today,. one does not need to go back into history very far to. discover that yields per hectare of cropped land or per farm worker in the industrial countries were similar to the current measures in the developing co.untries. . ' - While the yield of all grains per hectare in the United States is now three times the yield in India, the U.S. grain yield in the 1920s was ortly 20 percent above the average for India in 1969-71. In fact, if the world is divided into two parts--indtistrial and developing--the average grain yields were the same during 1935-39 while there is now a.difference of 50 percent.

As we all know Japan has emerged as one of the major industrial coun­ tries of the world and has now reached the European level of per capita

GNP. Yet, according.to the calculations made by Hayami and Ruttan, the agricultural output per male worker in Japan as .of 1910 .was approximately double the figure for India in 1965 and below that of Mexico, Columbia,

Peru, and Brazil as of 196,5 and approximately the same as .in Ceylon, the 8

Philipp,ineSc, and the Uni.ted Ar,ab,, Rep,ult1i.c (2, p. 73,, .. App.• , B,~., •.

';Che 0.:11,tp,ut per. male, woarke.r, in, F·r.ane.e as of l:8:8Q .. was" below the"'. 19,6!5 estilllate fo,r B,razil, C:::o.lo;JI1b,ia+. taiwa;n: rurd. Vettezuela, and~ the samet a:s, fom

Turkey. The Ere:nclt did n.o•t r.each the 18.8(} U,.S.,. level of o,u1tp,u\t;. p:exr maclt£h wo:rke,r ·· until the, 19,30s? (~·, p.. 73,,, .. App.,., lt),'°

The:i;,e are other asp;ect:si of the, his,t.orieaL p,,ersp.ec·tfai;e, tha,t i.t woJuld: be well to re.cogp:iz,e,, sueh as, l;ifEt expe:ctaney.. At; what date was·. 11,f~es expectaney in the, Unit.ed, S,ta,t~s-, and Western. Etn:op.e, the same,. as, now p:1,ce,-•• vails in l,n.d;ta, aad de•;v,el,op,ing, countri.es,, gener,a,lly;/,... excep;t, in;.A:f.r:ica,?.'

I will 1.eav:e, i,t. to, you to :fiind, o;u,:t: .•

Thene a,ue a;,, nUIDQ,er of op,]?,,Oli,tund.;ti,es, for in.eluding,, inf.oxmatio.n: nele:""" vant to, time, ani:h p,<4ace, comp,acniis:0ns,., S.p,eaking pers:onall~",, L haMe done, so,. in a, course, om ag,;r,ic:i:\wtu,1;',e andI e,eonomic. gr,ow,th, as; a,. p,art of:. the dis.uus'­ sion. o.E tihe; ·con,tJ,,:i,b;ut:iio11s1, th:a,t a:g,;r;icJtiLtu:net can, and; has, made· to, e.con.omia; gr;o:wth and, oJ; eons,et1µ.e.m2e:s;; oJ:: e·conord:cc, g~o:wsti;h., to agr,f!cul.tu:cal. emp.1o:ymerrt:,, share o:6 nattona,iL income and; the,, g:pow,tfo ofi y:i.e1:tds,, (man, an:,L landJ; o.n fa,11;ms,,.

I wo.,u1di titr,i,'n,¼ tha,t .. s;iLm,:it1a;J;l ma,teJ.,;taL am1l1dr he.• incJ;;,uded', in,. a, cou:tfSe; i,rn ag71:i::-· cu.Ltura,1' p,oLie:y,, that had. so.me,thing:; o,fi a, compa:riativ:,e,. ap,p111.o. .a.ch or· em:ghas,iz,ed his.t0J'.!:i;ca,;L de~,e1opments, ofi ag:v,:icul:t,urei., Lt. aou;ld. be, i,ncluderl i:n, the, somewha1tL r,a,re;' cou;r.s.e, tn, ag:pi,eu,1t:u;r,aib h±s.sto.t\y,,,. again if s,uG.ht a cou;r;se. in, vo1:v,ed, a, comp,ana,ti;v:e, a"BB!'l:oa,ch, 011 cov.e,ned more, than th.e, Uni,ted;. States,.•.

Si,nce, I be1±eN:,e• that; t±me, amdt P,,1a:ce, co,mpa.rtscms, a;l,s,o,, add,; to:· the, per,s:pec~

ti;v,es,, odi Am~,ir:bc;;i;,n, s,;tµd,~mts,, 1, I; think a.n, aff,ort to. provide such comparisons would• b,e of; v:,a1ue to1 al:il, the,. s;t,uden,ts,. in;v:olv:ed;•. ,

'l)htt, se,c.ond, w:ay i,n, w:h,i:.ch, we· cam P,.r,ov,i,de: sup,p,ont and:. asststance·. to our s.:uu

them,1 ifrL turm,~ under-stand, why there are such, large differ.ences in productivity 9

and income between the developing and :1:ndustrial countries at the present

time. If Hayanii and Ruttan are anywhere near the mark in their Agricultural

Development, An Internationai Perspective, differences in natural resource

end6wments relative to the number of workers do not explain most of the

wide disparities :i.rt output per worker. dutput----an:d income--differertces , ' are dlle much more to' diffe:r.ences in modern inputs, .. the amount oJ researdh ·

ot highly trained manpower, and in per worker. While no

road to development is an easy road to travel, the roads that·depend on·

resources that can be augmented are almost certainly easier ones than if

there were alimiting resource that could not be augmented at all or by

relatively little ..

The results by Hayami and Ruttan are clearly consistent with T. w.

Schultz's artalysis of the declining relative importance of land rent (4,.

' ' ' ' ' : -. ' ' \ •·,. . '': '. ,. , p. 47}. ·· Their results are also strongly fortified by the important

studies by Evenson and Kislev contained in Agricultural Research and,

Productivity, This work, which hopefully. w:i.11 be published in full this

year, ipvestigates the productivity of research in the developing coun­

tries.. Among their most striking results is that the internal rate of

: : . ,. ' ' .· return on in agricultural research is greater in the develop--

,' ing countries than in the developed, In part, this result is due to the

functional form of the equation and the lower levels of investmeht in

research in the developing countries. As es ti.mated by Evenson and Kislev, ·

only 11 percent of the world's publicly supported agricultural research

. was undertaken in the developing ~ountries in 1965. (1, Ch.· 2). 1 . A further major finding was that a developing country can effectively borrow from

1 ' ' Agricultural economics research is one component of agricultural research. Separate data by fields was not given. 10

other co.1,mtries .only· as it has a significant ind:lg~nous re~;tea•l'ch effarrt.•

We s.hJtuld not, o.f c,1.u,rse, ..crea,te an unrealizab,le deg;re.e: o:£ o.p;t'.f:imism

ab

reJtt· or recent levels. of income, and p•r.o.ductivity of the .tndus,trial co:un ...

tries,. I mus:t admit to the nagging feeling. tha,t there is very l:it.tle

pro,s,pect: 0£ countries with very large populations, ·such as Indi.a ox C:h:ina,

can ach:tieve income growth r.ates equal to those o:f Wes'.tern E.ur.e>.p:e o,r Nmrth

Ametica in the late 19th century or the early 20th century. Yet. is. J:arrge

·pop.1.Hation a reLe;v,an·t variabl.e? Or is it po.pulation density? 0'.l'; d:oe·$

even population de:nsity make any difference? Japan and Taiwan 'ha.vie pop,u­

la:tion densities o.f th,e same general order as · India, not to men:tion the

Netherlat1ds. Thes:e few musdiri:gs indicate, I fear, tha,t we ·do not b;ave ·an

ad'.eq:uat.e tbeo,ry·· o,f ec.onom:tc development.

An :i:mpo,rttan,t goal that we should have is to eliminate the need fo:r

s.ubs,tc,1;ntial numbeors of s,tudents to leave their home co:untries. or regions

· and came to the United States o•r other industrial countries £or advanced

ea,wcat±ocn. How fully we meet this objective will be an indicat,iOn of

how w-ell we mee,t our othe.r objectives.

While we can have little control over whether the developing coun­

tries will create s•ufficient numbers of high quality educational insti,tti­

ti:ons that· cam provide the desired graduate education op'portunities, .. we

eancontrihucte to that objective by providing those who now come to us

far graduate educatiQn with both the skills and the.motivation tod~velop hi,gh quality programs within their own institutions.

I do ri,ot helieve that it is utopian to predict· that most of the

larg;,er developing countries can have, within two decades, university-level e.cl;u,ea.tio1nal and res•earch programs in agricultural economics .of high quality 11 and with the capacity to provide most of the required higher educaticill)

By larger developing cquntries I mean those with populations of 10 Jnilliori. or in.ore, Most of those smaller than this will either have to fat.ego such development or cooperate with other developing countries. Obviously it would be possible £or the very small countries to.develop good programs in agricultural economics if they neglected other areas of the a.gricul­ tural. sciences or the sciences generally. 'rt is not at all obvious that such would be to their advantage. In effect, I believe that what is re­ quired is.the achievement of a substantial level of activity of high quality in.several. disciplines.

One factor that may inhibit the .. development of high quality graduate education programs in the developing countries are two aspects of the . of agricultural economists. In the United States we had almost a quarter of a century--say from 1910 to 1933--to develop departments of agricultural economics before government became a major competitor for the services of agricultural economics. And most of the agricult:ural economists who did go into governmental employment during that period were engaged in re.search. The rather sharp change in· the role of govert1ment in agricultural affairs after 1933 which provided employment for.a Sl,lb­ stantial number of agricultural economists i.n policy and administrative roles came at a time when there was a substantial pool on which to draw~

Irt fact, I suppose that we have to say that under the employment condt-· tions prevailing in the thirties that if the government had not provided employment for a considerable number of agricultural economists many com-,. pleting their education at that time would not have had careers in agri.:.. cultural economics.

In the developing •countries today it is not at all certain that a 12

socia.:li>z¢.d ,pro,c:lµction. sector· is almost ,certainly relatively 'mo,r.e im-

than it, ,was in the :Un:ited Stat.es ln 1930.

WµJJ,e I have . not und.ertaken any surveys, it is iny imp,r,essiort ,that

' ' not .gee/K .. employtne,,nt .,a$ ,agricultural economi$tS but se,ek .positions as general. ecpr19mis,ts or iri some,,specialty_ other. than agricultural· ecorio1ni,cs .•

In mo.s.t, of Jhe developitig

. r , . ' . . . hardly q•e sc1id th;it . the prestige .rating .of agricultural economfsts is at' or near ;:the

l:f yo1J1 b~v~ stayed with me thi-s far., you may well ask why I have been tal;~.:Lng ~b.qut the .objectives for the. education for agricultural ecori~}µti.i;ft.,s ra tne:r tha,n .for economists. Much of what I have said is equally 13

· relevant for economists generally, but not quite all. To a degree, and

I mean this in the best sense of the word, agricultural ·economists are

advocates. Our uniqueness depends upon our special knowledge of farm­

ing and farm people and our concern for their welfare, This is not to

say that we have or should work for special privileges and benefits for :

farm people, but I feel that agricultural economists can quite properly

emphasize the need for a relatively even handed treatment of farm people

relative to urban people. In all of the industrial countries that I know

anything about, there has been a systematic neglect in the provision

of social and cultural services available ·in rural areas and a signifi­

cant discrimination against farm people in the investment in human capital

through formal education. Many of the urban and rural differences in the

industrial countries have by now been substantially eliminated or greatly

reduced, but only after.the farm population is no longer a significant

share of the total population. But I see no evidence that the policies

of the developing countries are in any way less neglectful of farm people

than were the policies of the industrial countr.ies in past decades.

Thus I believe that we can be quite proud.if we attract to our universities

young men and women who are interested in and concerned about the welfare

of farm people and•if we are successful in providing them with the knowl­

edge and insights that may help them to prevent the developing countries

from making the same mistakes the industrial countries have made. "

BIBLIOGRAPHY

L Evenson, Robert, and Kislev, Yoav. Agricultural Research and Pro­

ductivity~ New Haven: Yale University Press, forthcoming.

2. Hayami, Yujiro, and Ruttan, Vernon W. Agricultural Development: An

International Perspective. Baltimore: '!'he Johns Hopkins Press, 1971.

3. Myrdal, Gunnar. "Standstill in South Asia," an interview, Challenge~

Vol. 16, No. 6 (January/February, 1974).

4. Schultz, T. W. and Agriculture. New York: McGraw­

Hill Book Company, 1968.

14