Negotiating Identity Within the Sustainable Agriculture Advocacy Coalition by Kathleen Ann Merrigan M. Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin (1987) B.A, Williams College (1982) Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology September 2000 © 2000 Kathleen Ann Merrigan. All rights reserved The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part. Signature of Author..................... .I... .... .... .----- --..... Department of U'rba udies and Planning August 7, 2000 Certified by............ -...... ............ L'arence Susskind Pord Protessor of Urtan and Environmental lanning Thesis Supervisor Accepted by.... ......... .... iddi... h IMO Lily RN. olug1 ceLindeAssocii Professor of Real Estate Finance Chairman, Department Ph.D. Committee MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY I DEC 1 12000 rCH LIBRARIES Negotiating Identity Within the Sustainable Agriculture Advocacy Coalition by Kathleen Ann Merrigan Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning on August 7, 2000 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Policy and Planning ABSTRACT Three prominent national coalition efforts to promote sustainable agriculture are examined: the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation Integrated Farm and Food Systems Network, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Research methods include participant observation, interviews, and a survey. Qualitative and quantitative results are presented. Findings are related to theories about advocacy coalitions, interest groups, negotiation strategies, and identity politics. Results show evidence of an identity group within the sustainable agriculture advocacy coalition. The presence of an identity group impedes the ability of sustainable agriculture advocates to make significant progress in the policy subsystem because participants focus on continuous internal coalition negotiations, avoid conflict that can clarify goals, and discount scientific data, relying instead on information generated through group dialogue. Recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the sustainable agriculture advocacy coalition are presented. Suggestions to augment the Advocacy Coalition Framework developed by Paul Sabatier and Hank Jenkins-Smith are offered. Thesis Supervisor: Lawrence Susskind Title: Ford Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning Biographical Note Kathleen Ann Merrigan was raised in Greenfield, Massachusetts. Currently, she is Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, an agency with a diversity of programs, 10,000 employees, and an annual budget of $1 billion. Her previous employment includes: Senior Analyst for the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture (1994-1999); Expert Consultant for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (Summer 1998); Senior Staff Member for the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry (1987-1992); Special Assistant to the Chief of Regulatory Affairs, Texas Department of Agriculture (1986-1987); and chief of staff to U.S. Congressman John Olver during his tenure as a Massachusetts State Senator (1982-1985). Kathleen received her Master of Public Affairs in 1987 from the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin in 1987. The title of her thesis is Pesticide Policymaking in an Era of Interest Group Negotiations. She was the student commencement speaker and Fulbright Grant recipient. She received her B.A. in English and Political Science from Williams College. Selected previous publications include: Politics,Policy, and IPM. In Emerging Technologies for Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Research, and Implementation. George G. Kennedy and Turner B. Sutton, editors. St. Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society Press. 2000. Government Pathways to Reform. In Visions of American Agriculture. William Lockeretz, editor. Ames: Iowa State University Press. 1997. Propertyis Nothing More Than Persuasion.In Genes for the Future: Discovery, Ownership, Access. June Fessenden MacDonald, editor. Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council. 1995. Herbicide-TolerantPlants: A Case of Science Gone Astray? In Health and Environment Digest, 9:1: 3-5. April 1995. The SustainableAgriculture Policy Agenda in the United States: Politics and Prospects. Coauthored with Garth Youngberg and Neill Schaller. In Food for the Future: Conditions and Contradictions of Sustainability. Patricia Allen editor. NY: John Wiley and Sons. 1993. National Policy Options and Strategies to Encourage SustainableAgriculture: Lessons From the 1990 FarmBill. In American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 8:4:158-160. 1993. New Directionsfor Agricultural Research and Extension in the 1990 Farm Bill. In HortScience. 27:3: 204-206. 1992. Table of Contents Acknowledgments Chapter 1: Overview Guiding Question Emerging Conceptions of Interest Groups Agriculture as a Policy Arena of Choice Defining Sustainable Agriculture High Costs of Failure Alternative Explanations Forthcoming Chapters Chapter 2: Literature Review Interest Group Theory Applications of Interest Group Theory to Agriculture Interest Groups and SAAC Advocacy Coalition Theory Limitations of the Advocacy Coalition Framework Advocacy Coalitions and SAAC Identity Group Theory Breakdown of Civil Discourse Identity Groups and SAAC Negotiation Theory Conflict Avoidance Through Organizational Structure Negotiation and SAAC Sustainable Agriculture as a Social Movement Theory Integration Chapter 3: Hypothesis Formulation The Four Hypotheses The IFFS Case Study Kellogg Sponsorship of the IFFS Network IFFS Networking Conferences Mid-term Evaluation of IFFS An Identity Crisis Beginning Again with the Chaordic Alliance Choosing a "Chaordic Path" Lost Opportunities in Sustainable Agriculture Revisiting the Hypotheses Chapter 4: Hypothesis Testing SARE - The Nexus of Sustainable Agriculture Policy Evidence of an Advocacy Coalition Research Methodology Personal Interviews Selecting People to Interview The Questionnaire Selection of Questionnaire Population Representation of SAAC at the SARE Conference Distribution, Collection, and Analysis of the Questionnaire Questionnaire Respondents Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis #1 -- Identity Independent Variable #1: Feeling Ridiculed Dependent Variable #1: Community Identification Dependent Variable #2: Cultural Identification Dependent Variable #3: Unwillingness to Compromise Dependent Variable #4: Fear of Co-option Dependent Variable #5: Shared Beliefs and Values Hypothesis #1 -- Summary of Results Hypothesis #2--Process Obsessed Independent Variable #la: Scientific Distrust Independent Variable #lb: Farmer Knowledge Dependent Variable #1a: Social Goal Value Dependent Variable #lb: Discussion Value Dependent Variable #2: Definition Seeking Dependent Variable #3: Consensus Orientation Hypothesis #2 -- Summary of Results Hypothesis #3--Collective Knowledge Independent Variable #la: Knowledge Generation Independent Variable #lb: Expertise Sourcing Dependent Variable #1: Coordination Dependent Variable #2: Network Preference Dependent Variable #3: Industrialization Dependent Variable #4: Decentralization Hypothesis #3 -- Summary of Results Hypothesis #4 -- Leadership Independent Variable #1: Corporate Hate Dependent Variable #1: Leadership Dependent Variable #2: Anti-Leadership Hypothesis #4-- Summary of Results Chapter Summary Chapter 5: Conclusion Augmenting the ACF Implications of Identity Within Advocacy Coalitions Inward Negotiations Conflict Avoidance Group Validation of Truths Negotiating Identity Prescription #1: Expose the Issues of Identity Prescription #2: Educate Non-Identity Participants Prescription #3: Employ "Borderland" Institutions Prescription #4: Seek People on the Periphery Prescription #5: Establish Discrete, Achievable Goals Prescription #6: Fund a National Sustainable Agriculture Headquarters Opportunities for Future Research Summary Appendices Appendix A: National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture Participants Appendix B: Structure of Belief Systems of Policy Elites Appendix C: IFFS Leadership Structure Appendix D: IFFS Grants 1993-1994 Appendix E: Choardic Organization Appendix F: SARE Program Appendix G: Interview Protocol Appendix H: People Interviewed Appendix I: SARE Questionnaire Appendix J: Data Set Bibliography Acknowledgments The Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture provided financial support for certain portions of this research. I am indebted to the Institute's founding director Garth Youngberg for his intellectual guidance throughout my career. Professor Larry Susskind has been an outstanding teacher, advisor, and friend. I am also grateful to several other professors for all that they have taught me: Professor Willie Lockeretz of Tufts University who served on my dissertation committee; MIT Professor Michael Piore who served on my exam committee; MIT Professor Marty Rein; the late Professor Susan Hadden of the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas; and Professor James MacGregor Burns of Williams College. MIT staff Sandy Wellford and Marjorie Noack helped in many ways. I will miss the comaraderie of my fellow classmates