Changing of the Guard: Discussion

Abstract

The authors in this session recognize that future of our profession depends on economic education and analysis we are willing and able to supply and on information demanded by our clientele. However, authors could have devoted more attention to factors underlying demand for our services and to our ability to translate supply and demand for our services into essential professional resources. Brandt and Ahearn focus mainly on supply side-the changing composition of profession. They note that over half of young men and three-fourths of young women in profession do not have farm backgrounds. Most of those professionals are not working on commercial farm marketing and production economics. This is quite a departure for a profession once comprised mostly of white males with farm backgrounds working on commercial farm marketing and production economics. Brandt and Ahearn call for recruitment of more nonwhites and females into profession. I have no problem with that as long as we continue to pursue excellence. Cultural diversity becomes another name for racism or sexism when it is defined as setting a (suitably low) qualification hurdle and then giving preference to minorities or women from list who qualify. Brandt and Ahearn failed to mention sharply rising proportion of foreign graduate students. American graduate student numbers are likely to continue to slip. Consequently, I anticipate increased hiring of foreign PhDs. to fill domestic faculty vacancies. In their brief conclusion, Brandt and Ahearn say that they expect current emphasis on peer review and disciplinary orientation to give way to multidisciplinary research responding to user views. They give few clues why this will happen, but hint that a supply of culturally diverse professionals might create their own demand. My observation is that profession trains and rewards ever narrower disciplinary specialists, less and less willing or able to solve real world problems and effectively communicate results to public. These magnificent disciplinary specialists write mostly for each other. Unn vehr addresses demand-side issues, especially suburbanization, skewed distribution of income, and declining importance of farms. Offutt also notes influence of suburbanization on our future. I feel that future of o r profession depends on how well we serve interests of students, food producers and consumers, rural Americans, and public at large. We will need to provide sufficiently sound education and analysis of food system, resources, and environment to be viewed by society as worth retaining as a profession. We all agree with Offutt's observation that fewer of our profession's resources will go into traditional areas of agriculture. I and others in profession who bear many scars from questioning economic wisdom of current commodity programs are appalled by Offutt's statement that the profession has done little to illuminate or move terms of debate (about commodity programs) away from marginal analysis of status quo. Being candid about commodity programs has not endeared us to many of our traditional clientele. The thesis of remainder of this discus-