The Relevance of University Research and Extension Activities in Agricultural Economics to Agribusiness Firms

Abstract

Concern about the relevance of work carried on by agricultural economists probably began three-quarters of a century ago with the appointment of Henry C. Taylor as the first professor of agricultural economics in a land grant institution. The dialogue has continued with changing emphasis during periods of depression, war years, overproduction, and structural changes in the production sector resulting from the historic migration of farm workers to urban centers and out of agricultural employment. Castle in 1970 warned that flexibility in organizational structure of research and extension activities would be necessary if programs were to have great relevance to fast changing and nonstatic problems. Johnson's scholarly address to the American Agricultural Economics Association in 1971 argued that agricultural economics is not dead or dying just because problems of the 1970s are different from those of a decade ago. Grove, Crockett, and Narrie elicited spirited viewpoints in their comments and replies regarding irrelevance as viewed by professional agricultural economists. With regard to work relevant to the economic problems of commercial agriculture, Castle correctly stated that studies on the farm firm and nonfarm firm, performance of the industry, and commercial agricultural policy are areas of study experiencing the greatest decline as public concern and intellectual excitement are being generated elsewhere (p. 832). To explore further the opinion of Castle and to provide myself with an updated view of relevance of university research and extension activities in agricultural economics to agribusiness firms, I surveyed the chairman of each department of agricultural economics at land grant universities in our nation. In addition, either by letter or by telephone, I requested viewpoints and opinions from administrators of land grant institutions, as well as a large number of economists employed by agribusiness firms, trade associations that are agricultural in nature, and farm organizations. Responses received were most helpful in broadening my understanding and knowledge of present programs and activities. In some instances, the information was sketchy and far from complete. From others, great pains were made to give detailed facts on all research and extension activities as well as on the interrelationships of the teaching function with the other two. Interpretations and conclusions reached from study of this mass of information are totally my responsibility and an honest effort to bring into focus relevance to agribusiness firms as I see it. In performing this chore, I do so as one who at one time wore the research and teaching hat at a land grant university. Moreover, my longer tenure has been as director of economic research for a major regional farmer cooperative. This paper has five major purposes: to examine the direct and indirect benefits to agribusiness firms from better informed agricultural producers, to present views on types of university research and extension activities that should be emphasized, to discuss possible conflicts that exist between university activities and the programs of agribusiness firms, to explore the potentials and problems of joint university-firm research activities, and to bring into focus the viewpoint of agribusiness firms regarding the relevance of university research and extension programs.