In fact, most family farms today either are larger than the popular image of the family farm or provide only one of multiple sources of income for the families that own them. Indeed, members of farm families are often employed in other occupations. Contrary to popular perception, only about 3 percent of American farms are owned by large corporations. Since most farm-support programs are based on production of commodities, not financial need, a comparatively small share of federal dollars has assisted the marginalized farmers whom the public is most concerned about. The motive is obviously not economic efficiency.
Conventional wisdom accepts the inefficiency of the small family farm.
And if the public's objective is fairness, it is a more refined idea of fairness than merely equalizing income distribution. While the public does hold an exaggerated idea of the economic plight of farmers as a group, it is not only the farmers' supposed misfortune that motivates public support for farm income support programs. The public may believe fairness entitles farmers to assistance more than others with similar incomes because farmers work harder or because their misfortune is often the result of capricious weather and markets and other factors beyond their control. The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this excursion into the public's murky motives for backing farm income support programs is that the public's motives are essentially positive sentiments toward farmers, as perceived economic underdogs and as components of a positive vision of rural life. Other Amenities Again using public policy as a measure of public interest in rural amenities, it is apparent there is considerable support for safeguarding the natural environment and helping rural communities develop certain facilities with cultural, aesthetic or historic value.