Research That Has Value in Policy Making: A Professional Challenge

Statesmanship, in a democracy, has been defined as "The Art of the Possible." Seldom is any public issue clearly outlined in black and white. The answer is threshed out in the misty clouds of compromise. This is not necessarily bad; indeed, it is desirable. The very essence of democratic government is a trade-off among competing interests to reach consensus in legislation or in regulation to maximize the common good. The great statesmen in the history of American Democracy, in the main, were those individuals who very skillfully walked the tightrope between economic soundness and political expediency. If they pushed too hard against political expediency, they often ended up with little or nothing. On the other hand, if they pushed too lightly, they ended up with much less than a skillful negotiator could have accomplished. What is the role of the agricultural economist in the political environment of policy formulation and execution? He performs (or should perform) two separate and rather distinct functions in the process of agricultural policy formulation. The first function is analytical and educational, with a minimum of decision making. The second function involves decision making at the policy level, with economic analysis and education playing a subordinate, though still important, role. The analytical economist must remain reasonably pure. His function is research and education. He is concerned with description, analysis, and projection. He must remain relatively aloof from policy-making decisions, or else the objectivity of his economic analysis may be influenced one way or the other. His primary function is to apply economic analysis to problems requiring policy decisions and to set the answers up in terms of alternatives and consequences. Having done this, he then has some responsibility to explain his analysis, still in terms of alternatives and consequences, both to the public and to governmental personnel charged with policy-making decisions. The second function of the agricultural economist, namely, decision making at the policy level, often is not performed by persons who are strictly "agricultural economists." These individuals are frequently elected or politically appointed, as contrasted with the career status of agricultural economists in the first group. They may have no economic background or training. It is perhaps best that the policy decisionmaking group is not composed primarily of specialized agricultural economists. It is at this level that various social disciplines must be brought to bear on policy formulation. Economics must blend with political reality, sociology, philosophy, and international diplomacy. No single discipline can dominate policy decisions. Because both the objectives and the means employed by these various disciplines are often at variance, it is small wonder that the task of blending their separate inputs into a larger and coherent answer is frequently difficult. The economist seeks to increase efficiency of resource utilization and to maximize returns; the politician tends to seek what is expedient, often from a short-time point of view; the sociologist stresses answers that focus on human values; the philosopher is concerned with what is thought to be good; and the international diplomat places a high priority on strengthening security in a peaceful environment. Only infrequently can these five social disciplines tackle any problem independently and arrive at the same answer. Yet each discipline should tackle each problem fairly independently at the analytical stage, blending answers only at the policy level. However, it is impossible to follow this rule rigorously. Objective economic analysis of a problem may Earl L. Butz is Dean Emeritus of Agriculture, Purdue University, and former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.