The Land Grant Colleges and the Structure Issue

nonfarm sectors is being blurred. Agriculture is losing its uniqueness; farmers are entering the main stream of economic, social, and political life. The agrarian tradition is in retreat. The family farm as an earlier generation knew it is rapidly vanishing. Numerous writings quantify these trends; for examples, see Lewis, Lin, Madden, Miller, Penn, Schertz, Senate Committee on Agriculture, University of Illinois, and U.S. Congress. Some people look at these trends as being, on balance, good. Others consider them to be bad. Still others think of them as a mixture of good and bad. There is a division of opinion as to whether the trends are inexorable or whether they might be changed by public policy. Thus has arisen what has become known as "the structure issue." The issue was lifted up by what became known as the "Hard Tomatoes Report" (Hightower). This publication alleged that the Land Grant College system had become subservient to agribusiness concerns. Various activist groups expressed concern about the deportment of the Land Grant Colleges, alleging that they showed preference for the large farmers. There were also charges with respect to environmental concerns, consumer issues, and the like. In 1979, Secretary Bergland brought matters to a head with a "dialogue on farm structure," a series of public hearings throughout the country. For the purpose of this article, J. B. Penn's definition of structure is accepted. According to Penn, structure involves the following components: organization of resources into farming units; size, management, and operation of these units; form of business organization, whether a sole proprietor or several individuals in a partnership or corporation; the degree of freedom to make business decisions; the degree of risk borne by the operator; the manner in which the firm procures its inputs and markets its outputs; the extent of ownership and control of resources that comprise the farming unit; the ease of entry into farming as an occupation; and the manner of asset transfer to succeeding generations. The structure issue presents the Land Grant College system with unsought and difficult questions. What has been their role in the emergence of these trends? How should they position themselves with regard to the current and prospective dialogue on these matters? The thesis of this article is that the Land Grant Colleges, with their experiment stations, their extension services, and their classroom teaching, are operating to a considerable degree on the basis of two assumptions-implicit rather than explicitmade many years ago; that these assumptions have been called into question by the dialogue on structure; and that the Land Grant College system will have to reconsider these assumptions and decide whether to defend or revise them. The two implicit assumptions are: (a) that research and education are structurally neutral, and (b) that technology is socially neutral. These assumptions of neutrality are not embraced universally within the Land Grant College system, of course, but they are accepted widely enough so that they have contributed strongly to rhetoric and policy. The assumptions go back a long way and carry up to modern times. They are evident in the mood and tone of the report submitted by the Commission on Country Life, a seminal work. They are implicit in A National Program of Research for Agriculture (USDANASULGC) and in Inventory of Agricultural Research, FY 1969-70 (USDA 1970). The Extension Service reflects these implicit assumpDon Paarlberg is Professor Emeritus of agricultural economics, Purdue University.