ASSESSING THE IMPACTS OF TECHNOLOGY ON SOUTHERN AGRICULTURE AND RURAL COMMUNITIES: DISCUSSION

In an excellent analysis, Dr. Ghebremedhin full-time farmers differentiate into three subdiscusses the impacts of technological changes groups. Some become bigger full-time on "small versus large farms, public costs in farmers, some part-timers, and some retire or rural communities, and the future direction of quit agriculture altogether (Gladwin and research needs." I cannot but wholeheartedly Zabawa). This differentiation process at the agree with some of his conclusions; e.g., that micro level is structural change at the macro "technology has increased agricultural prolevel. ductivity and created new jobs, but it has also Ghebremedhin also makes clear that "smalldisplaced persons from their occupations and scale farms represent an enterprise which has livelihood." As Skees and Swanson point out, been largely ignored by public policy, both the idea that new technologies facilitate farm agricultural and economic," and "today, there concentration is an important conceptual posiis no forum to aggressively articulate or adtion since it represents a clear rejection of the vance the unique concerns and interests of the popular notion of technological determinism. small-scale family farm." In another paper and But it is not a new idea for agricultural econofollowing Cochrane, I argue for a new federal mists. Schultz in the 1950s and Houthakker in agency to target funds on a long-term basis for the 1960s claimed that economic growth and research/extension projects designed especithe inelastic demand for food result in a deally for the part-time family farm (Gladwin). crease in the demand for food since, according The elimination of the commodity programs, to Engel's Law, people spend less of their inwhich do not benefit the 86 percent of all farms comes on food as incomes rise. This decrease which are part-time farms, could provide the in demand, supply shifts due to technological funding. The agency could function like the Nachange, and asset fixities in agriculture were tional Science Foundation or National Inthe main causes of the "farm problem." Alstitutes of Mental Health, which have set the though the current failure of exports to solve precedent for awarding federal funds on a comthe oversupply problem in U.S. agriculture petitive basis to professionals serving the has undoubtedly intensified the present farm larger society's interests. Since people learn to crisis, continual and unrelenting structural farm only by doing it, it is clearly in society's change in agriculture is due to the cointerests to help preserve the stock of human occurrence of economic growth and technocapital that knows how to farm. logical change, which results in overproducDr. Ghebremedhin and I agree on these tion and eventual decrease in farmers' profit points. I'd like to make two additional points. margins. First, I suggest that Ghebremedhin qualify I further concur that "small-scale farms his conclusion that "in [a] competitive market generate low incomes and these low incomes economy, low productivity and low income cause such farms to exit, become part-time earnings often lead small-scale farm operators units, or expand to increase income whether to a long-run situation of disinvestment and or not economies of size exist." As a result of eventual relocation in other economic secthe oversupply problem, and the need for furtors" (emphasis mine). Here, I object to the ther capitalization of inputs due to technophrase "eventual relocation in other economic logical change, profit margins decrease and sectors." Instead, I propose that first, the im-