Re: Farm Bureau
Bill Liebhardt (wcliebhardt@ucdavis.edu)
Thu, 7 Dec 1995 17:15:37 -0800
At 02:22 PM 12/7/95 -0600, you wrote:
> This whole discussion about the Farm Bureau has been fascinating.
>Benbrook's comments have been especially informative and balanced, in my
>view. I'd like to make a few points:
>
> First, most Rural Sociology textbooks have at least some treatment
>of both farm organizations in general, and the Farm Bureau in
>particular. The latest edition that I have (1988) of the frequently re-
>printed text by Rogers and Burdge, later Rogers, Burdge, Korsching, and
>Donnermeyer (Social Change in Rural Societies: An Introduction to Rural
>Sociology by Prentice-Hall) says (1988:242-243): "The first Farm Bureau
>was organized in Broome County, New York, in 1911. The Chamber of
>Commerce in the town of Binghamton, New York, was composed of a number
>of sections or bureaus, one of which was known as the "Farm Bureau." It
>was composed of farmers and businessmen interested in improving
>agriculture. This first Farm Bureau was an educational agency designed
>to help farmers learn better methods of agriculture. Funds to support
>this program were supplied in part by the Delaware, Lackawanna, and
>Western Railroad. The employees of the Farm Bureau became known as "farm
>agents" because it was the custom of the day to refer to any railroad
>employee as an agent.
>
> The educational program of the Broome County Farm Bureau initiated
>the idea of an extension "agent" residing in the county. The county
>agent movement was spurred by the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, which
>provided federal funds to pay for such extension work. By 1918, there
>was a county agent in almost every county of the United States. So the
>Farm Bureau of Broom County was rapidly copied throughout the United
>States."
>
> The go on to point out that the original purpose of the county
>farm bureaus was educational. However, they soon learned that they
>could become a pressure group to further farm interests. When they
>began to do this, the fact that their funds came from federal sources
>became problematic, however, it was not until 1952 (in Illinois, I
>believe) that the final formal separation between the Farm Bureau and
>the federal government's funding was achieved.
>
> Second, the Farm Bureau is frequently criticized for using its
>insurance membership as the basis for (1) claiming broad-based political
>influence, and (2) bringing a constituency into its "fold," as if there
>were something illegitimate about this. Perhaps, according to some
>standards, there is. However, the manipulation of membership numbers is
>a strategy used by all interest groups, farm, environmental, and
>otherwise. At least you can get numbers from the FB. Try to get real
>numbers from AIM, NFO, or most environmental groups. This information
>is usually a trade secret. Is that bad? The key feature of the FB is
>that they have done their analysis of social organization well, and
>recognized early on what rural sociologists have always referred to as
>the "Three legged stool of farm organization." The three legs are
>education, policy influence, and the provision of concrete, economic
>services. They learned early on that, to be effective in the long run,
>an organization had to do all three. This is, of course, completely
>consistent with the analytic work on organization as a public good, for
>example, the work of Mancur Olsen.
>
> Third, and most importantly, there should be a lesson in this
>entire discussion. As social scientists, at least, it should not be our
>primary task to find out who are the bad guys and who are the good guys
>from our point of view, and to castigate the one while praising the
>other. It should be to understand real social processes, and to provide
>this information to the public for its use. I believe we have to be
>very careful about using our privileged position as taxpayer supported
>scientists to advocate particular political or policy views.
>
The above paragraph raises a very important question in my opinion. It
suggests that we study and inform the public but we remain on the side lines
in the important issues of the day. I have some problems with that view
because it suggests that we are always the objective impartial observer
which in theory sounds OK but in practice is not the case at least for me.
I have strong views and opinions about issues. If I do research on a
subject and come to conclusion based on my values and information I am going
to express my opinion. I also think it is the case for most scientists or
people in general. Those that think they are are totally impartial and act
only on the facts as they know them are in denial<this is not a river in
Egypt> in my opinion.
In my opinion to not take a position on an issue is to reinforce the status
quo which is taking a position. Land Grant Universities were created as
change agents and that is what SA is about. It is about change. To engage
in the process of change means you have to advocate and discuss change. You
do it based research. It also means being somewhat of an activist in regard
to that position to some extent. It is the way things change in the real world.
It is the main reason that tenure really exits. It is meant to protect
those who might express unpopular views based on their research. It seems
to me that that is what is demanded of us when we are supported by
taxpayers. We have the freedom to do exactly that in fact it is what we
should do.
I really found you post to be very informative but the third point hit a
nerve with me. If I interpreted your point incorrectly let me know. I
would like to see some discussion on this point because it goes to the
spirit of what we are all about in my view.
Bill Liebhardt
> Finally, there is a very interesting aspect of organizational
>dynamics that has emerged in this discussion about the FB. True, FB
>takes positions on a very wide variety of public policy issues. If you
>haven't ever done so, you ought to get a list of the resolutions which
>go up from your county, or from your state. True, these are aggregated
>from the county level up. The intriguing question, though, is exactly
>how this agenda gets set, and how democratic that is, in fact. What
>role does staff play in setting the initial agenda of what the counties
>propose? What about things that don't show up on the agenda? Whey
>don't they show up? And this set of questions plops us directly into
>the realm of democratic theory and practice. What is the nature of
>popular sovereignty? How can democracy prevail when interest groups--
>such as FB, Sierra Club, you name it, play the key mediating role
>between the citizen and government? But this is enough already--quite a
>bit too much, I'm afraid.
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>++ Donald E. Voth, Professor of Rural Sociology ++
>++ Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology ++
>++ University of Arkansas, A227 ++
>++ Fayetteville, AR 72701 ++
>++Tel. 501-575-2409 FAX 501-575-5306 e-mail dvoth@comp.uark.edu++
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>