¹ For more elaboration, see Nov., 1948, issue of Journal of Farm Economics.

² Reference is to the National Farmers Union, the Grange, the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), the land-grant colleges, the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the Production and Marketing Administration (PMA), which embraces the old Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA), etc.

³ Cf. R. Smend on personal integration in Verfassung und Verfassungslehre, but also H. Kelsen, Der Staat als Integralion.

⁴ See Chester Barnard, The Functions of the Executive, which, with T. Parsons, Structure of Social Action, Herbert Simon, Administrative Behavior, and W. Y. Elliott, The Pragmatic Revolt in Politics, have considerably influenced the thought in this paper.

⁵ E.g., Hearings before the House Committee on Agriculture, Long Range Agricultural Policy, 1947.

⁶ “In so far as the educational and demonstrational soil conservation program is concerned, we recommend that it be conducted in the states as a special project in Extension Work.” Statement, Representatives of Ass'n of Land Grant Colleges … House Committee on Agriculture, Jan. 13, 1948, mimeo., p. 35. It is true that the discussion of “duplication and overlapping” is pointed up by an analysis of the need for consideration of the whole farm (e.g., pp. 32–33); yet soil erosion as a symptom is glossed over. It is also true that the Committee on Agricultural Policy of the Land Grant College Association has presented numerous and penetrating analysis on this and related subjects, the most recent of which appears in Part 15, Long-Range Agricultural Policy, Hearings, House Committee on Agriculture, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. Yet here also, recommendations which find their way into proposed legislation, such as the Aiken bill (S. 2318, 80th Congress), are primarily concerned with giving SCS its come-uppance. Regarding “duplication and overlapping,” some trenchant testimony has been introduced, e.g., H. C. Sanders, before the House Committee on Agriculture, Mar. 3, 1948 (mimeo.). Yet I suggest that concern with duplication can easily obscure more fundamental issues as to what is involved in agricultural policy.

⁷ The Hope bill. H.R. 6054, 80th Cong.

⁸ The New Centralization, p. 9.

⁹ Big Democracy, p. 104.

¹⁰ For research, see Hardin, Charles M., “Programmatic Research and Agricultural Policy,” Journal of Farm Economics, May, 1947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar An article is being prepared upon the function of extension in this respect; see also a forthcoming book by C. M. Hardin and Norman Wengert.

¹¹ The controversy aroused by Secretary Anderson's reorganization order in Sept.–Oct., 1946, is illustrative of the strength and independence of state PMA chairmen. See the National Union Farmer, Nov. 1, 1946, AFBF Official News Letter, Oct. 16, 1946Google Scholar, Secretary Anderson's address to the National Grange (Portland, Oregon, Nov. 15, 1946, mimeo.), and compare the proposals of Secretary Anderson before a joint meeting of a sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and the House Committee on Agriculture, Hearings on the Long-Range Farm Program, Washington, Oct. 6–8, 1947.

¹² The stereotypes reflecting the orthodox AAA program in the field hearings of the House Committee on Agriculture in 1947 are notable.

¹³ Society, Culture, and Personality.

¹⁴ I am mindful of the remarkable changes in the parity formula which, e.g., the AFBF has sponsored, and also of the relative independence of corn-belt farmers in their current prosperity (see W. G. Murray's remarks as reported in the N. Y. Times, Sunday, July 4, 1948, Sec. 2); but I am also mindful of the statement of O'Neal, Edward A.: “As a matter of fact, we in the Farm Bureau would feel better about the situation if there were less talk about new approaches and new programs.” Nation's Agriculture, Nov., 1947.Google Scholar

¹⁵ “Notes on ‘Poor Land’ and ‘Submarginai Land,’” Journal of Farm Economics, May, 1945. Jasper county is illustrative only. Black remarks: “The Jasper county situation is only one among many hundreds in the country, each with its own particular complexion.” Cf. pp. 370ff.

¹⁶ Cf. Snider, Clyde F., County Government in Illinois (1943).Google Scholar Jasper county has a board of supervisors elected by townships, which, among other things, levies taxes and makes appropriations; assessment is performed by township assessors, supervised by the county treasurer; but the county is subject to the over-all constitutional limit of 75 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, unless a higher rate is approved by referendum; a lower limit is imposed by legislation, subject to increase by referendum; counties operate under numerous restrictions upon borrowing and a general debt limit of five per cent of the total assessed valuation of the county. Illinois counties have the characteristic elective “row offices,” under the constitution of 1870, which is practically unamendable. Counties range greatly in resources; thus with some 75 per cent of Douglas's population (1940), Jasper had only one-third as much assessed valuation (1941). Cf. Snider, p. 32. This material is introduced to indicate the writer's awareness of the county as “the dark continent,” as a “patchwork of boards,” etc. Yet, the more one contemplates positive agricultural policy, including quotas, price supports, payments, technical assistance, farm and area planning, REA development, etc., the more it seems clear that some local unit of general government should be in position to make local adaptations of agricultural policy, some of which must be political. General governmental units are advocated as against special districts, e.g., soil conservation districts with ordinance-making powers, because it is to be hoped that a local political function might develop which is forced to assume the politician's difficult task of appraising numerous policies, e.g., for schools, roads, and welfare, as well as for agriculture and conservation per se. Thus numerous ends would have to be weighed against each other, and the institutional situation would be created which encourages politicians to accept that “responsibility to the consequences” stressed by Max Weber in “Politics as Vocation.” I am much impressed by Weidner, E. W., “A Review of the Controversy over County Executives,” Public Administration Review, Winter, 1948CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who writes: “There are those who are skeptical of the chances of council-manager government to improve county government because of the strength of political parties in the counties. They believe that the council-manager plan would bring a change in form only and not in substance—that the managership would be given to the county boss. In response, it may be said that if parties do not reform, at least everyone will know who is responsible for poor government—that in any event the change will not result in worsened conditions. On the other hand, there is nothing in the manager plan that makes it undesirable to have the county controlled by the dominant political party of the area if that party has a sense of public responsibility” (p. 27).

¹⁷ On credit, see the interesting suggestion for county assumption of discretion and responsibility in Black, John D., “Agricultural Credit Policy in the U. S., 1945,” Journal of Farm Economics, Aug., 1945, at pp. 612–13.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The original Aiken bill, S. 2318, 80th Cong., contained this most interesting provision: “Sec. 113. For the purpose of testing any program, or phase thereof, which the Secretary is authorized but not required to carry out, relating to the production, distribution, or utilization of agricultural commodities, or to any other agricultural matter, the Secretary is authorized to select not more than ten counties distributed throughout the area to which such program or phase might be made applicable and make such program or phase applicable to such counties on an experimental basis.”

See also “Project 1, Agricultural Adjustments Toward an Efficient Agriculture in the South,” Hearings, Special sub-committee on cotton, House Committee on Agriculture, H. of R., 80th Cong., 1st Sess., July 7–8, 1947. The calls for “group action,” which, obviously, means in large part “political action,” and for consideration of “institutional and legal forces” are exactly in line with the thesis of this article. “Group action may facilitate provision of credit. Most people are familiar with coöperative credit institutions and with policies and action programs of the federal government, which facilitate farmers' attempts to obtain needed capital. Constructive policies by governmental agencies, land-owners, and tenants may speed agricultural adjustments on tenant-operated farms. It seems inevitable and probably desirable that considerable tenancy will continue. Land values have been bid up by many owners who are willing to pay high prices and to accept the relatively low rate of return on their investment. Bidding for real estate by non-farm investors has seriously distorted land prices in some locations, compared with value based on capitalized earning capacity. This adds another difficulty for farmers striving to attain ownership of their farms. On the other hand, tenant operation of farms may be used to facilitate development of efficient farming if economically sound tenure policy and renter terms can be formulated, and if procedures can be developed to make available necessary intermediate and short-term credit. Group action also is indicated for adjustments basic to land improvements. In some cases, changes in tax policy are indicated; in others, the need is for general adoption of management practices directed to the desired end. Where approved practices are used in caring for woodlands, including fire protection, not only are rates increased, but the waiting period is shortened. Through such practices, timber becomes one of the lowest risk groups, making possible ample credit at a low rate of interest. Usually, however, the adoption of such practices is dependent upon committee or group action.”

“Agricultural policy must, however, take account of the economic and political environment in which it finds itself. Research on policy and programs must thus be realistic and not be developed within a framework of assumptions that disregard institutional and legal forces that are the very essence of agricultural difficulties. Those who formulate and execute public policy could be assisted materially in this very important field of activity by a more adequate research program dealing with the many complex problems involved in this field.”

The reports of the Council of Intergovernmental Relations are suggestive of possibilities, particularly the budget devised in Blue Earth county, Minn., and the proposal for a county agricultural committee in Colquitt county, Georgia. But these reports suffer from a lack of clear-cut consideration of local political functions involving the resolution of conflicts of interest. See Grass Roots; A Report and an Evaluation, published by the Council, Washington, D. C., 1947, and reports on individual counties. The response of Piatt county, Illinois, to the proposals of E. J. Working and L. J. Norton, wherein the assumption at the county level of discretionary control over agricultural conservation programs was strongly suggested, is dramatically in point. See Working and Norton in Illinois Farm Economics, Apr. and May, 1946Google Scholar, and Dec. and Jan., 1946–47, and Norton, Farm Income and Prices, American Enterprise Incorp., New York, 1947, p. 33.Google Scholar One should also call attention to the fruitful possibilities of coördinating research in soils with county taxation policy. See Kellogg, Charles E. and Ableiter, J. Kenneth, A Method of Rural Land Classification, Tech. Bull., 469, USDA, Feb., 1935Google Scholar, and Kellogg, , “Contributions of Soil Science and Agronomy to Rural Land Classification,” Journal of Farm Economics, Nov., 1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ Cf. Kellogg, Charles E., “The Scientist and Social Policy in the Democratic State,” Scientific Monthly, May, June, July, 1942.Google Scholar

²⁰ It is perhaps a little unfair to cite the following as characteristic; yet the concept of man in harmony with nature is so compelling as to be extremely dangerous. Therefore, I quote it to challenge natural scientists in agriculture as to whether it represents, however preciously, their own conscious or sub-conscious philosophies:

“Fair is the land that rims the Tuscarawas, the Conotton, and the McGuire. Quiet, cool, are the dawdling streams. Green, happy, are the cradling slopes. Gentle is the rule of order and discipline. A canoe slices like a whisper across a shaded pool, and a drinking doe mothers her fawn to the protective cover of the brush. Nature smiles the old-young smile of memory and hope.

“Here, where calm waters pile back in a twelve-mile lake from the breast of a man-made dam, a new faith stands to cheer the rising sun. A noble and intelligible faith that moves within a widely-drawn periphery. Here, vigorous and clean as morning dew—and as welcome to the aging throat of civilization—lies upon every leaf and stem a concept of an Earth at peace with itself. Here, Science and Youth move in comradeship with that which is on, and of, the soil.” Link, Wellington, Soil Conservation, Sept., 1944, p. 51.Google Scholar

²¹ See note 28 below.

²² For further analysis of codes of Extension and the AFBF, cf. the forthcoming article mentioned in note 10 above.

²³ E.g., issues for July and Oct., 1942.

²⁴ See Brandt, Karl, “A Public Farm Land Appraisal Service…,” Journal of Farm Economics, Aug., 1945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ Davis, Kenneth P., “Development of Forest Practice Controls in the U. S.” Journal of Forestry, Nov., 1946Google Scholar, and H. H. Chapman, “Is Selective Cutting a Panacea for Forest Regulation?,” ibid., May, 1944.

²⁶ Although no systematic appraisal has been made of the two methods, see Soil Science, Oct., 1947, and Jan., 1949.

²⁷ P. Sorokin, op. cit.

²⁸ This has been suggested regarding adaptation of existing credit institutions to the provision of new varieties of credit. It has been suggested regarding the inability of agricultural extension workers, because of their conception of their function, to help clarify the areas of conflict in rural society. It is suggested by strictures against present conservation programs. E.g., Clark, Noble, “Long-Range Agricultural Policy,” Hearings, H. of R., Committee on Agriculture, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., Part 3, May 3, 6, 7, 8, and 29, 1947, at p. 400Google Scholar; Milton Eisenhower, speech, Dec. 15, 1947 (mimeo). See also the Report, Committee on Agricultural Policy, Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, in Hearings, “Long-Range Agricultural Policy,” H. of R., House Committee on Agriculture, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., Part 15. The historical base in agriculture (in the PMA program) has often been attacked for imposing rigidities. The old FSA program was criticized for propping up uneconomic situations in agriculture, thus preventing needed adjustments. SCS has been criticized for not sufficiently considering the economic position of the farmer, etc., etc.

²⁹ Talcott Parsons has shown how four great social scientists have each been led to the position of emphasizing the importance of social values in understanding social action. See The Structures of Social Action (1937). Gunnar Myrdal has made remarkable use of this concept, embodied in the “American Credo,” in interpreting the domestic Negro problem in The American Dilemma. The writer has adopted Myrdal's, method in an analysis of “The Bureau of Agricultural Economics Under Fire; A Study in Valuation Conflicts,” Journal of Farm Economics, Aug., 1946.Google Scholar The dangers are implicit in a penetrating essay by Strauss, Leo, “On the Intention of Rousseau,” Social Research, Dec., 1947.Google Scholar The dynamic of democracy is illuminated by Lindsay, A. D. in his discussion of the changing nature of law and rights incident to the Reformation, e.g., “The state's rules with compulsion behind them represent only that minimum standard of social conduct necessary for order and security, necessary to give room for growth and progress.” Modern Democratic State, p. 88.Google Scholar This one quotation, taken out of context, should not be interpreted too sweepingly; yet it follows that the system of common values in democracy can allow, within the framework of guaranteed rights, leeway for experimentation and innovation which permits the exfoliation of individual and group purposes. Some social purposes may be realized through governmental means, others may not. See also Niebuhr's, Reinhold remarks on Jesus's rejection of Hebraic legalism, Human Destiny, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

³⁰ A. Whitney Griswold's deflation of the family-farm as the chief bulwark of democracy (in his recent Farming and Democracy) is generally well taken; nevertheless, some 27,000,000 U.S. residents are still classed as rural-farm; and it is logical to suppose that their tenurial status, size of holdings, etc., are significant both with respect to their political attitudes and also with regard to the organization of political power. It should be remembered that a family-type farm may range from a few acres intensively cultivated for fruit or vegetables to several thousand acres in stock ranches. Nor is owner-operation an essential of family-type farms. I judge that political attitudes vary considerably among farmers according as typical farm organizations vary, e.g., from family-type farms in much of the corn belt, the Lake states, and the northern Great Plains, for example, to characteristic large holdings, e.g., in parts of California, Arizona, or in cane-sugar areas. I have a preference for the political attitudes of family-size farmers, however much this preference may rest merely on scattered observations, conversations, and hunches.

³¹ Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, p. 213. This group constitutes, according to Schumpeter, “a great fringe of perhaps 25 per cent of the population.”

³² But cf. Noble Clark's qualifying remarks, op. cit., p. 394.

³³ See Bennett, Hugh Hammond, “Development of Natural Resources; the Coming Technological Revolution on the Land,” Science, Jan. 3, 1947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cf. discussion by Hardin, Charles M. in Land Policy Forum, Oct., 1948.Google Scholar

³⁴ Politics of Democracy. One would not expect the argument on the basis of high principle to be continuous; there will, no doubt, be many moments of recession and subsidence of aroused public interest. I am largely concerned with further developing that decentralization of conflicts which Herring commends on p. 409.

³⁵ I am constrained to add that these strictures imply no personal criticisms; though one must frequently deal in personalities, the effort should be to understand the sociological influences at work. Cf. Max Weber, op. cit.