The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy - Carolyn Dimitri, Anne Effland, and Neilson Conklin
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
United States
Department
of Agriculture
Economic
The 20th Century
Research
Service Transformation of
Economic
Information U.S. Agriculture
Bulletin
Number 3 and Farm Policy
Carolyn Dimitri, Anne Effland,
and Neilson Conklin
Electronic
ReportElectronic Report from the Economic Research Service
United States
Department www.ers.usda.gov
of Agriculture
Economic
Information
Bulletin
The 20th Century
Number 3
Transformation of
June 2005
U.S. Agriculture
and Farm Policy
Carolyn Dimitri, Anne Effland, and Neilson Conklin
Abstract
The structure of farms, farm households, and the rural communities in which they
exist has evolved markedly over the last century. Historical data on a range of
farm structure variables—including the value of agricultural production,
commodity specialization, farming-dependent counties, and off-farm work—offer
a perspective on the long-term forces that have helped shape the structure of agri-
culture and rural life over the past century. These forces include productivity
growth, the increasing importance of national and global markets, and the rising
influence of consumers on agricultural production. Within this long-term context
of structural change, a review of some key developments in farm policy considers
the extent to which farm policy design has or has not kept pace with the contin-
uing transformation of American agriculture.
Keywords: farm policy, farm structure, policy adjustment, structural adjustment,
mechanization, productivity growth, global markets, consumer stakeholders, price
and income support, farm policy history
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the academic and ERS reviewers of the
larger manuscript from which this report is excerpted. Their comments on that
work were helpful in preparing this shorter version. We also thank Lou King for
his valuable editorial assistance and Susan DeGeorge for the cover design, layout,
and final charts.Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Changes in Farms, Farm Households, and Rural Communities
Across the Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Longrun Forces Behind the Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
U.S. Farm Policy in the Context of Sectoral Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
National Agricultural Library Cataloging Record:
Dimitri, Carolyn
The 20th century transformation of U.S. agriculture and farm policy.
(Economic information bulletin; no. 3)
1. Agriculture—United States—History—20th century.
2. Agriculture and state—United States. I. Effland, Anne B. W.
II. Conklin, Neilson Chase. III. United States. Dept. of Agriculture.
Economic Research Service.
IV. Title.
HD1761
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in
all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin,
sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or
marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communica-
tion of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence
Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice
and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
ii
The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy / EIB-3
Economic Research Service/USDAIntroduction
A common point in the debate over U.S. farm programs has been that
current policies were tailored for a time in American agriculture that no
longer exists. The structure of farms and farm households—and of the rural
communities in which they exist—has changed enough over the last century
to raise questions about the efficacy of policies with roots in an agricultur-
ally based economy. How have policies adapted to change in the agricultural
economy? How are they similar to Depression-era forms? What are the
effects on farmers and the U.S. economy?
To answer these questions, we gathered historical data on a range of farm
structure variables and reviewed some key developments in farm policy. The
data offer a perspective on the long-term forces that have helped shape the
present structure of agriculture and rural life, including productivity growth,
the increasing importance of national and global markets, and the rising
influence of consumers in agricultural production. This long-term view of
structural change provides some insights into the questions now being raised
about the efficacy and impacts of current farm policy in the 21st century.
1
The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy / EIB-3
Economic Research Service/USDAChanges in Farms, Farm Households, and
Rural Communities Across the Century
American agriculture and rural life underwent a tremendous transformation
in the 20th century. Early 20th century agriculture was labor intensive, and
it took place on a large number of small, diversified farms in rural areas
where more than half of the U.S. population lived. These farms employed
close to half of the U.S. workforce, along with 22 million work animals, and
produced an average of five different commodities. The agricultural sector
of the 21st century, on the other hand, is concentrated on a small number of
large, specialized farms in rural areas where less than a fourth of the U.S.
population lives. These highly productive and mechanized farms employ a
tiny share of U.S. workers and use 5 million tractors in place of the horses
Farming’s changing role
and mules of earlier days.
in the Nation’s economy
As a result of this transformation, U.S. agriculture has become increasingly 1900
efficient and has contributed to the overall growth of the U.S. economy. 41 percent of workforce
Output from U.S. farms has grown dramatically, allowing consumers to employed in agriculture
spend an increasingly smaller portion of their income on food and freeing a 1930
large share of the population to enter nonfarm occupations that have 21.5 percent of workforce
supported economic growth and development. As a part of the transforma- employed in agriculture
tion spurred by technological innovation and changing market conditions, Agricultural GDP as a share
production agriculture has become a smaller player in the national and rural of total GDP, 7.7 percent
economies. While the more broadly defined food and agriculture sector
continues to play a strong role in the national economy, farming has 1945
progressively contributed a smaller share of gross domestic product (GDP) 16 percent of the total labor
force employed in agriculture
and employed a smaller share of the labor force over the course of the
century (see box, “Farming’s changing role in the Nation’s economy”). Over Agricultural GDP as a share
of total GDP, 6.8 percent
the same period, the share of the U.S. population living on farms also
declined (fig. 1), as did agriculture’s central role in the rural economy; while 1970
farming-dependent counties once comprised most of the rural economy, 4 percent of employed labor
only 20 percent of nonmetro counties were considered farming-dependent in force worked in agriculture
2000 (fig. 2). Agricultural GDP as a share
of total GDP, 2.3 percent
The altered role of farming in the overall economy reflects changes at the 2000/02
farm and farm household level. Since 1900, the number of farms has fallen
1.9 percent of employed
by 63 percent, while the average farm size has risen 67 percent (fig. 3). labor force worked in
Farm operations have become increasingly specialized as well (fig. 4)— agriculture (2000)
from an average of about five commodities per farm in 1900 to about one Agricultural GDP as a share
per farm in 2000—reflecting the production and marketing efficiencies of total GDP (2002),
gained by concentration on fewer commodities, as well as the effects of 0.7 percent
farm price and income policies that have reduced the risk of depending on
Source: Compiled by Economic
returns from only one or a few crops. All of this has taken place with almost Research Service, USDA. Share
no variation in the amount of land being farmed. of workforce employed in agricul-
ture, for 1900-1970, Historical
Farm households have adapted as dramatic increases in productivity have Statistics of the United States; for
2000, calculated using data from
reduced the need for household labor on the farm, and as alternative Census of Population; agricultural
employment opportunities have developed in nearby rural and metro GDP as part of total GDP, calcu-
economies. Although measures of off-farm work and income have varied lated using data from the Bureau
of Economic Analysis.
over the century, making comparisons over time difficult, about a third of
farm operators worked off the farm for at least 100 days in 1930 (the
earliest such data are available) (see box, “Off-farm income/work”). By
2
The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy / EIB-3
Economic Research Service/USDA1970, more than half of farms had off-farm income, and by 2000, 93 percent Off-farm income/work
of farms earned off-farm income. Off-farm work has played a key role in 1930
increased farm household income; while farm household income was once 30 percent of farmers
below the national average, in 2002 it exceeded the national average by worked off farm for an
nearly $8,000. average of 100 days
Figure 1 1945
Both the U.S. farm population and rural population have 27 percent of farmers
dwindled as a share of the Nation's overall population worked off farm
Percent
70 1970
Farm share of total population 54 percent of households
60 Rural share of total population
had off-farm income
2002
50
93 percent of households
40 had off-farm income
Source: Compiled by Economic
30 Research Service, USDA, using
data from Census of Agriculture
20 and Census of the United States.
10
0
1900 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 2000
Year
Sources: Share calculated by Economic Research Service, USDA using data from Census of Agriculture,
Census of Population, and Census of the United States.
3
The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy / EIB-3
Economic Research Service/USDAFigure 2
Nonmetro farming-dependent counties, 1950 and 2000
1950
2000
Nonmetro farming-dependent
Other nonmetro
Metro
Source: Economic Research Service, USDA. Farming-dependent counties are defined by ERS.
For 1950, at least 20 percent of income in the county was derived from agriculture. For 2000,
either 15 percent or more of average annual labor and proprietors' earnings were derived from
farming during 1998-2000 or 15 percent or more of employed residents worked in farm occupa-
tions. Metro/nonmetro status is based on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) June
2003 classification.
4
The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy / EIB-3
Economic Research Service/USDAFigure 3
As the number of farms declined, their average size increased
Number Acres per farm
7,000 500
6,000
Number of farms 400
5,000 Average farm size
(acres per farm)
4,000 300
3,000 200
2,000
100
1,000
0 0
1900 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 2000 02
Year
Source: Compiled by Economic Research Service, USDA, using data from Census of
Agriculture, Census of Population, and Census of the United States.
Figure 4
As farms have become more specialized, the number of commodities
produced per farm has decreased
Commodities per farm
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1900 1930 1945 1970 2002
Year
Note: The average number of commodities per farm is a simple average of the number of farms
producing different commodities (corn, sorghum, wheat, oats, barley, rice, soybeans, peanuts,
alfalfa, cotton, tobacco, sugar beets, potatoes, cattle, pigs, sheep, and chickens) divided by the
total number of farms.
Source: Compiled by Economic Research Service, USDA, using data from Census of Agricul-
ture, Census of the United States, and Gardner (2002).
5
The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy / EIB-3
Economic Research Service/USDALongrun Forces Behind the Changes
As with the rest of the U.S. economy, the transformation in American agri-
culture and rural life over the last century has been driven by longrun
economic developments, as well as periods of economic crisis. Among the
most influential trends: technological development, the rise of consumer
influence in agricultural production, and the increasing integration of Amer-
ican farming into national and global markets.
Technological developments in agriculture have been particularly influential
in driving change in the farm sector. Following World War II, technological
Mechanization
developments occurred at an extraordinarily rapid pace. Advances in mecha- 1900
nization and increasing availability of chemical inputs led to ever-increasing Number of work animals
economies of scale that spurred rapid growth in average farm size, accom- 21.6 million
panied by an equally rapid decline in the number of farms and in the farm 1930
and rural populations. From complete reliance on animal power in 1900, Number of horses, mules
farmers rapidly embraced mechanical power (see box, “Mechanization”). 18.7 million
Tractors had essentially replaced animal power by 1970, and mechanical
harvesting of crops (sugar beets, cotton, and tomatoes, for example) became Number of tractors
920,000
routine by the late 1960s. Advances in plant and animal breeding
throughout the century facilitated mechanization and increased yields and 1945
quality, enhanced by the rapid development of inexpensive chemical fertil- Number of tractors
izers and pesticides since 1945 (fig. 5). As a result of these advances, 2.4 million
growth in agricultural productivity averaged 1.9 percent annually between Number of mules and
1948 and 1999. Productivity growth in manufacturing over the same period horses used for work
averaged 1.3 percent annually, although it ranged from 0 to 2.3 percent, power on farm
11.6 million
depending on the industry (Gullickson).
1960
Number of tractors
Figure 5 4.7 million
Farms are growing more productive
Number of horses and
Total factor productivity (Index 1996=100) mules used for work power
1.2
on farm
3 million
1.0
Note: Data on work animals were
no longer collected by the Census
0.8
after 1960.
Source: Compiled by Economic
0.6 Research Service, USDA, using
data from Census of Agriculture
and Census of the United States.
0.4
0.2
0.0
1948 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96
Year
Note: Productivity captures the increase in production not accounted for by the growth in
quantity of inputs used, and is expressed as total factor productivity (the ratio of total outputs to
total inputs). When total factor productivity is rising over time, a greater level of production can
be obtained from the inputs used. Productivity changes result from changes in efficiency, the
scale of production, and technical change.
Source: Economic Research Service, USDA, Agricultural Research and Productivity Briefing
Room, http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/AgResearch/.
6
The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy / EIB-3
Economic Research Service/USDASince 1900, new technology and development of rural infrastructure have
linked farm households ever more tightly to increasingly integrated national
markets for labor and capital as well as goods and services. The growing
use of purchased inputs for farm production has required cash income, as
has the growing demand for consumer goods by farm households. As farm
work and household consumption have required more cash and less labor,
members of farm households have had both incentive and opportunity to
seek off-farm work, which has made rural areas increasingly attractive to
nonfarm industries.
Consumer influence in agricultural production has also grown over the
years, as consumers have become more time-pressed and affluent, creating
new pressures on the farming sector. Demand has shifted toward products
that meet convenience, ethnic, and health-based preferences, while efforts to
meet these new demands have led to new relationships between food
producers, processors, and retailers. Contracting and vertical integration for
supply and quality control, and development of special-use, high-value
commodities, have changed the structure of agricultural markets, further
increasing the specialization and scale, particularly of livestock and
specialty crop operations. (See MacDonald et al.)
Consumers have also recently demanded attention to environmental issues
in agriculture. Growing interest in environmentally friendly production prac-
tices has expanded markets for organic and other specialized products and
has influenced the direction of environmental policy for agriculture.
Programs have moved from a focus on soil conservation and fertility, largely
aimed at boosting farm productivity, to include measures addressing water
and air quality, wildlife and landscape protection, food purity, and animal
welfare, phenomena whose effects are felt and manifested away from the
farm. (See the ERS web briefing room on Conservation and Environmental
Policy.)
While increasingly integrated market structures have developed to meet the
quality and safety demands of American consumers, global markets have
introduced new consumers and new competitors. Global markets were
increasingly important to U.S. farmers as the first wave of globalization—
propelled by steam and the telegraph—was at its peak, and exports helped
to fuel rising prices that helped to make 1910-14 the “golden age” of Amer-
ican agriculture. However, as world market prices began to drop in the
1920s, farmers joined manufacturing interests to push for increased tariff
protection. These efforts culminated in the passage of the Smoot-Hawley
tariffs in 1930. The United States was not alone in escalating tariffs, and
world trade plunged. In the 1930s, the volume of U.S. agricultural exports
fell by more than 20 percent from the previous decade.
Agricultural exports remained flat until the 1960s but began to rise dramati-
cally by the 1970s (fig. 6), propelled by adjustments in exchange rates as
the dollar was freed from the gold standard and by the Soviet Union’s
growing appetite for imported grains and oilseeds. Global markets have
proved volatile at times, however, and disruptions in foreign demand helped
to precipitate a farm financial crisis in the 1980s.
7
The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy / EIB-3
Economic Research Service/USDAFigure 6
U.S. exports grew dramatically in the last half of the century
Agricultural exports (indexed, 1987=100)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1915 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 2000
Year
Note: Standard techniques were used to combine four series of data for quantity of goods
exported.
Source: Compiled by Economic Research Service, USDA, using data from Agricultural
Statistics.
By the 1990s, a second wave of globalization was in full swing and Amer-
ican agriculture was becoming part of an increasingly integrated global
market, with both agricultural imports and exports rising rapidly. As
emerging competitors reformed their policies and adopted technologies
already being used in the United States and other developed countries,
global competition for international markets grew, pressuring U.S. producers
in both export and domestic markets. (See “The U.S. Trade Balance,”
Amber Waves, February 2004, and “Dynamics of Agricultural Competitive-
ness: Policy Lessons From Abroad,” Amber Waves, April 2003.)
8
The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy / EIB-3
Economic Research Service/USDAU.S. Farm Policy in the Context
of Sectoral Change
Since the passage of the first Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) in 1933,
farm price and income support programs have been the core of agricultural
policy in the United States. This policy initially arose as an emergency
response to post-World War I economic distress in agriculture that worsened
with the onset of the Depression. However, the programs have been adjusted
over time as policymakers have responded to the political, social, and
economic pressures that agricultural productivity growth, market integration,
and structural change have imposed on the farm sector. (See box, “Mile-
stones in U.S. agricultural policy.”)
In the 1930s, the economic, social, and political (the AAA played an impor-
tant role in solidifying rural and southern support for the New Deal)
rationale for a new approach to farm policy was clear. Farm household
incomes were low even by Depression-era standards and off-farm employ-
ment opportunities were few—farming dominated the rural economy. The
Federal approach to dealing with these problems—commodity-specific price
supports and supply controls—were a product of the farm sector’s structure;
farms were generally small, diversified operations selling primarily to
domestic markets behind high tariff walls. In this environment, the original
AAA and subsequent farm legislation into the 1960s relied heavily on price
supports and supply controls to increase returns to farmers. (See History of
Agricultural Price-Support and Adjustment Programs, 1933-84 for a
detailed history of farm legislation.)
After World War II, rising productivity, driven by the rapid adoption of
mechanical and chemical technology, led to growing surpluses even as the
number of farms and production agriculture’s share of economic activity
continued to decline. For over a decade centered in the 1950s, the farm
policy debate focused on whether to continue high price supports and
supply controls or get the government out of agriculture. A compromise
solution was reached in the Food and Agricultural Act of 1965, which
retained elements of supply control but relied on a combination of reduced
price supports and new income support payments to protect farm income. At
the same time, it became obvious that a more market-oriented policy was
necessary to help American farmers take advantage of the rising export
demands of global markets. The loan rates used to support prices never
again rose to the high levels of the 1940s and 1950s. The 1985 Food Secu-
rity Act and the 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act helped
create incentives to encourage marketing commodities (rather than forfeiting
them to government-held surpluses), as well as some flexibility in planting
decisions. Supply controls ended with the 1996 Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act, and new forms of income support payments
not tied directly to farmers’ current production decisions— “decoupled”
payments—replaced the older income support programs. The evolution of
farm policy from one based on supply controls and high price supports to
one based primarily on direct Government payments has undoubtedly
reduced the economic inefficiencies of resource misallocation and price
distortions associated with farm programs.
9
The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy / EIB-3
Economic Research Service/USDAMilestones in U.S. agricultural policy
1933
Agricultural Adjustment Act: First “farm bill” established the New Deal mix of commodity-specific
price and income support programs.
1936
Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act: First direct links created between soil
conservation and commodity programs.
1949
Agricultural Act: Established policy of high, fixed-price supports and acreage allotments as
permanent farm policy. Programs revert to the 1949 provisions should a new farm bill fail to pass.
1954
Agricultural Act: Introduced flexible price supports to commodity programs.
1956
Agricultural Act: Established Soil Bank, which introduced use of conservation reserve in addition
to acreage control for supply management. The program ended after only 2 years.
1965
Food and Agricultural Act: Introduced new income support payments in combination with reduced
price supports and continued supply controls.
1970
Agriculture Act: First inclusion of title for Rural Development in a farm bill.
1973
Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act: Introduced target prices and deficiency payments to
replace price supports, coupled with low commodity loan rates, to increase producer reliance on
markets and allow for free movement of commodities at world prices.
1977
Food and Agriculture Act: First inclusion of title for Food Stamps and other commodity distribution
programs in a farm bill.
1985
Food Security Act: Introduced marketing loan provisions to commodity loan programs to reduce
forfeitures by allowing repayment of loans at lower rate when market prices fell, with the intention
of aiding in reducing Government-held surplus grain. Re-established a conservation reserve.
1996
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act: Replaced price support and supply control
program with program of direct payments based on historical production. Introduced nearly
complete planting flexibility.
2002
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act: Introduced counter-cyclical payments program triggered
when current prices fall below a target level, but paid based on historical production. Introduced
working-lands conservation payments through the Conservation Security Program. Continued
planting flexibility and program of direct payments based on historical production, allowing
updating of historical base acres and adding historical soybean acres.
Source: Compiled by Economic Research Service, USDA. The complete texts of U.S. farm bills from 1933 to
2002 are available on the website of the National Agricultural Law Center
(http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/farmbills/).
10
The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy / EIB-3
Economic Research Service/USDAAgricultural policies not only moved in a more market-oriented direction,
they also broadened beyond commodity programs in the postwar period.
Food stamps had roots in the rural relief and commodity distribution poli-
cies of the 1930s and 1940s, but became a highly visible national anti-
poverty program with the 1964 Food Stamp Act. Beginning with the 1977
Food and Agriculture Act, food stamps and other commodity distribution
programs were included in farm bills that governed the more traditional
commodity programs as well as related conservation programs. Rural devel-
opment programs, also with roots in the 1930s, first appeared in a farm bill
in the 1970 Agricultural Act, which was followed by the 1972 Rural Devel-
opment Act, offering a broad range of services, loans, and technical guid-
ance to rural communities adjusting to change.
Although farm policy and related programs have evolved since the 1930s,
commodity programs have retained two key features: commodity specificity
and a focus on income support. Today, in a farming sector characterized by
highly specialized operations, fewer than 25 percent of farms receive
payments from programs tied to a limited number of “program crops.”
Moreover, in an environment in which more than 90 percent of farm house-
hold income is derived from off-farm sources, the impact of farm programs
on the well-being of farm households continues to decline. These circum-
stances are very different from those of the 1930s, when farm policies
achieved broader coverage of farm households that depended on farming for
their livelihoods.
11
The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy / EIB-3
Economic Research Service/USDAConclusion
Overall, farmers found ways to adapt to the changes of the last century.
Those who remained in agriculture increased their efficiency by expanding
and specializing their operations to take advantage of economies of scale, or
by identifying niche markets to maintain profitability. Others moved out of
farming and into other enterprises or occupations, or combined farming with
off-farm work, with other family members tapping different sources of
income. In some cases, farming has become a secondary occupation,
providing a preferred lifestyle rather than a primary source of income.
Certainly, not all adjustments have been voluntary or preferred, and regional
differences have affected the outcomes. Areas closer to centers of economic
growth or to attractive natural amenities have benefited, while areas far from
urban development and natural amenities, and areas of persistent poverty—
associated with higher concentrations of racial and ethnic minorities—in
most cases have not. (See ERS briefing rooms on Rural Population and
Migration and on Rural Income, Poverty, and Welfare.)
Farm policies have never fundamentally altered the trajectory of change, but
they have in some cases affected its pace. For example, the institutionaliza-
tion of what began as emergency income support in the 1930s has likely
slowed the movement of labor out of the farm sector. In other cases, policies
have spurred change—for example, the risk-reduction effects of price
supports and the planting rigidities imposed by supply controls encouraged
specialization.
As the new century gets underway, technological development and market
integration remain forces of change, and their influence, along with that of
consumers, appears likely to continue. The structure of farming continues to
move toward fewer, larger operations producing the bulk of farm commodi-
ties, complemented by a growing number of smaller farms earning most of
their income from off-farm sources, all increasingly affected by global
events. Although many details of U.S. farm programs have changed over the
last 40 years in response to new economic and political circumstances, two
key features of commodity programs—commodity specificity and focus on
income support—have remained constant. Today, cash receipts for
supported commodities (wheat, feed grains, rice cotton, oilseeds, dairy, and
sugar) account for only 34 percent of total farm cash receipts. Direct
government payments for income support reach only about 500,000 farms
(around 25 percent of all farms). The extent to which farm policy meets
contemporary objectives for maintaining the well-being of farm households
and for sustaining the agricultural economy is a matter for public debate.
12
The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy / EIB-3
Economic Research Service/USDAReferences
Bowers, D.E., W.D. Rasmussen, and G.L. Baker. History of Agricultural
Price-Support and Adjustment Programs, 1933-84. U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Information Bulletin No.
485. 1984.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Gross Output
by Industry in Current Dollars. 2000.
Dohlman, E., S. Osborne, and B. Lohmar, “Dynamics of Agricultural
Competitiveness: Policy Lessons From Abroad,” in Amber Waves, April 2003.
www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/April03/Features/ DynamicsofAg.htm.
Gardner, Bruce L. American Agriculture in the Twentieth Century: How it
Flourished and What it Cost. Cambridge, MA, and London, England:
Harvard University Press, 2002.
Gullickson, William. “Measurement of Productivity and Growth in U.S.
Manufacturing,” in Monthly Labor Review, published by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, July 1995.
Jerardo, Alberto. “The U.S. Ag Trade Balance…More Than Just A Number,”
in Amber Waves, February 2004.
www.ers.usda.gov/Amberwaves/February04/Features/USTradeBalance.htm.
MacDonald, L., J. Perry, M. Ahearn, D. Banker, W. Chambers, C. Dimitri,
N. Key, K. Nelson, and L. Southard. Contracts, Markets, and Prices: Orga-
nizing the Production and Use of Agricultural Commodities, Agricultural
Economic Report No. 837, November 2004. www.ers.usda.gov/
Publications/aer837/.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States. Part B,
Agriculture; Part L, Population. 1930.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colo-
nial Times to 1970. Bicentennial Issue, Part 1. 1975.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. United States Census of Agriculture. 1945 and
1969.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population. 1970 and 2000.
U.S. Census Office. Twelfth Census of the United States. 1900.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Briefing room
on Conservation and Environmental Policy.
www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/ConservationAndEnvionment/.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Briefing room
on Rural Income, Poverty, and Welfare. www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Income-
PovertyWelfare/.
13
The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy / EIB-3
Economic Research Service/USDAU.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Briefing room
on Rural Population and Migration. www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Population/.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
2002 Census of Agriculture.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
Agricultural Statistics, published annually.
14
The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy / EIB-3
Economic Research Service/USDAYou can also read
