Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T14:27:46.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors Affecting Structural Change in Agricultural Subsectors: Implications for Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Donn A. Reimund ,
Charles V. Moore  and
J. Rod Martin
Donn A. Reimund
Affiliation:
Structure and Adjustments in the Food and Fiber Program Area, NEAD, ERS, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Charles V. Moore
Affiliation:
Structure and Adjustments in the Food and Fiber Program Area, NEAD, ERS, U.S. Department of Agriculture
J. Rod Martin
Affiliation:
Structure and Adjustments in the Food and Fiber Program Area, NEAD, ERS, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The U.S. farm sector has long been dominated by independent firms exemplifying competitive free enterprise norms. Individual farm operators have had considerable freedom in controlling their own operations. Certain government programs and financial limitations have been the major restraints on their decision making.

In about the past two decades, however, a number of production subsectors have become organized or structured along lines more closely resembling industrial sectors of the economy than the traditional agricultural sector. At the same time, other production subsectors have remained virtually unaffected by this industrialization process and have retained their traditional independent form of organization. Concern over industrialization in agriculture relates to the question of who will control agricultural resources.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , July 1977 , pp. 11 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Carter, H. O. and Dean, G.W.. Cost Size Relationships for Cash Crop Farms: Imperial Valley California, Giannini Foundation Research Report No. 253, University of California, May 1962.Google Scholar
[2]Farrell, Kenneth R.Public Policy, The Public Interest and Agricultural Economics, American Agricultural Economics Association, Presidential Address, Pennsylvania State University, August 16, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Krause, K. R. and Kyle, Leonard R.. “Economic Factors Underlying the Incidence of Large Farming Units: The Current Situation and Probable Trends,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 52, No. 5, December 1970, pp. 748–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Madden, J. P.Economies of Size in Farming, USDA, AER-107, February 1967.Google Scholar
[5]Moore, Charles V.Economies Associated with Size, Fresno County Cotton Farms, Giannini Foundation Research Report No. 285, University of California, November 1965.Google Scholar
[6]Schmitz, Andrew and Seckler, David. “Mechanized Agriculture and Social Welfare: The Case of the Tomato Harvester,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 52, No. 4, November 1970, pp. 569–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Seckler, David.A Theory of Management, Mechanization, and Scale in Agriculture, Paper presented at a symposium on “Effects of Technological Progress,” University of Missouri, March 19-22, 1973.Google Scholar