266 Communities and Social Capital
The mid-1980s to present: Critique and response
By the late 1980s, analysts recognized a series of problems with earlier studies that
prevented closure on the Goldschmidt debate. A summary of these, with citations
if previously made by other authors, is provided in Lobao (1990). ‘The first prob-
lem concerns the conceptualization and measurement of farm structure. Research-
ers are often unclear about what aspects of farm structure (scale or organization)
are relevant for assessing socioeconomic impacts’ (Lobao, 1990, p67). Another
issue is the adequacy of control variables for ‘agricultural dependency, urbaniza-
tion, or industrial activity ... studies that delineate and control for nonfarm factors
are needed to more rigorously test the impact of farm structure’ (Lobao, 1990,
p66). ‘A further methodological criticism ... involves the scope of the studies.
Most have been confined to areas with specific types of agriculture which limits
generalizability of findings. Only a few studies have examined the effects of farm
structure for the entire United States’ (Lobao, 1990, pp66–67).
Two years later, Barnes and Blevins (1992, p333) reached the same conclu-
sions. They stated:
First, there are problems with the conceptualization of farm structure. Second, most
researchers fail to incorporate indicators of nonfarm structure into their studies. Third,
most researchers lump together all nonmetropolitan counties. Finally, almost all existing
research is restricted to selected states or regions.Barnes and Blevins (1992), however, provide no citations as to the sources of these
critiques, apparently believing that they are original.
By the late 1980s, other critiques that bear upon the Barnes and Blevins (1992)
article had emerged, including those by Swanson (1988b, 1990) and Lobao (1990).
Most studies are cross-sectional rather than longitudinal and thus cannot offer
direct causal evidence about the impacts of change, nor whether farm change cre-
ates short-term or permanent imbalances in a community. There is also a tendency
to view the relationship between farm and non-farm variables linearly. Smaller
farms are thus presumed to be most beneficial. Causality is mainly one-way.
Changes in farm structure are examined as independent variables or causes rather
than effects of non-farm community structure. Finally, there are conceptual and
theoretical limitations (Lobao, 1990). Researchers neglect to go beyond the origi-
nal relationships set forth by Goldschmidt. This inhibits the development of a
theoretical explanation of how farm change and broader restructuring of the rural
economy affect well-being.
By 1990, two volumes of research as well as a number of journal articles had
addressed these critiques. The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) of the US
Congress commissioned a series of studies on the effects of farm structure on com-
munity well-being that were subsequently published in Swanson (1988a). The
studies focus on five regions (North-east, South, Midwest, Great Plains, West) and
the highly industrialized farming states of California, Arizona, Texas and Florida.