Social Issues in Modern AgricultureUnit 3.2 | 7
Lecture 1 Outline
b) Capitalization of U.S. agriculture (see MacIntyre 1987)
i. Corporate capital infiltrated to assume production of these inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, seeds,
machinery, etc.). New players entered the scene: input manufacturers, seed companies, etc.
ii. Continued adoption of technological innovations created technological dependence by
farmers and further reinforced these new players’ control over the food system
c) Important changes in land tenure during the 20th century (consult Census of Agriculture for data)
i. Decline in the number of farmers
ii. Increased average farm size
iii. An increase in corporate-owned vs. family-owned land
iv. An increase in farming leased land vs. owned land
- The known and potential consequences of these trends
a) Goldschmidt’s Thesis: How different types of agriculture (corporate/large-scale vs.
family-farm/smaller-scale) have different and significant consequences for the local
community structure (see Goldschmidt 1947)
i. Communities dominated by large farms similarly tend to be associated with
deteriorating social structure and decreased economic viability
b) Introduce the concept of chemicals and mechanization as labor saving and labor
control strategies (see Friedland 1980)
i. Mechanization reduces labor costs
ii. Mechanization acts as a substitute for labor
iii. Mechanization acts as a control factor when labor strikes; it eliminates the threat
of unionization
c) Land tenure matters (see Rosset and Altieri 1997; NRC 1989)
i. Farm size is important.
· Small farms are frequently more productive per acre
· Large farms often exhibit a low energy-use efficiency
· Accountability: Owning land and depending on it for one’s livelihood can engender a
sense of responsibility for the consequences of production in order to ensure long-term
economic viability. Contrast this with the case of large corporate farms, or leased lands
where land is viewed as simply another component of the production process, and which
can be leased off if production starts to fail.
· Accountability is also linked with owner proximity: Local ownership imparts a sense of
responsibility for the health and vitality of the local community and resources
· Corporate profits don’t stay in the local community. Small farms have a stronger
“multiplier effect”on the local economy.
ii. Farm policies in the U.S. make small farms less economically viable
· Market competition makes small farms less economically viable where declining crop prices
squeeze some growers out of production and cause the others to expand their acreage in
order to make up for lower per-acre profits. This results in fewer small-scale farmers and an
increased number of large-scale farms. Furthermore, competition forces growers to focus on
the bottom line at the expense of non-production goals (like sustainable land tenure).
· Large growers also have more political clout and wealth and therefore receive preferential
access to credit, irrigation, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, technical assistance, and marketing
services
· Farm subsidies—cash payments that augment the prices received by growers for producing
basic commodities such as wheat, corn, and cotton—overwhelmingly favor the largest
producers. Subsidies encourage large-scale monocultures, promote the specialization of
equipment, and discourage crop rotations by supporting some commodities strongly.