Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T11:25:17.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alternatives for Small Farm Survival: Government Policies Versus the Free Market

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Luther G. Tweeten  and
William A. Amponsah
Luther G. Tweeten
Affiliation:
Agricultural Marketing, Policy, and Trade, Department of Agricultural Economics, The Ohio State University
William A. Amponsah
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Education, Economics, and Rural Sociology, North Carolina A&T State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper briefly outlines a topology of small farms and then considers the role of the government versus the market in key public policies such as commodity income support, environment, stability, research, and rural development. A number of options are explored for public policy to better serve small farms, including drastic alternatives such as graduated property taxes on farmland, with exemptions or lower rates for small farms. These and other alternatives are not necessarily recommended. Improved extension education and human resource development offer some of the most promising public policy opportunities to help small farmers.

Keywords

governmentlimited resourcemarketprogramsresearchruralscalesmall farm
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , July 1996 , pp. 88 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1996

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

Brooks, N., and Kalbacher, J.. “Profiling the Diversity of America's Farms.” In Americans in Agriculture: Portraits of Diversity (1990 Yearbook of Agriculture), pp. 18–23. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1990.Google Scholar
Carter, H., Cochrane, W., Day, L., Powers, R., and Tweeten, L.. “Research and the Family Farm.” Report prepared for the Agricultural Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy, Cornell University, Ithaca NY, 1981.Google Scholar
Jordan, B., and Tweeten, L.. “Public Perceptions of Farm Problems.” Res. Rep. No. P-894, Agr. Exp. Sta., Oklahoma State University, 1987.Google Scholar
Tweeten, L. “Causes and Consequences of Structural Change in the Farming Industry.” NPA Food and Agriculture Committee Rep. No. 207, National Planning Association, Washington DC, 1984.Google Scholar
Tweeten, L. “Government Commodity Program Impacts on Farm Numbers.” In Size, Structure, and the Changing Face of American Agriculture, ed., Hallam, A., Chap. 13. Boulder CO: Westview Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Tweeten, L. “Is It Time to Phase Out Commodity Programs?” In Countdown to 1995: Perspectives for a New Farm Bill, ed., Tweeten, L.. Anderson Chair Pub. No. ESO 2122, Dept. of Agr. Econ., The Ohio State University, 1994.Google Scholar
Tweeten, L. “Structure of Agriculture and Policy Alternatives to Preserve the Family Farm.” In Proceedings: Farmers' Agricultural Policy Conference, Coop. Ext. Ser., Oklahoma State University, 1979.Google Scholar
Tweeten, L. “The Structure of Agriculture: Implications for Soil and Water Conservation.” J. Soil and Water Conserv. 50,4(1995):347–51.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census. “United States Summary and State Data,” Vol. 11, Part 51, AC92-A-51. 1992 Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Commerce/Economic and Statistics Administration, Washington DC, September 1994.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector: National Financial Summary, 1993. Pub. No. ECIFS-13-1, USDA/Economic Research Service, Washington DC, December 1994.Google Scholar