Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:10:25.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attitudes Toward Government Involvement in Agriculture: Results of a National Survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2016

Patricia A. Duffy  and
Joseph J. Molnar
Patricia A. Duffy
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University
Joseph J. Molnar
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study reports results from a nation-wide survey of public attitudes toward agriculture. The study focuses on attitudes toward government involvement in agriculture across regions of the county and residential categories.

Keywords

surveyfarm programspublic attitudes
Type
Submitted Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , July 1989 , pp. 121 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1989

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

Cochrane, W.W. “The Need to Rethink Agricultural Policy.” Agricultural Change: Consequences for Southern Farms and Rural Communities. Ed. Molnar, J.J.. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Comstock, G. Is There a Moral Obligation to Save the Family Farm? Ames: Iowa State Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. “How Farmers and Other Vocal Minorities Get Their Way.” >Bryan-College Station Eagle, January 26, 1987, p. 10a.Bryan-College+Station+Eagle,+January+26,+1987,+p.+10a.>Google Scholar
Lin, W., Johnson, J., and Calvin, L.. Farm Commodity Programs: Who Participates and Who Benefits? U.S. Economic.Research Service, Report No. 474. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government.Printing Office, 1981.Google Scholar
Maier, F.H., Hedrick, J.L., and Gibson, W.L. Jr. “The Sale of Flue-Cured Tobacco Allotments.” Technical Bulletin No. 148. Virginia Polytechnic Institute Agricultural Experiment Station. Blacksburg, Va. 1960.Google Scholar
Molnar, J.J., Thompson, A., and Beauford, E.Y.. “Minority Perspectives on Farming, Food, and Agriculture.” Culture and Agriculture, 36, 3 (1988):1–5.Google Scholar
Molnar, J.J., and Wu, L.. “Agrarianism, Family Farming, and State Intervention in Agriculture.” Rural Sociology, 54, 1(1989).Google Scholar
Paarlberg, P.P., “The Farm Policy Agenda.” Increasing Understanding of Public Problems and Policies. Farm Foundation, 1975, pp. 95–103.Google Scholar
Pope, R.D., and Hallam, A.. “A Confusion of Agricultural Economists—A Professional Interest Survey and Essay.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 69 (1986):572–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seagraves, J.A., and Williams, F.E.. “Returns to Investors in Flue-Cured Tobacco Allotments. “ Economics Research Report No. 42. North Carolina State University. September, 1981.Google Scholar
Talbot, R.B., and Hadwiger, D.F., The Policy Process in American Agriculture. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1968.Google Scholar
Tripp, J.T.B.. “The Basic Legal Issues.” Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 440/5-85-001, Washington D.C., 1985.Google Scholar
Tweeten, L. Food for People and Profit. Economic Resource Paper 5. Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Service, East Lansing, Michigan, 1983.Google Scholar
Tweeten, L. “Impact of Domestic Policy on Comparative Advantage of Agriculture in the South.” South. J. Agr. Econ., 18, 1(1986): 67–74.Google Scholar
Zeisel, H. Say It With Figures. 6th edition. New York: Harper and Row, 1985.Google Scholar