Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:22:05.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farmers’ Capital Expenditures, Who Benefits?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Gerald E. Schluter  and
Thomas A. Niles
Gerald E. Schluter
Affiliation:
National Economic Analysis Division, Economic Research Service
Thomas A. Niles
Affiliation:
The American University, Washington, D.C.
Get access

Extract

Farm employment fell from 12.8 million workers in 1929 to 4.4 million in 1974. One frequent explanation for this drastic drop in employment is the replacement of labor inputs in this sector by cheaper and more productive capital inputs. Assuming the farm labor market was in equilibrium at the start of this substitution process (admittedly a weak assumption but not crucial to this paper) the farm workers forced out of their chosen occupations were the most apparent losers in the process. If labor's share of the farm income dollar did not decrease as rapidly as the number of workers, then the remaining farm workers would be one group of beneficiaries of the process. Another would be society in general if total productivity increased. This paper will examine another potential group of beneficiaries, the shareholders and workers in the rest of the economy whose business and employment are tied to the provision of fixed capital inputs for the farming sector. Data availability, unfortunately, only allows us to identify economic implications for these groups at one point, 1971, in this ongoing process of transition. Nevertheless, these results are of interest since the groups who have benefited have not likely changed and our understanding of the rural adjustment process as well as the impact of technological innovations may be enhanced.

Type
Resource and Environmental Economics
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , October 1975 , pp. 225 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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.)

Footnotes

∗

The views presented herein are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

References

1 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Agricultural Adjustment in Developed Countries”. Rome, 1972.Google Scholar
2 Heady, Earl O., “Rural Development and Rural Communities of the Future” In Whiting, Larry, Volume Editor, “Rural Industrialization: Problems and Potentials” North Central Regional Center For Rural Development, The Iowa State University Press, Ames, 1974.Google Scholar
3 Thurow, Lester C. “The Income Distribution as a Pure Public Good” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1972.Google Scholar
4 United States Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service “Farm Production Expenditures 1971”, Sp Sy (12-73).Google Scholar
5 United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, “The Input-Output Structure of the U.S. Economy: 1967”, Survey of Current Business, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 24–56, Feb., 1974.Google Scholar
6 United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis Survey of Current Business - Selected National Income (July) Issues.Google Scholar
7 United Department of Commerce, Bureau of Domestic Commerce, “Construction Review”, August 1972.Google Scholar
8 United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics “Handbook of Labor Statistics 1973”, Bulletin 1790, 1974.Google Scholar
9 University of Illinois, Center for Advanced Computation, “Derivation of the 1963 and 1967 Total Employment Vector for 362 I/O Sectors”, CAC Document No. 63, Urbana, 1973.Google Scholar