Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession,

Hudson, Darren

English

Research Papers in Economics

‘‘Defining’’ Our Future by ‘‘Defining’’
Ourselves
Darren Hudson
Definition (n.) – a statement expressing the
essential meaning of something; a statement
of the meaning of a word or word group or
symbol (Merriam-Webster online dictionary)
It may seem odd, even comical, to begin a paper
with the definition of a definition. But, defini-
tions are the basic building blocks of science,
even civil discourse, so definitions have a tre-
mendous impact on our professional lives. Over
the years, I have come to believe that our pro-
fession is increasingly rudderless and adrift.
This should not be confused with incompetent
and irrelevant. Rather, we belong to a discipline
with a tremendous tool chest and much to say
about the problems facing our society. However,
we seem to squander opportunities to make
lasting impacts because we lack a well-defined
mission or objective.
One is tempted to make broad, sweeping
statements that we have abandoned our philo-
sophical principles or that pseudo-science has
infiltrated our ranks, or that our constant prayers
and lamentations to the math god have angered
the economic god. And some of these philo-
sophicalargumentsmay havemerit,but,Iwould
contend that, at some level, our problem stems
from something more basic: definitions. For
whatever reason (and I will propose a few), we
have ignored Thomas Dewey’s old adage: ‘‘A
problem well defined is a problem half solved.’’
Definitions are critical. At one level, we de-
fine who we are through our core principles and
objectives. At another level, definitions form the
basis from which we operationalize our core
principles, identify measurement opportunities,
and illuminate the broader impacts of our con-
clusions. Definitions provide guidance for clar-
ity of thought. Sloppy definitions are, of course,
a manifestation of sloppy thinking. But I believe
we have increasingly lost the sense of who we
are, and as such, have become less effective in
providing meaningful knowledge to society.
Two Examples of Bad Definitions—and
Their Root Causes
To illustrate, I will focus on two primary ex-
amples of definitional issues. Both examples
are, at least at some level, about communica-
tion. The first is about communication with the
public, whereas the second relates to commu-
nication within the scientific community.
Words have meaning. And, yes, sometimes
we condense definitions in our writings in order
to economize on space and verbiage. For us,
these abbreviated versions serve the purpose
of conveying the essentials (although I really
question whether the abbreviated versions have
wholesale replaced more formal definitions).
B u ti na ni n c r e a s i n g l yc o n n e c t e dw o r l d ,o t h e r s
arewatching. And our lackofclarity is having an
impact on the broader world and our credibility.
For example, in my home area, we live atop
the Ogallala Aquifer. This aquifer, as far as ge-
ologists know, is essentially closed so that use
out of the aquifer is a question of depletion.
During the considerable research over the years,
economists and others discussed the point at
which it would no longer be economically fea-
sible to pump water from the aquifer for irri-
gated agriculture. At that point, there will likely
Darren Hudson is the Combest Chair of Agricultural
Competitiveness, Department of Agricultural Eco-
nomics, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 43,3(August 2011):277–280
 2011 Southern Agricultural Economics Associationbe sufficient water supplies for public consump-
tion for many years, if not indefinitely. But those
involved developed the short-hand ‘‘running out
of water’’ phrase of that point. To be sure, that
definition was for internal use, but was picked up
by the news media, and has resulted in years of
attempting to educate the public about the facts.
There are, it would seem, opportunity costs in
communication, too.
In this example, the error was not one of
economic logic but of clarity of communication.
In short, the use of an improper definition led to
a major contribution to economic illiteracy—an
already enormous problem. As much as we are
loathtoadmitit,webecometooinsulatedwithin
our own ranks and forget that one of our long-
standing missions is educating the broader pub-
lic on economic issues. By focusing myopically
on internal communications, we have lost sight
of this external responsibility, and it has come
at a cost. How are we to expect to garner public
support for our research, education, and outreach
programs if we show the public little value for
their investment?
Perhaps an even more egregious example
is the current word de jure, ‘‘sustainability.’’
What does that term mean? According to the
most widely cited definition developed by a
1987 United Nations conference, sustainability
is defined as: ‘‘meeting present needs without
compromising the ability of future generations
meeting their needs.’’
This definition sounds completely plausible
and reasonable. But, let’s think about the im-
plications of this definition for a moment. For
this concept/definition of sustainability to be
possible, the resource base used today must not
be degraded and/or must be able to sustain an
almost certainly larger population in the future.
But the Second Law of Thermodynamics in-
sures that closed systems are not capable of
self-perpetuating. Therefore, some outside force
(perhaps technology) must intervene.
Proponents of organic agriculture insist that it
is ‘‘sustainable.’’ But, even the most generous of
projections shows organic agriculture incapable
of meeting the nutritional needs of the current
global population (much less a growing one).
Thus, outside energy (e.g., petro- or chemical-
based products) must be interjected into the
system in addition to the sun’s energy to meet
current needs (the first part of the definition).
Therefore, ‘‘sustainability’’ cannot be taken to
mean a closed system that perpetuates itself
indefinitely.
Why, then, have groups been able to suc-
cessfully utilize that word to mean something
that is clearly not (or not reasonably) possible?
I contend that economists have not had a co-
herent, recognizable voice in the debate about
sustainability. Why have we apparently abdi-
cated our role of convincing the scientific com-
munity, and by extension, the public to come to
grips with the fact that sustainability is funda-
mentally about tradeoffs?
Again, the example of the High Plains and
water is instructive. Physical scientists tell us that
eliminating irrigation in the region will make the
Ogallala Aquifer ‘‘sustainable’’ (here, sustainable
is taken to mean that draw down is less than or
equal to recharge). From a physical standpoint,
that may be true. But, what about people? Re-
search shows that elimination of irrigation in the
region would reduce overall economic activity in
the region by roughly 30% to 40% (Guererro,
Hudson, and Wright, 2009). Thus, for per capita
income (standard of living) to remain un-
changed, roughly one third of the regional pop-
ulation would have to leave. So ‘‘meeting current
needs’’ appears to have a tradeoff with ‘‘without
compromising the ability offuture generations to
meet their needs.’’
Leaving that definition unchallenged gives
the public the perception that products that are
ultimately called ‘‘sustainable’’ are something
they are not. More generally, leaving defini-
tions that do not adequately address potential
tradeoffs and/or challenge opportunity costs
only serves to exacerbate the already dismal
level of economic literacy among both scien-
tists and the general public. Again, why have
we abdicated our responsibility for conveying
the key lessons of economics?
An Example that Works
A recent paper by Lusk and Norwood (2011)
provides a good example of where the econo-
mist is trying to have an impact on public dis-
course. Entitled ‘‘The Locavore’s Dilemma,’’
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, August 2011 278the paper outlines the key problems with the
‘‘locavore’s’’ arguments that food should be
produced locally. Using mainly a comparative
advantage argument, the authors show that the
thought of producing everything locally does
not make economic sense. As the subtitle of
the paper suggests, growing pineapples in
North Dakota is probably not a wise decision.
The interesting element of this piece is that
it simply applies a very core concept in eco-
nomics to a contemporary problem to provide
a clear, concise judgment on that topic. Notice I
said ‘‘judgment.’’ I know that the positive pur-
ists in our discipline shy away from those, but
to ultimately be relevant, we must make, albeit
conditioned and cautious, judgments.
Where Do We Go?
If I am correct in my assessment of our issues/
problems regarding our core definitions to re-
flect our principles, the question is how do we
remedy the situation? First, and foremost, we
have to recognize who we have become versus
who we were. James Houck in his presidential
address to the American Agricultural Econom-
ics Association in 1992 provided an interesting
definition of an agricultural economist:
In my view, agricultural economists are in-
dividuals who, if either constrained or forced to
attend only one professional meeting per year,
would attend the Agricultural and Applied Eco-
nomics Association (AAEA) summer meetings as
they are now constituted (or a non-U.S. equivalent)
at least three years out of every five. (p. 1060).
This somewhat entertaining if not opaque
definition is telling in the context of that time
(1992). His emphasis here is on the self-selec-
tion of individuals who attend those meetings.
Houck’s point was that there was a cohesive
element that brought people who focused on
topics such as the environmental, marketing,
agribusiness, and international trade, together
each year: agriculture. The meeting was a focal
pointforspecialiststogatherandruminateabout
the broader problems facing their common in-
terest of farms and rural communities.
From a nostalgic perspective, that common
thread is unfortunately slipping away. Perhaps
the agricultural focus is still stronger within the
Southern Agricultural Economics Association,
but in a broad sense, we have lost that common
theme. Budgetary and administrative pressures
have forced us out of the traditional ‘‘agricul-
tural’’ roles that have existed over the years.
Our clientele base has been shrinking in num-
ber but growing in size, thus changing their
demands on the research and outreach com-
munities. And even from within, we have had
constant pressure to more closely emulate tra-
ditional economics departments.
This ‘‘physics envy’’ has come at a cost.
Increasingly, we hear questions from adminis-
trators about why they should support two eco-
nomics departments on campus. After all, are
you not just the same? If our profession is to
survive into the future, we must come to grips
with the fact that we have been painted, and
painted ourselves, into a corner. Lack of effective
communication with the broader public is a fac-
tor as is our loss of focus on a cohesive mission
to hold our profession together.
So, how do we move forward? Core princi-
ples. For example, how does economics suggest
optimizing revenue when faced with a diverse
population...price discriminate by identifying
different ‘‘markets’’. Here, I mean to suggest that
there are different elasticities of demand for
‘‘theoretical’’ economics research and ‘‘applied’’
economics research. Agriculture (as broadly de-
fined) remains a central cohesive force among
us. But, perhaps a more accurate definition of our
core principles (or, more precisely, our compar-
ative advantage) is that we are applied problem
solvers. And being a problem solver has value.
But, as the famous University of Texas football
coach Darrell Royal said, ‘‘You gotta dance with
who brung you.’’ If we forget where we came
from, not only will we lose a key piece of our
identity, but we will also lose key support from
those that help keep us funded.
Houck pointed out that the future would
place greater demands on our profession to
demonstrate our worth through accountability
because of scarce research dollars. He was
right. And we have not heeded his warning.
However, we can effectively exploit the un-
derlying differences in demand for research if
we can effectively articulate our impact on
society. Certainly, our profession must take
Hudson: ‘‘Deﬁning’’ Our Future by ‘‘Deﬁning’’ Ourselves 279a more active role in insuring that the eco-
nomic/social tradeoffs that exist in the meaning
of terms and concepts are properly illuminated.
In addition, we must illustrate how those con-
cepts can be applied to affect real decisions on
complex problems. But how?
First, our profession must take a more active
role in developing definitions in the first place.
Too often, we remain aloof and refuse to work
with (or do not force ourselves upon) our physi-
cal science colleagues as they are developing
definitions for terms. By skipping these debates,
we miss the opportunity to infuse the opportu-
nity costs/tradeoffs into those definitions in the
first place. And, even when we do become en-
gaged,wedosofromafarbyhavingdisciplinary
arguments about definitions in our own journals
thatothers outside ourdisciplinedonot read.Or,
as is more often the case, we just create defini-
tions that suit our needs for the moment to make
our own research more tractable with little re-
gard as to its relationship to the broader world.
Enforcing more precise thinking in our own in-
ternal dialogue is a prerequisite for success.
Although quite bothersome to organize,
‘‘conventions’’ to develop definitions (not just
paper sessions to present our research) could
offer an opportunity for open and honest de-
bate about the meaning and implications of
definitions for words. I know this sounds old-
fashioned, but think of the commercial implica-
tions of a word like ‘‘sustainability.’’ Would a
session or two at a professional meeting devoted
to defining that term not have a huge impact?
Second, taxonomy isn’t sexy, but we might
want to give some editorial consideration to
good articles that attempt to address definitions
head-on rather than as an afterthought in an
empirical research piece. If one peruses the
Social Science Citation Index, one can easily
find many highly-cited articles that are almost
completely devoted to naming, defining, and
describing concepts rather than empirical re-
search. Unfortunately, very few of our pages in
journals are devoted to such articles. There is
a balance, of course. This is not a call for aban-
doning applied research. Rather, we should not
avoid good definitional articles if they are sub-
mitted simply because we ‘‘do not typically
publish’’ articles of that sort.
Conclusions
The landscape for our profession has changed
and continues to change. The newest generation
is less likely to associate itself with agriculture
per se, but more inclined to view themselves
within a much more confined specialty. Bud-
getary constraints and changes on the demands
for our research and outreach have all led to an
erosion of the cohesion that has held our pro-
fession together.
To move forward, we must walk a fine line
between redefining ourselves as ‘‘applied prob-
lem solvers’’ to keep our differentiation with
general economics and business departments
and maintaining our primary identity as being
related to and/or interested in agriculture. The
balancing act is precarious and not always suc-
cessful (see the dissolution of the agricultural
economics department at Clemson University as
an example). My fear, though, is that if we do not
try, we will lose our identity in the morass of the
general economics discipline and we will even-
tually be weeded out through promotion and
tenure processes that have no appreciation for
applied problem solving.
Ultimately, how we define ourselves through
our core principles will affect how we define con-
cepts for use by society. If we are truly to show
our worth to society, we have to infuse ourselves
in the process of defining the problems, concepts,
and solutions by which society will operate. We
cannot sit on the sidelines if we hope to survive.
References
Guererro, B., D. Hudson, and A. Wright. ‘‘The
Impacts of Irrigation on the Economy of the
Texas Panhandle.’’ Presentation to the 2009
Texas Farm and Ranch Show Classic, Amarillo,
Texas, December 5, 2009.
Houck, J. ‘‘The Comparative Advantage of
Agricultural Economists.’’ American Journal
of Agricultural Economics 74(1992):1059–65.
Lusk, J., and B. Norwood. The Locavore’s Di-
lemma: Why Pineapples Should Not Be Grown in
North Dakota. Library of Economics and Lib-
erty. Internet site: http://www.econlib.org/library/
Columns/y2011/LuskNorwoodlocavore.html
(Accessed January 5, 2011).
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, August 2011 280

‘‘Defining’’ Our Future by ‘‘Defining’’ Ourselves

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics