Hiemstra, Stephen J.

English

Research Papers in Economics

SOUTHERN  JOURNAL  OF  AGRICULTURAL  ECONOMICS  JULY  1975
RESEARCH  PRIORITIES-  FOOD  PROGRAMS:  A  DISCUSSION*
Stephen J. Hiemstra
There is not very much  in Dean Ewing's paper  FRAGMENTED  RESEARCH
with which to take issue. Certainly,  there  are more
points  of  agreement  than disagreement.  According  to Dean Ewing,  we have  too many points of  agreement  than  disagreement.
projects-some  with low priority-that  are under-
staffed  and  under-funded.  He  calls  this  a  "shot-
PRIORITY  RESEARCH  gun"  approach  to research,  another  way  of saying
that  we  have  too  much  fragmented  research  that He  makes one  point  that,  while  perhaps  true,  does  not  add  into  meaningful  blocks  of  effort we should regard as  a challenge rather than simply  aimed  at  solving important  problems.  Surely  that as a  regrettable  situation.  I refer  to his  comment  charge  is  as  true  in  my  own  area  of  research
that extension of research programs into new areas  esponibility as in others.
or disciplines  is  difficult  unless  increased  funding  e  a  oths
is  available.  Otherwise,  he  indicates,  adjustments  One  example  of  this  problem  is  easily  cited
in personnel  from  established  into  emerging  de-  with respect  to research  concerned  with the  Food in  personnel  from  established  into  emerging  de-  Stamp  Program.  It  has  become  rather  fashionable partments  is dependent  upon retirement  and resig-  Stamp Program.  It has  become  rather fashionable
nation,  a  slow  process.  There  is  a  lot of  truth  in  in  some quarters  to  do research  on  this  program. that  statement,  but  hopefully  sessions  like  trh  i  This  is not to  suggest that a great deal more of the that  statement,  but  hopefully  sessions  like  this  right  kind  of  research  isn't needed.  But the  point define  needed areas  of research  and stimulate peo-  right  kind  of  research isn't needed.  But the  point
ple  to  move  independently  into  doing  that  re-  and  attempt  to reinvent  the  wheel. Te weel  in
search.  Perhaps,  too,  those  of  us  in research  ad-  tis cae i  onern  aot the  h  eel.  The  wheel 
ministration  are  stimulated  to redirect  people  into  particiation.  Countess  peoe "p  roblem"  of  low
taking  on relevant  problems,  participation.  Countless  people  want  to  rush  out taking on relevant problems.
with surveys to ask people  why they don't partici-
In this  regard  I  would  have  to  disagree  with  pate in the program.
my friend  Lloyd Halverson  when  he suggests  that  Surveys  all  come  up  with  about  the same  an-
traditional  Agricultural  Economics  Departments  swers,  most of which don't get at the real  reasons. should  build  "fences"  around  their  "traditional should  build  "fences"  around  their  "traditional  People generally  aren't  able  or  willing  to  explain research."  While  he  may  lament  the  fact  that  their  actions to  complete  strangers  on the  spur of monies  may  be going into new kinds of  activities,  the  moment.  Surveyors  are  usually  shocked  when we  should  not  attempt  to  build  barriers  against  they  can't  find  as  many  non-participant  eligible
such  movement of  resources.  The  barriers  are  al-  people  as public media imply exist.
ready  high  enough,  as  Dr.  Ewing  stated.  If  any-
thing,  as  research  administrators,  we  should  en-
courage  the  transfer of  funds from  less  important  AGRICULTURE  POLICY  vs.  FOOD  POLICY
to  more  important  research  areas.  This  doesn't  Dr.  Ewing  indicated  that  there  is  a  pressing suggest  disagreement  with  some  of  the  important  need to evaluate  impacts  of new agricultural  legis- research  areas enumerated  by Mr. Halverson.  lation. This point can be  carried one step  further.
Stephen  J.  Hiemstra,  Director,  Economic  Analysis  and  Program  Evaluation  Staff,  Food  and Nutrition  Service,  U.S.  Department of Agriculture.
* Paper  presented  as  discussant  of paper  by John  A.  Ewing,  "Agricultural  Economics  in  retrospect  and  in  prospect,"  given  at Southern  Agricultural  Economics  Association  meetings,  New  Orleans,  February  3, 1975.  The  ideas  expressed  in  this paper  are the  author's  alone.  They  do  not necessarily  reflect  the  policy  position  of the  U.S.  Department  of  Agriculture.
5Most people  are  not  aware  that  the  Agricultural  EVOLVING  POLICY  ISSUES
Act of  1973,  the Agriculture  and Consumer  Pro-  Recent legislative  changes  and sheer  growth  of Recent legislative  changes  and sheer growth of
tection  Act,  carried  some  major  amendments  to  food  programs  point  to  a  number  of  evolving food  programs  point  to  a  number  of  evolving
the  Food  Stamp  Program.  These  amendments  policy  issues that  could well  merit the  attention  of
highlight  an  increasing  need  for  looking  at  inter  a  growing  body  of  food  and  agricultural  eco-
relationships  between  food policy  and agricultural  nomists.
policy.  To  some  extent,  these  policies  have  been  1.  We now  have  virtually  a  Nationwide  Food
complementary  in the  past.  But  some  have  been  Stamp  Program,  including  a  program  in  Puerto
competitive  in  nature.  A North  Central  Regional  serves  over  one  million  people.  This
Project that  is  concerned  with  Agriculture  policy  program  is  completely  dependent  upon  the  food
awakened to this growing importance  recently, and  marketing  system  for  its operation.  Because  of  its
more people should consider  the interrelationships.  substitution  for the  previous  direct Food Distribu- substitution  for the  previous  direct Food Distribu-
Competition  among  policies  is  perhaps  high-  tion Program,  it eliminates  one  of the  options  for
lighted  within the budget  of  the  U.S.  Department  dealing with surplus food production problems. No
of  Agriculture  itself.  Two-thirds  of  the  USDA  longer  is the Department in  a position to distribute
budget  this  year  is  going  to  operate  the  Depart-  large volumes  of food  to needy  families.  In  addi-
ment's  food  programs.  Only  one-third  is  going  tion,  the  Department  in  the  last  year  or  two  has
for  so-called  traditional  agriculture.  Many  agri-  given  serious consideration  to elimination  of direct
cultural economists may feel that this is not an  ap-  distribution  of  foods  to  schools  as  a part  of  the
propriate  division  of resources;  nevertheless,  Con-  School Lunch Program.  The  1976 Budget Request
gress  has  chosen  to  allocate  the  funds  in  this  continues  direct  distribution  of  food  to  schools
manner. We, as agricultural economists, should not  through  fiscal  year  1976.  But  the  longer  range
close  our  eyes  to  changing  priorities  in  an  in-  objective  is  to  cash-out  that  program,  providing
creasingly  urban  society.  Secretary  Butz  is  fond  cash  to  schools  rather  than  commodities.  This
of  calling  USDA  the  "people's  Department,"  as  issue  raises  several  researchable  questions:  For
Abraham Lincoln  did  a century  ago.  example,  is  it more economical  for  schools to buy
their  own  food with  cash provided  by  the  USDA
or for the  USDA to exert  its  power in the  market
OOUT  GROWN  RESEARC  BASE  place  and distribute  the  food in kind?
2.  Another  issue,  one  that  will  come  up  for
Food programs  have grown tremendously  over  considerable  debate  in  the  coming  Congress,  is
the past decade, particularly in the past five  years.  the  extent  to  which  the  Department  should  sub-
This year's budget carries over $6  billion for oper-  sidize  child  nutrition  programs.  The  gut  issue  is
ating  the Food Stamp  Program,  various  child  nu-  whether  or  not  the  National  School  Lunch  Pro-
trition  programs,  and  other  miscellaneous  food  gram  should  be  only  a  poverty  program  or  con-
programs.  I  point  this  out  mainly  to  emphasize  tinue  to  be  a  nutrition  program,  assuming  some
that  the  programs  have  outgrown  their  research  Federal  assistance for its general  support.  Agricul-
base. Aside  from usual  problems  of efficiency  and  tural  economists could  well take  an interest in this
cost effectiveness  in meeting  their  own objectives,  subject because  of potential  impacts upon  partici-
the  programs  are  getting  large  enough  that  they  pation in the program and  a utilization  of food that
have  significant  secondary  impacts  upon  food  now  approaches  $4  billion  annually.  Debate  will
markets.  The  USDA  budget  alone  accounts  for  also focus  on the question of the degree  of federal-
about 31/2  percent  of total spending for food at the  ization that  the  program  should  have.
consumer  level.  That's  just  the  Federal  input.  If  3.  Another major policy question  continues to
you  sum (1)  all food purchased  with food stamps  surround the perpetuation  of any  of the food pro-
including stamps  paid for by recipients  themselves  grams.  The  point  is  made  in  many  quarters  that
as  well  as  the  Federal bonus,  (2)  the  total  value  food  programs  constitute  nothing  more  than  in-
of  subsidized  school  lunches  served  in  program  come  maintenance  in  disguise,  and  therefore
schools,  and  (3)  cost  of  the  several  miscellaneous  should  be  phased  out  in favor  of  cash  assistance
food programs,  you come up with over $11  billion  programs  of various  kinds that theoretically  allow
worth of food subsidized  to some extent by various  recipients  to reach a higher level of personal utility
USDA  food  programs.  That  is  in  excess  of  6  per-  with  a  given  level  of  subsidy.  Regardless  of  agri-
cent  of  total  food  expenditures  in  this  country,  cultural economists'  interest in welfare economics,
and  it's  still  growing.  their interest in this question could well be focused
6on  analysis  of  impacts  of  such  a  policy  change  These  issues  only  serve  to  highlight  what  I upon  the total  market for  food.  The  question  re-  consider  to  be  a  gross  inadequacy  of  research  in volves  around  elasticities  of  demand  for  food  by  analyzing  the  many ramifications  of the  food  pro- low  income  people;  that  is,  the  extent  to  which  grams.  We  talk  a  lot  in  meetings  about  doing low  income  recipients  would  spend  unrestricted  people oriented  research, but I don't see very much dollars  for food  vs.  the  proportion  of  bonus  food  of it.
stamp dollars that go for food.
7

RESEARCH PRIORITIES - FOOD PROGRAMS: A DISCUSSION

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics