Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

Nobe, Kenneth C.

English

Research Papers in Economics

Discussion  of
New  Dimensions  and  Potentials  for
AID-University  Cooperation
Kenneth  C.  Nobe
Our  session chairman,  Dr.  Roger  Fox, made an
excellent  choice  in asking  Dr.  Lehman Fletcher to
speak to  us  on  the  subject  of new dimensions and
potentials  for  AID-University  cooperation.  Dr.
Fletcher  has  responded  to  this  invitation  by pre-
paring  an  excellent  and  comprehensive  paper
dealing with emerging development  programs with-
in  AID  in  which  university  faculty,  particularly
those within  the  agricultural  economics  discipline,
will  have  many  opportunities  to  participate.  Dr.
Fletcher  has  had  the  unique  advantage  of being
able to view these prospects from three professional
vantage  points  - as  a  university  professor,  as  a
former  AID  employee  who  was  directly  involved
in developing  new directions and opportunities  for
university  participation  in economic  development
efforts,  and  now  as  a member  of a prestigious  re-
search  foundation.  He  thus  speaks  as  an  acknow-
ledged  authority  on  this  subject  and  in  my  view
has  carried  out  his  assignment  exceedingly  well.
In  the  early  part  of his paper,  Dr. Fletcher pro-
vided  a  useful  historical  review  of  the  status  of
AID-university  relations  during  the  early  1970's.
During  this  period,  while  AID  personnel  ceilings
were  being  cut  and  (except  for  specific  oversea's
university  contracts  and  a few  211-d  on-campus
research  efforts)  the  universities  were  marking
time,  two  major  new  AID  programs  were  being
developed.  The  effort  of broadest  scope  emerged
as  part  of  the  International  Development  and
Food  Assistance  Act  of  1975  (PL  94-161).  This
Act  made  substantial  changes in State Department
foreign  programs  by  amending  the  1961  Foreign
Assistance  Act  - particularly  the  Famine  Preven-
tion and Freedom  from Hunger Amendment which
appears  as  Title  XII  in  PL  94-161.  The  other
major  program  that  has  emerged  during  the  last
year,  and  one  in which Dr. Fletcher  was  a  most
Kenneth  C.  Nobe is Chiarman, Department  of Economics,
Colorado  State University, Fort Collins.
active  participant,  is  the  Expanded  Program  of
Economic  Analysis  for  Agricultural  and  Rural
Development.  It has  emerged  as  a  focal  point  in
the  Office  of  Agriculture  of  the  Technical  Assis-
tance  Bureau.  Dr.  Fletcher has  outlined  for us  the
objectives  and  implications  for  university involve-
ment  in  these  two new  programs.  I will  comment
briefly on both of them.
In  regard  to expectations  for university involve-
ment  under  the  new  International  Development
and  Food Assistance  Act, I choose  not to  quarrel
with what Dr.  Fletcher had to  say.  Rather  I hope
to  fill in some  gaps  that will  reflect potential  con-
cerns  for  university-based  agricultural  economists
in  those  areas  that  he  did  not  touch  on.  As  he
points  out  in his  paper,  Title  XII  of PL  94-161  is
very  broad  - so  broad in fact  that it now includes
all  of AID's  programs  in the  general  fields  of agri-
cultural  development  and nutrition, with particular
emphasis  on  research  and  technical  assistance.  He
could  have underscored  the  scope  of its broad in-
volvement  even  more  by  including  the  stated
purpose  of  Title XII,  which is as follows:
The  Congress  declares  that,  in  order  to  prevent
famine  and  establish  freedom  from  hunger,  the
United  States  should  strengthen  the  capacities  of
the  United  States  land-grant  and  other  eligible
universities  in  program-related  agricultural  insti-
tutional  development  and  research  ... ,  should
improve  their  participation  in  the  United  States
Government's  international  efforts  to  apply  more
effective  agricultural  sciences  to  the  goal  of  in-
creasing  world  food  production,  and  in  general
should  provide  increased  and  longer  term  support
to  the  application  of  science  to  solving  food  and
nutritional problems of the  developing  countries.
Dr. Fletcher  explains in his paper how the legis-
lation  will  permit  AID  to  seek  direct involvement
of  U.S.  land-grant  universities  in this  broad based
development  effort.  Perhaps  because  Dr.  Fletcher
has  been  away  from  his  home  campus too long, I
116AID-University Cooperation
found  that  in  this  phase  of his paper  his  analysis
reflected  more  of  what  AID  hopes  will  be  than
what may  really  be  the  case at the local university
level.  In  this  regard,  I do not have  the  same  opti-
mistic  view that  Title XII  will legitimize university
involvement  in  overseas  development  programs,
particularly  as  perceived  by  state legislatures  and
university  governing  boards.  Further,  he  did not
comment  on  the fact  that  in the event  that more
direct  university  involvement  in  AID  programs
does  emerge,  large  scale  participation  by  agricul-
tural  economists  in  such  efforts  will  not  auto-
matically  occur.  I  have  three  specific  points  I
want to make in regard to these concerns.
First. As  I understand  the  overall intent  of PL
94-161,  it  has  a  much  broader  and  potentially
more  significant  purpose  than  to  merely  solicit
university  involvement  in U.S.  agricultural develop-
ment  programs  - it  was  intended  to  separate
funding  and  administration  of  U.S.  economic  de-
velopment  programs  from  military  assistance
programs.  If this  objective  is  achieved,  then  per-
haps  we  will  find  many  more  faculty  on
university  campuses  willing  to  participate  in AID
development  programs, governing boards will more
likely  sanction  such  efforts,  and  state  legislatures
may  even  provide  some  matching  experiment
station  budget  support.  But  I believe  that, in their
efforts  to  legitimize  broader  involvement  of
university  faculty  in  U.S.  economic  development
programs,  university  and AID administrators would
get  more  mileage  out  of  publicizing  the  overall
objective  of  PL  94-161  than  by  focusing  solely
on  the  more  narrow  objectives  of  Title  XII.
Faculty  in  particular  would  be  more  receptive
to  such  efforts  if  they  knew  that  selection  of
specific  development  programs  will  be  tied  more
closely  to  needs  of people  in  developing countries
than  if  dominated  by  political expendiency,  as  in
the  past.  I  think  that  the  members  of university
governing  boards  and  state  legislatures,  who  at
least  in  the  west  tend  to  hold  extremely  conser-
vative  views  on  these  matters,  would  also be more
likely to respond in a positive manner. In summary,
I think we  have  a difficult selling job on our hands
so  we should  use  all  the  arguments available  to us.
Second. Almost every assessment  of the implica-
tions  of Title  XII  on  university  programs  that  I
have  seen  tends to take  its contents out of context
and  thus  out  of  perspective,  relative  to  the total
content of PL  94-161.  Dr.  Fletcher's treatment of
Title  XII  in his  paper  is no  exception.  However,  I
deem  it  crucial  to  recognize  that  Title  XII  deals
with  only  one  important  area  of  international
economic  development.  Other  sections of the  Act
which  are  of  critical  importance  to  U.S.  inter-
national  development  efforts,  and  to  which
agricultural  economists  can  make  meaningful
contributions,  include  Title  I  (international
Disaster  Assistance),  Title  II  (Food  Aid  to  Poor
Countries)  and  Title  III (Development Assistance).
Section  103A  of Title  III  is  of  particular  im-
portance  to members of the  agricultural economics
profession  because  of the  way  it  defines the  agri-
cultural  sciences  that  may be  involved  in research
to be  carried out under Title XII  and other relevant
parts  of PL 94-161.  While most university  admin-
istrators  at  the  experiment  station and  college  of
agriculture  level  tend  to  think  of  agricultural
sciences  relevant  to  worldwide  food production  as
consisting  primarily  of  agronomy  and  animal  sci-
ences,  Section  103A makes it clear that economics
and the sister  social sciences  are not to be excluded.
It states:
Agricultural  research  carried  out  under  this  Act
shall  (1)  take account of the special needs of  small
farmers  in  the  determination  of research  priorities,
(2)  include research on the interrelationships  among
technology, institutions, and economic, social, and
cultural factors  affecting  small-farm  agriculture
(italicized  for  emphasis),  and  (3)  make  extensive
use of field  testing  to adapt  basic research  to local
conditions.  Special  emphasis shall be placed on dis-
seminating  research  results  to  the  farms on which
they  can  be  put  to  use,  and especially  on  institu-
tional  and  other  arrangements  needed  to  insure
that  small  farmers  have  effective  access  to  both
new  and existing improved technology.
In  my view,  the  range  of potential involvement of
agricultural  economists  in  AID-university  develop-
ment  programs  is unduly constrained by Title  XII,
particularly  when  it  is  taken  out of  context  and
viewed  separately  from  the  other  sections  of PL
94-161.  I strongly  urge  all interested  parties to ob-
tain and  digest  a  complete  copy of the Act before
they  willingly  accept  the  limited  type of involve-
ment that reading only Title XII  would suggest.
Third.  The specifications of Section  103 of Title
III notwithstanding,  I fear that  the normal tendency
of land-grant  university  administrators,  as  well  as
many  of  their  AID  counterparts,  will  be  to con-
117
NobeWestern J. Agr. Econ.
tinue  to  take  Title  XII  out  of  context.  If I  am
correct,  they  will  view  it  as  a  mandate  to  limit
university  research  and  training  capabilities  in
response to  the act primarily to physical, biological,
and engineering aspects of the  agricultural sciences.
Even if Dr. Cliff Wharton  is appointed  as Chairman
of the  Board  of International  Food  and  Agricul-
tural  Development  (which  is  to  advise  on admin-
istration  of  Title  XII  programs),  I  doubt  if  the
physical  and  biological  sciences bias  of university
and AID administrators will be altered significantly.
My  pessimism  is based  on  observing  that so-called
major changes in AID-university relationships  in the
past,  including  the  211-d  program,  did  not  alter
the  status quo very much. I expect that most land-
grant  universities  will  continue  to respond  to the
Title  XII  program  with  a "business  as usual"  atti-
tude. Therefore,  unless  we  in  our profession make
sure that administrators on our  respective campuses
are made fully aware  that Title II, Section  103A of
the  Act  specifically  calls  upon  agricultural  econo-
mists  and  sister  social  scientists  to be  involved  in
research  efforts  carried  out in support of Title XII
programs,  we  will  not likely  be  invited  to  partici-
pate to any significant  degree.
Dr.  Fletcher's  treatment  in  his  paper  of AID's
new  Expanded  Program  of Economic  Analysis for
Agricultural  and Rural  Development was extremely
comprehensive  and,  in  my  view,  properly  opti-
mistic.  If this program  is sucessfully implemented,
Dr.  Fletcher can  take a large  measure of credit  be-
cause  he  was  one  of  the  small  group within  AID
responsible  for  developing  it.  I  recall  a  meeting
called  by  AID  in  Chicago,  in late  1973,  in which
Dr.  Fletcher  and  his  colleagues  in  the  Office  of
Agriculture  brought  this proposal  to the attention
of  a  small  group  of  university-based  agricultural
economists.  Several  of  you  participated  in  that
meeting,  as  well  as  in a follow-up  meeting held  in
Washington,  last January, in which a formal request
was  made  for  Expanded  Program  proposals  from
university  departments  of  agricultural  economics
and  economics.  A large  number of states included
in  WAEA's  sphere  of influence  responded  by  sub-
mitting formal proposals and three  of the first half-
dozen  AID  cooperative  agreements initiated under
the  Expanded  Programs  are  with  universities  who
are  active in our association.
Although  Dr.  Fletcher  did  address his  remarks
specifically  to the manner in  which  the Expanded
Program is  being  implemented,  a few follow-up  re-
marks on  my part seem appropriate.  As he pointed
out, the  implementation  is  being accomplished  via
use  of basic  memoranda  of understanding  and  co-
operative  agreements  to  be  signed  by AID and the
individual  participating universities.  This approach,
while  unique  to  AID,  has  long  been  in  use  by
agencies  within  the  U.S.  Department  of Agricul-
ture,  notably  the  Economic  Research  Service.  A
number of ERS/university agreements are presently
in effect  in the  Western  States  so many of you  are
fully  familiar  with them.  The  use  of this approach
has  been  strongly  supported  by Dr.  Leon Hesser,
Director  of the  Office  of Agriculture  in AID who,
I  understand,  was  once  employed  as  a  graduate
student  under  a  USDA/university  cooperative
agreement  at Purdue. But let us not forget that the
basic  cooperative  agreement is not a funding  docu-
ment.  Unless  such  an  agreement  is followed  by a
specific  funding contract,  it will  not lead to great-
er  AID/university-based  agricultural  development
of economics-oriented  research.
There  is  a related area  of concern in that many
of  us  in  the  agricultural  economics  profession  in-
itially  viewed  the  Expanded  Program  as  providing
a 21 1-d  type  program  exclusively  for the members
of  our  profession.  This  could  occur,  but in  my
view,  it  would  be  a mistake.  Successful  economic
development  efforts,  by necessity,  require a mulit-
disciplinary  input.  Unless  we make  a  strong effort
to  tie  our  involvement  under  the  Expanded  Pro-
gram  to Title  XII  and other university-wide  based
programs, we could find ourselves isolated from the
mainstream  of AID-university  programs. Everyone
involved  would  be losers under such  a scenario  and
it should therefore be  avoided if at  all possible.
In  closing my discussion  of Dr. Fletcher's paper,
I  wish  to thank him  for bringing  a note  of optim-
ism  to  us  about  the  prospects  for  greater  future
AID-university  joint  programs,  particularly  those
with  greater input  from  agricultural  economists.  I
think,  however,  that he  has left  us with an  unfin-
ished  agenda  for future  discussions  and  for imple-
mentation  programs.  Nonetheless  our  professional
colleages  within  AID,  such  as  Dr.  Fletcher,  have
served  us well  in pointing the  agency  toward new
directions  more  conducive  to  university  involve-
ment.  But  the  ball  is  now in our court. As we pro-
ceed to move  to activation  of these new AID pro-
grams  at  the  university  level,  I  hope that  some  of
the  items  of  concern  that  I  have  expressed  will
appear on the agenda.
118
June 1977

DISCUSSION OF NEW DIMENSIONS AND POTENTIALS FOR AID-UNIVERSITY COOPERATION

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics