Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics: Will there be a cooperative extension in the future: Will extension need agricultural economists?

FindArticles > Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics > Aug 2002 > Article > Print friendly

Will there be a cooperative extension in the future: Will extension need agricultural economists?

Davis, Ernest E

Receiving the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Southern Agricultural Economics Association is indeed an honor, and I thank each of you and the Association. I am also appreciative of this opportunity to express some of my views and concerns about the future of the Cooperative Extension Service and thoughts on what I think land grant university agricultural economists will need to do to remain a viable part of the Extension and the land grant system.

Background

I must agree with my friend and long-time colleague Ron Lacewell, who (in receiving this award) wrote about the diversification agricultural economists have already achieved. Our profession (founded in economic problems and solutions of production agriculture), has diversified into marketing, agribusiness, business strategies, resources, policy analysis, community development, and econometrics. We have become leaders in the development of computer templates, databases, and websites and in general information technology, analysis, and distribution. These things we have done very well, but still society is changing around us. Although, to this point, we may have adapted better than most of our technology-oriented land grant colleagues, we must adapt even more in the future, especially those of us who have extension appointments. These are the people that most of my comments will be directed to.

Problem Statement

In the last decade, it would be hard to find even one or two states that have not had cuts in their extension budgets. For the most part, extension support from state governments has not kept up with the resources needed to do effective programming. Some extension economists have been more aggressive and innovative in their efforts to find alternative sources of funds to support their extension programs. But these types of resources are difficult to find and even more difficult to maintain. In the future, extension economists must be more aggressive in securing grants and contracts to support their programs. They must then market these programs so that producers, agribusinesses, consumers, and politicians will appreciate and support future endeavors. These endeavors will include both outreach and applied research, but more on that later.

The Texas Cooperative Extension Service was challenged/admonished by the Honorable Pete Laney, cotton farmer from Hale Center, TX, and Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives: "If you want to continue to receive funds for Extension programs in rural areas, you must convince the urban legislators that Extension is a valid investment for tax dollars. What I am telling you is that if you want to continue to have rural Extension programs, you must have good urban programs." This is not a problem common to only Texas. I am sure many of you can think of other examples maybe even more threatening than Mr. Laney's. It is obvious that in the eyes of our public and supposedly in the eyes of our clientele, extension is either unknown or not respected. Obviously this is not a position in which extension can expect to survive.

What Must Extension Do to Remain Viable?

The recently released Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) report "Extension Vision for the 21st Century" addresses such concerns and issues with statements such as, "If Extension is to thrive, it must understand and adjust to this rapidly changing world." Peter Magrath, president of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) is quoted as saying, "If the land grant universities and the Extension are to grow and thrive in the 21 st Century, they must regain credibility by providing the level of institutional access for which they were created." It is clear that extension leaders recognize that state extension services must change to the new "big picture" or fade away.

If extension is going to be a useful, viable agency in the 21 st century, it must wake up and redirect many of its traditional programs. Issues extension must address, and should have already addressed, include understanding the changing faces of America, globalization, and the changing urban/rural interface; engaging communities of interest and place; understanding the changing family structure; supporting individual and public health; addressing the challenge of information technology; and responding to public uncertainty. That is a mouthful and a monumental task, but all elements must be addressed.

Land Grant Universities

One of my biases has been land grant universities' emphasis on teaching and research at the expense of extension. Too many times I have seen colleagues accept joint appointments in teaching and extension with the same results: extension outreach programs suffered.

It seems to me that there is a definite need for extension economists to do more applied research and have joint appointments in extension and research for a couple of reasons. First, extension economists usually have stronger ties to agricultural commodity groups and agribusinesses. They are more deeply involved with these groups, better understand the problems and concerns of a particular ag industry, and understand more about how a particular industry functions. This puts extension economists in a more strategic position to obtain grants from these emerging and growing agribusinesses. Who better to do research on structure, conduct, and performance? Who better to do research and fine tuning on outlook and marketing strategies?

Second, extension economists can also use the contract and grant monies from agribusinesses to supplement their outreach programs, not only with agribusiness, but also with ag producers and the general public, which we commonly call consumers. Such a strategy would provide additional resources to extension economists. This strategy would require some ingenuity on the part of the economists in relating some of these applied studies on up the chain to consumers and, of course, politicians. However, extension economists seriously need to do this if we are to continue in agricultural roles. On another biased note, extension economists can be good applied researchers even without being able to read the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

As extension economists move more into applied research roles, there are a few danger zones that must be avoided. The applied research component should relate to the extension economist's job responsibilities; otherwise, there will be a major conflict with the outreach program. Also, the applied research programs should enhance and augment extension outreach programs and then make sure you do so.

Of course, there are many other roles and areas in which extension economists will be needed in the total effort of providing food and fiber to Americans and the world in reasonable supplies at reasonable costs. There will be a continuing need and demand for agricultural production, resource, policy, and community development economists. My main emphasis has been on marketing because that is what I do, but the charge does not change. All of our applied research must relate or be made important not only to the agricultural sector, but, most importantly, to the urban and suburban sectors of our society.

Extension economists have another hurdle to deal with, one in which we must achieve success. From "Extension Vision for the 21st Century," I quote: "Extension conducts many comprehensive and effective programs that are clearly in the `public good,' but for which there is no easy way to derive a direct return on investment." Who better to tackle this problem than extension economists?

Before closing, while I am quoting from the "Extension Vision for the 21st Century" paper, there is one other matter that must be dealt with by land grant universities if we are to have successful extension programs. I quote: "The lack of engagement between some universities and the citizens they serve can be traced, at least in part, to a strong and narrowly focused emphasis on research to the exclusion of undergraduate instruction, outreach, and service coupled with a correspondingly narrow definition of scholarship.

A narrowly applied definition of scholarship, which focuses almost entirely on research output, may cause university administrators and faculty to apply available resources to research at the expense of undergraduate teaching, outreach education, and engagement. Traditional scholarship rewards university faculty for pursuing laboratory and scholarly journal research, resulting in published scholarly articles and lectures that contain limited direct relevance to the public. Universities must affirm and support the premise that scholarship can be demonstrated through outreach education and engagement. Just as extension must alter its culture if it is to become engaged with all who could benefit, so, too, must the land grant university redefine scholarship and reward university faculty who pursue a broader scholarly agenda."

I fully agree that my final bias has been succinctly phrased by the ECOP. If extension is going to employ top-notch economists in the future, the land grant universities must rethink their program emphasis and restructure their academic rewards, promotion, and salary criteria.

References

Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP). "The Extension System: A Vision for the 21st Century." A Resource Document, Washington, D.C., 2002. Internet site: http:// www.nasulgc.org/publications/Agriculture/ Ext%20Sys%20Resource.pdf (Accessed June 2002).