December 1978
Western Journal of Agricultural Economics
But the political reality of the coalition that
produced the current legislation is a very dif-
ferent matter from the reality of bureaucratic
politics, which has a major impact on the day
to day making and implementation of policy.9
The challenge here, and it is a severe chal-
lenge, is to keep the attempt to serve such a
broad range of interest groups from paralyz-
ing the decision-making process.
There are no easy answers to this problem.
But the issue is important, especially in light
of current efforts to reorganize the Washing-
ton bureaucracy. At one level the question
concerns whether a Secretary of Agriculture
can provide the political trade-off between
consumer, producer, and other interests.
Would each set of interests be better served
if they had an individual spokesman, with the
President alone making the difficult political
trade-offs? Our neighbor to the north,
Canada, has something like such an arrange-
ment, with consumer interests in particular
having their own Cabinet member. But then
Canada also has about 32 members in its
Cabinet.
Interesting enough, the broad perspective
that the U.S. Department of Agriculture now
takes in its policy responsibilities is unique in
our present governmental structure. Our pol-
icy interests include consumer affairs, rural
development, resources and environment,
research, teaching, and extension, the com-
modity programs, and various aspects of
international policy. However, the Depart-
ment does not have responsibility for some
aspects of land and water policy, which come
under the purview of the Department of the
Interior.
The broad responsibility for rural America
that has emerged in the Department of Ag-
riculture, and its current coverage of the
entire food chain, is unique in the Federal
government. No other Department attempts
to integrate such a broad range of policy
interests. Ironically, some of the current
proposals for reorganization would do away
with this rather unique integrated approach
9For a fascinating account of such politics, see Heclo.
242
both to the rural sector and to food and ag-
riculture.
An important challenge of the agricultural
establishment in the decade ahead will be to
maintain that broad perspective on the ag-
ricultural sector, and to capitalize on the po-
tential it offers for developing a cohesive,
mutually reinforcing policy towards rural
America. Our legacy of the past is an inher-
ent producer bias in the career service of
the Department. An important challenge of
the future is to broaden that perspective to a
degree consistent with our organizational and
Congressionally mandated interests, and to
develop the leadership than can sustain that
perspective, politically and economically.
A Concluding Comment
In conclusion I would like to make one
final point. Economists have for too long ne-
glected the G in our macroeconomic models.
We fail to understand why policy is what it is,
and we leave the study of the policy-making
process to the students of political science.
Implicit in my discussion of policy chal-
lenges is a search for a better understanding
of the bases of economic policy. To neglect
why policy takes its particular form is to fail to
understand an important part of the eco-
nomic world in which we live. Similarly, to
neglect the policy process per se is to abdi-
cate our responsibilities in obtaining more ra-
tional policy. Our tasks as economists will not
be finished until we close these two impor-
tant gaps in our knowledge.
References
Babb, Emerson, and James E. Pratt. Projections of Milk
Marketing Order Performance Under Alternative Pric-
ing and Policy Provisions, Station Bulletin 171, In-
diana Experiment Station, October 1977.
Bergsman, Joel. Brazil-Industrialization and Trade
Policies (London: Oxford University Press, 1970).
Fallert, Richard F., and Boyd M. Buxton. Alternative
Pricing Policiesfor Class I Milk Under Federal Market-
ing Orders - Their Economic Impact, Agricultural
Economic Report No. 401, ESCS-USDA, Washing-
ton, D.C., 1978.