and Allen (1985) is the neoclassical human
capital theory. This theory attributes black-
white employment differentials and/or pros-
pects to: (a) differences in productivity, (b)
subordination of blacks by limitation of their
socioeconomic opportunities, and (c) dis-
crimination (Davis and Allen, 1985, p.2).
The human capital concept began to receive
attention for analysis as concerns for poverty,
economic development, the distribution of
capital, and unemployment grew. Becker
(1975) and Schultz developed the human
capital concept from physical capital invest-
ment theories during the latter 1950’s and
early 1960’s. This concept has grown in im-
portance and has received considerable at-
tention as recent concern for human capital
development in the agricultural sciences has
increased (Schultz; Thurow, 1970).
On the other hand, there have been other
theories, including the segmented labor mar-
ket which asserts that earnings are deter-
mined largely by the market in which the
individual works (Davis and Allen, 1985).
The segmented labor market theory empha-
sizes the characteristics of jobs and job mar-
kets and not the skills (human capital) of
the individual workers (Hoffman). In terms
of black-white earnings and occupational dif-
ference, the relevant issue is whether the
parameters of the human capital model vary
significantly by race (Hoffman). Studies have
shown that blacks have real opportunity costs
of human capital accumulation that are dif-
ferent for whites. Data from the 1960’s sug-
gest that not only are black returns to
education lower than for whites, but they
decrease relative to the white rate with in-
creasing years of schooling. More recent stud-
ies indicate that returns to education for
blacks educated in the fifties and sixties in-
creased sharply at all educational levels, but
still remain low relative to whites (about 17
percent). A 1984, American Association of
University Professors salary survey reports that
salaries at 1862 institutions average $10,000
higher than salaries at the 1890 institutions,
where a majority of the black agricultural
economists are concentrated.
Other proponents of the human capital
model suggest that the acquisition and mon-
etary value of human capital may be affected
by discrimination (Davis and Allen, 1985).
Thurow (1969) asserts that lower human
capital investment of blacks is the result of
labor market discrimination. In the presence
of labor market discrimination, fewer blacks
66
are hired by whites than would have been
in the absence of discrimination. Blacks, who
in general are unable to find employment in
the relatively capital abundant white sector,
experience disparity in income since a cor-
respondingly lower wage will be paid to their
capital-constrained contribution to produc-
tion. The accumulated effects of discrimi-
nation are therefore manifested in the
observable phenomena of job reserving or
“crowding” of blacks into occupational cat-
egories with lower median income than those
ofwhites (Davis and Allen, 1985).
CHANGING NATURE OF
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND
TRADITIONS OF 1890 LAND-GRANT
INSTITUTIONS
History of the Land-Grant System
The Land-Grant System, as we know it to-
day, was created in 1862 by the Congress of
the United States when it passed the first
Morrill Act which provided for the establish-
ment of a land-grant institution in each state
to educate citizens in the fields of agriculture,
home economics, the mechanical arts, and
other useful professions. In the South, under
the premise of legal separation of races, the
Negro was not permitted to attend the insti-
tutions first established under the Morrill Act
of 1862 (Bicentennial Committee). High-
tower, in Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times asserts
that the land-grant colleges that developed
were “white bastions” which barred blacks
from admission both by custom and by law.
In 1890, the Congress passed the second
Morrill Act which provided funding and
opened the door for equivalent training for
blacks. Sixteen border states, some of which
had already established institutions, took ad-
vantage of this opportunity and created the
historically black, or “1890”, Land-Grant In-
stitutions. Even though these institutions have
been and still remain the main source of
blacks trained in agriculture in the United
States, they have been less than full partners
in the land-grant experience (Hightower).
Traditionally, blacks trained in agriculture
have not successfully penetrated the em-
ployment market, other than predominantly
black land-grant institutions. The demand in
these institutions has been limited and un-
sustained. After World War II, a number of
blacks obtained graduate degrees and formed
what could be called one-man-departments