major portion of this effort (Ghebremedhin
and Johnson). The thrust of this effort sig-
nifies the mission of these institutions and
has implications about human capital needs.
As funding levels for research and extension
in these institutions have increased, the need
for adjustments at these universities has in-
creased. These institutions, despite their
mandated missions, have been regarded pri-
marily as “teaching” institutions. Therefore,
administrators and others have been attuned
to this way of thinking. However, added fund-
ing for research and extension, and more
recently, funds for improved research facil-
ities, create a new challenge. The human
capital needs for these new activities are
different from those for primarily teaching
efforts and the administration of these re-
sources must be such that they are utilized
as intended. This means that faculty tenure
and promotion policies will have to be ad-
justed. The atmosphere for creative thinking
(research) will have to be enhanced. Incen-
tives for permanence and excellence will
have to be created, and faculty appointments,
promotions, etc. will have to be adjusted
accordingly.
CONCLUSIONS
Human capital needs in the historically
black Land-Grant (1890) Institutions are dif-
ferent from those for 1862 Institutions for a
number of reasons. First, 1890 Institutions
have had a history of serving the needs of a
predominantly black population who by her-
itage and/or by circumstance have been eco-
nomically disadvantaged. Second, teaching
and not research has been and still is, for the
most part, the primary focus in these insti-
tutions. Third, the recent research efforts that
have resulted from increased funding are
aimed primarily at the small, limited resource
farm sector. And fourth, historically black
Land-Grant Institutions are required to con-
duct more broad-based activities than their
counterparts in the 1862 Institutions. Con-
sequently, the human capital needs (train-
ing) in the 1890 Institutions are more broad-
based than training traditionally provided at
most 1862 Institutions.
REFERENCES
Becker, G. S. Human Capital, 2nd ed., New York: Columbia University Press, 1975.
Bicentennial Committee of the Association of Research Coordinators. Development of
Research at Historically Black Land-Grant Institutions, 1976.
Block1John R. “Remarks” at the Secretary’s Challenge Forum on “Investing in Brain Power-
Keeping, U.S. Agriculture’s Competitive Edge.” USDA∕Board on Agriculture, National
Research Council, National Academies of Sciences and Engineering; January, 1984.
Boddy, Francis M. “The Demand for Economists.” Amer. Econ. Rev., 52(1962):503-8.
Boddy, Francis M. “The Market for Economists.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 55(1973):720-4.
Broder, J. M. and R. F. Ziemer. “Determinants of Agricultural Economics Faculty Salaries.”
Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 64(1982):301-3-
Carter, Allan M. “Whither the Market for Academic Economists?” Amer. Econ. Rev.,
61(1971):305-15.
Chandler, Cleveland A. “An Affirmative Action Plan for the Economics Profession.” Amer.
Econ. Rev., 60(1970):416-23.
Clague1 Ewan and Morton Levine. “The Supply of Economists.” Amer. Econ. Rev.,
52(1962):497-502.
Coulter, Kyle J. and Marge Stanton. Graduates of Higher Education in the Food and
Agricultural Sciences: An Analysis of Supply/Demand Relationships, Vol. I, USDA,
Mise. Pub. 1885; July, 1980.
Coulter, Kyle J. and Marge Stanton. Graduates of Higher Education in the Food and
Agricultural Sciences, Vol. Ill, USDA, Mise. Pub. 1433; January, 1983∙
Davis, Carlton G. “Traditional Graduate Admission Standards as Constraints to Increasing
the Supply of Black Professional Agriculturalists: The Florida Experience.” Amer. J.
Agr. Econ., 55(1973):952-66.
Davis, Carlton G. and Joyce E. Allen. “Black Agricultural Economists in the Labor Market:
Theoretical and Empirical Issues.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 65(1983):993-8.
Davis, Carlton G. and Joyce E. Allen. Chapter II, “Theoretical Issues” in Opportunities and
Status of Blacks in the Agricultural Economics Profession - a Final Report (forthcoming),
68