several cases provided such funding. USAID has also
made such major investments. Clearly, if the inter-
national development function is to be institution-
alized within the Land Grant system, the system must
have funding to offer career appointments in the
field.
2. Should all Land Grant universities attempt to
develop comprehensive international development
competency?
In the past, practically all Land Grant universities
have been engaged in one or more international de-
velopment activities. Would the interest of the univer-
sities and the developing countries best be served if a
limited number of universities develop really quality
international programs? An alternative would be for
different universities to specialize in different phases,
on a geographic or functional basis, of international
development. Either alternative might permit a more
professional development of competence in inter-
national faculties involved in international activities
both on and off campus. It should be abundantly
clear, after two decades, that if one is to develop
expertise in international development he must be
exposed to international environments, but that this
exposure must be supported by research and teaching
Onthehomecampus.
3. Will there be continuing demand for agricul-
tural technical assistance in what is now the develop-
ingworld?
Despite two decades of rather intensive develop-
mental activity, the gap between the have and have
not nations has widened. At the same time, it is
becoming clear that the objectives of agricultural
development must shift from the simplistic one of
increasing food production to the more difficult one
of contributing to general economic development and
social justice. As objectives become more complex,
national programs must also become more complex.
Is it obvious that developing countries will continue
to seek or accept university agricultural personnel to
attack the emerging later generation problems?
REFERENCES
1. Assisting Development in Low-Income Countries: Priorities for U.S. Government Policy, CED, September
1969.
2. Atkinson, L. Jay, Changes in Agricultural Production and Technology in Colombia, Foreign Agriculture
Economic Report No. 52, USDA, June 1969.
3. Bayby, Ned D., Agricultural Research: Arrows in the Air, USDA, Sept. 10, 1969.
4. Berry, Albert, UnpubUshed paper, Dec. 1969.
5. Building Institutions to Serve Agriculture, Summary Report of the CIC-AID Study, 1968.
6. Colombian Communique, Vol. XIX, International Programs, University of Nebraska, Dec. 1969.
7. Dorner, Peter, The Influence of Land Tenure Institutions on the Economic Development of Agriculture in
Less Developed Countries, LTC1 No. 55, Land Tenure Center, Oct. 1968.
8. Felstehauser, Herman, Fitting Agricultural Extension to Development Needs: The Colombian Problem, LTC,
No.39, Aug. 1967.
9. Flores, Edmundo, The Big Threat is Not Hunger, CERES, Vol. 2, No. 3, May-June 1969.
10. Friedmann, John, Intention and ReaUty: The American Planner Overseas, J. of the Amer. Institute of
Planners, Vol. XXXV, No. 3, May 1969.
11. Grunig, James E., Economic Decision Making and Entrepreneurship Among Colombian Latifundista,
68LTC-13, The Land Tenure Center, Aug. 1968.
75