Download Submitted Article What is the Future of Agricultural Economics

Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy (2010) volume 32, number 1, pp. 117–134.
doi:10.1093/aepp/ppp001
Submitted Article
What is the Future of Agricultural Economics
Departments and the Agricultural and Applied
Economics Association?
Gregory M. Perry*
Gregory M. Perry, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
Oregon State University
*Correspondence to be sent to: E-mail: [email protected].
Submitted 5 February 2008; revised 15 January 2009; accepted 16 January 2009.
Abstract The downward trends in Agricultural and Applied Economics
Association (AAEA) membership and faculty numbers nationwide have many
departments wondering about the future of agricultural economics. The author
examines trends in undergraduate and graduate enrollment, as well as trends in
extension and experiment-station funding, to suggest what the prospects are for
future survival and growth. Although there exist challenges like shrinking faculty
numbers, agricultural economics programs still have a strong undergraduate
element and address important research issues. Consequently, agricultural economics should remain viable for many years to come.
Key words: AE Cluster, experiment station, extension service, fields,
graduate, specializations, undergraduate.
JEL Codes: Q10, Q16, A20.
Introduction
For those who began their careers as agricultural economists1 in the
1970s or 1980s, it appears that the agricultural economics profession is in
decline. Most faculty hired during that time have watched their departments shrink through attrition and retirement, particularly in the last 15–
20 years. The decline can also be documented using the employment statistics of the Economic Research Service (Figure 1). Based on these data,
the number of economists working at the ERS is about a third of that
employed in the early 1980s.
Figure 2 illustrates AAEA membership trends over the last 30 years.
After reaching a peak in 1987, membership has declined an average of
3.6% per year. The profession hasn’t experienced an increase in
1
“AE Cluster” will be used to denote the array of departments at land grant universities that historically carried the agricultural economics name.
# The Author(s) 2010. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the Agricultural and
Applied Economics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email:
[email protected]
117
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
Figure 1 Economists Working Full-time at the Economic Research Service
Source: CSREES-CRIS database.
Figure 2 Total AAEA Membership, 1976 to present
Source: Unpublished membership information provided by Steve Buccola.
membership since 2000 and the average rate of decline since then has
exceeded 5% per year. Buccola (2006) cites the proliferation of specialty
organizations as one reason why AAEA membership has declined.
Nevertheless, downsizing of agricultural economics departments and ERS
employment has also played a major role in falling membership.
These trends are not unique to the AAEA. The Canadian Agricultural
Economics Association, the International Association of Agricultural
Economists and the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics
Society have all reported membership declines in the last decade
(Weersink 2006). Colman (2007) has also reported closure and consolidation of agricultural economics departments in England, Australia, and
several EU countries. Attendance at professional meetings has remained
constant in the face of declining enrollment, but this seems to be the result
of additional activities added to involve undergraduate students, lower
real transportation costs, and an attempt to market professional meetings
as a combination of work and recreation.
Another trend within the profession is a gradual proliferation in the
areas of focus within departments. This point becomes apparent when
examining the shift in fields of study for dissertations written during
1951 – 2002 (National Food and Agribusiness Management Education
118
What is the Future of Agricultural Economics
Figure 3 Number of Departments called “Agricultural Economics” and “Economics”
Source: Unpublished survey of graduate program directors compiled by author.
Commission). Another piece of evidence comes from major fields of
expertise designated by AAEA members over the last 40 years. In the 1966
AAEA directory, members selected from 12 fields of specialization. The
most common fields at that point were agricultural marketing (selected by
20% of the membership) and farm management (selected by 14% of membership). The 2007 directory listed 89 fields of specialization, of which the
most commonly selected were agricultural policy (13%), agribusiness
(11%), and applied econometrics (9%).
The reduced focus on agriculture and increased work in areas such as
agribusiness, rural development, and environmental economics is making
it more difficult to maintain one umbrella organization or to use the title
“agricultural economist.” Evidence for this shift can be found when examining the evolution of departmental names. Consider the 37 AE Cluster
programs at land-grant universities that offer the PhD in agricultural economics or a related field.2 As Figure 3 illustrates, the number of departments named “Agricultural Economics” has fallen from 36 in 1956 to 9 in
2007. This decline in the use of the term is not the result of mergers
between Economics and Agricultural Economics departments. In the past
50 years, there have been no more than four merged departments out of
the pool of 37 considered here. In fact, conversations with faculty in
departments still called “Agricultural Economics” suggest that most have
considered changing their departmental name but (a) couldn’t agree
among the faculty on an alternative name or (b) were not allowed to
change their name because of campus politics (usually because economics
departments were opposed to these proposals).
The decision to abandon or modify the name “Agricultural Economics”
has not meant a shift to a clear alternative. Indeed, these 37 departments
are represented by 14 different names. Despite the shift away from traditional agriculture, 28 departments still include the word “agricultural” in
their department name. The words “resource” or “environmental” appear
in the names of 14 departments, but “applied,” “food,” “consumer,” “agribusiness,” and “management” also are used. If one thing is clear, it is that
there is no consensus as to what AE Cluster departments are.
2
For the purposes of this paper, the name “AE Cluster” will be used to denote the array of departments
at Land Grant Universities that historically carried the agricultural economics name.
119
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
Figure 4 Number of BS Degrees Awarded by Field
Source: US Department of Education, The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
Given these trends, what does the future hold for both the AE Cluster
programs and the AAEA in general? The purpose of this study is to
examine recent trends in the AE Cluster programs as a way of determining what the likely future will be for the departments and the profession.
This information can then be used as departments and the association
grapple with their own futures.
The focus of this paper will be on two of the major forces that will
largely determine the future of the AE Cluster programs: (i) the changing
tastes and preferences for undergraduate and graduate programs; and
(ii) the availability of resources (hard and soft funds) to sustain research
and outreach activities.
Projections concerning Educational Programs
Undergraduate Education
The core function of a university is to educate students. Resources are
likely to continue flowing to a department if it is teaching a lot of students
and offering degrees that are in demand. If students leave satisfied with
their education and are able to secure good employment after graduation,
they are likely to encourage others to pursue a degree in the same
program.
The best source of data for examining long-term trends in educational
programs is the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, made
available by the United States Department of Education. Figure 4 shows
the total numbers of students awarded undergraduate degrees in agricultural economics, agribusiness management, and natural resource management and policy since 1990.
It is readily apparent from these data that there has been steady erosion
in the number of students receiving a degree in agricultural economics,
from 1541 in 1991 to 545 in 2006. The drop is even more pronounced than
suggested by these numbers. Several departments (including Purdue and
Florida) only officially offer a degree classified as agricultural economics,
when in fact the agribusiness options offered within these degrees are
essentially the same as agribusiness degrees offered elsewhere. The
number of departments awarding degrees in agricultural economics also
120
What is the Future of Agricultural Economics
declined from 46 in 1991 to 29 in 2006, with 25 of these 29 departments
located at land-grant universities.
Much of the loss in agricultural economics is simply a shift to degrees
in agribusiness.3 This shift has been ongoing since the 1970s, but it has
become very pronounced in the 2000s. Agribusiness degrees are now
offered at 80 colleges and universities across the country. In fact, over half
(43) of the schools awarding agribusiness degrees are outside the landgrant system. Over half of the states in the country offer agribusiness
degrees or options at more than one school within the state. In 2006,
agribusiness degrees represented over 60% of all degrees offered in the
traditional agricultural economics area.
Not included in these numbers are two special cases – Cornell
University and the University of California, Davis. Both programs began
with undergraduate degrees in traditional agricultural economics, then
evolved into agribusiness-type degrees. With the absence of undergraduate business programs, both departments eventually filled a niche as the
undergraduate business program at both universities. Around 2000 both
dropped the “agriculture” from their degree names and are now considered regular business programs, with large enrollments and caps on
growth.
The total number of degrees awarded in agricultural economics and
agribusiness (including Cornell and Davis) has remained roughly the
same from 1991 to 2006. The major growth for departments has been in
an area designated “resource and applied economics.” These degrees
first appeared in the Department of Education database in the early
1990s and have experienced modest growth since that time. In 2006
almost 300 students at land-grant universities received degrees in this
area. Taken together, total degrees awarded by the 87 undergraduate
programs included in this study have increased by 17% from 1991
to 2006.
So is this growth in degrees awarded simply a result of more students
switching to AE Cluster degrees, or are there larger forces at work? For
example, how much growth has occurred in universities in general and
colleges of agriculture and natural resources? Is this growth simply a spillover effect from growth in economics or business? Using the same 1991 –
2006 period, the number of degrees awarded in the United States has
increased by 37% (1,081,280 to 1,485,202). What is surprising is that colleges of agriculture and natural resources have actually outperformed the
growth in all degrees, increasing from 13,124 to 23,053 (76%). Prior to the
late 1980s, colleges of agriculture and natural resources had been in a
long-term decline in graduation numbers. Much of the subsequent growth
has been in the natural resource and environmental area, but there has
also been significant growth in some of the traditional agricultural
sciences such as animal science and food science. Growth in the natural
resource policy and management programs seems to be tied to this overall
growth within agricultural colleges.
Business degrees now account for almost one in every four bachelor’s
degrees granted in the United States. At the 87 institutions evaluated
above, growth has been well below average (15%). The proportion of total
3
The term “agribusiness” is used here to represent a number of degree names that combine traditional
agricultural economics with coursework commonly found in business programs.
121
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
degrees awarded in business grew steadily for several decades until reaching a peak in the late 1980s, before experiencing a significant decline for a
decade. In the last 10 years there has been a modest recovery. Most of the
land-grant universities with business programs limit enrollment, as do
many other business programs across the country. This could explain the
below average growth in business programs since 1991. In addition, a
number of the agribusiness programs do receive transfers from their
business schools, so at least some of the agribusiness growth could be
attributed to an influx of transfers.
The number of economics degrees followed the data for business
degrees, reaching a high point in the late 1980s. They then entered a
decade of decline, followed by a modest recovery. The net growth in economics degrees at the 87 schools considered here during 1991– 2006 has
been only 7%.
Another factor that seems to have had a major influence on the undergraduate program growth is gender. A summary of gender data is provided in Table 1. Since the early 1970s, there has been a major shift in
higher education from men to women. Whereas in 1970 – 71, about four in
10 degree recipients were women, by 2003 – 04 the mix was reversed, with
women receiving six of 10 bachelor’s degree. In the early 1970s, business,
agriculture, and economics were heavily male-dominated fields of study.
Agricultural economics was, in fact, the extreme case, with 99% of all
graduates being male. All of these areas have experienced a major shift
toward more female graduates. Business, in fact, now graduates more
women than men. Agricultural and natural resource programs have actually experienced a decline in male graduates from the early 1970s to the
present, but this has been more than offset by a 20-fold increase in female
graduates during the same period.
Growth in the percent of female students in economics has made
significant progress (from 12% to 33%), but has lagged behind the
growth experienced in business and agricultural economics. An important
point to note regarding business is the uneven growth experienced in that
major area. Much of the growth in female business graduates has occurred
in accounting (from 9% to 61%) and in marketing (from 8% to 55%),
whereas growth in the finance area has mirrored that occurring in economics (6% to 35%). Changes in the gender mix for AE Cluster programs
seem to reflect similar changes in colleges of agriculture and natural
resources.
Graduate Education
At the graduate level, the story for the AE Cluster programs was of a
decline throughout the 1990s, but of a rebounding in the 2000s
(Figure 5). Graduate degrees in agricultural economics peaked during
the early 1980s and have been in decline since that time. There were
consistently 150 to 200 students per year awarded the PhD in agricultural economics from the 1970s until around 2000. Graduation numbers
have experienced a modest decline in the 2000s. Masters of Agribusiness
programs began in the 1970s and have remained stable (and relatively
small) over the last 20 years. The MS degree was consistently conferred
on over 400 students per year until the mid-1990s. It then declined to a
low point of 258 in the 1997– 98 year and has since been on the increase.
122
Table 1 Number of Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded by Subject Area and Gender
1970–1971
Degree category
123
All
Agriculture &
nat. res.
Business
Agricultural
economicsa
Economics
2003–2004
Total
Male
Female
Percent
female
Total
Male
Female
Percent
female
839,730
12,672
475,594
12,136
364,136
536
43
4
1,348,503
22,835
573,079
11,889
775,424
10,946
58
43
115,396
2,271
104,936
2,240
10,460
31
9
1
307,149
4,333
152,513
2,807
154,636
1,526
50
35
15,758
13,890
1,868
12
24,069
16,061
8,008
33
What is the Future of Agricultural Economics
a
Includes ABM, agricultural economics, and natural resource management and policy.
Source: US Department of Education, The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
Figure 5 Number of Graduate Degrees in Agricultural Economics
Source: US Department of Education, The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
Figure 6 MS and PhD Degrees in Economics
Source: US Department of Education, The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
The number of MS graduates in 2004 – 05 (406) was the most since
1995 – 96.
The number of MS and PhD degrees in economics reached all time
highs in 2004– 05 (see Figure 6). In that year there were 3,042 MS and 973
PhD degrees granted in economics. This represents a ratio of 28 bachelor’s
degrees for every PhD and 10 bachelor’s degrees for every MS degree
awarded.
These ratios were very similar in agricultural economics (1:34 for PhD
degrees and 1:11 for MS degrees). The decline and rebound in numbers of
MS students graduating with degrees in agricultural economics seems to
be a function of the national economy, with higher numbers of students
entering graduate school when the economy is less robust. This pattern
also seems to be reflected in graduation numbers for economics, although
the robust growth in MS degrees seems hard to explain. Economics
departments tend to depreciate the value of the MS degree, yet it seems to
be in demand by students.
Another important marker of change is the fields being offered at the
graduate level for AE Cluster programs. Two of the 37 PhD programs considered in this study do not offer specific fields, but in essence allow the
student and faculty the freedom to design fields of study. The remaining
35 programs offer 156 fields, or about one field for every PhD graduate
124
What is the Future of Agricultural Economics
Table 2 Key Words Appearing in PhD Field Names for 35 PhD Programs in
Agricultural Economics
Key word
Percent of departments
Resource/environmental
Development
Marketing
International
Quantitative/econometrics
Production
Trade
Policy
Industrial organization
Agribusiness
Finance
Price
100
66
51
40
34
34
29
26
26
23
20
14
from the AE Cluster programs. There are 65 different names used to
describe these 156 fields. This compares with 223 fields with 69 different
names offered in 31 economics programs at these same universities (see
Appendix).4
Although there were 69 different field names in the economics programs, the list includes several variations of the same field name. For
example, 10 of these fields were advanced microeconomics or advanced
macroeconomics. By contrast, the fields in the AE Cluster were more difficult to categorize. The best way to summarize these offerings is to indicate
the number of fields with certain key words in their names (see Table 2).
What is striking is that resource and environmental economics is the
only field offered in all AE Cluster programs with defined fields. Also
interesting is that many of the most dominant fields (i.e., resource/
environmental, development, international, and quantitative/econometrics) have little to do with agribusiness management. There has been a
noticeable shift away from fields that traditionally focused on helping
farms become more profitable (i.e., production and finance). This shift
most likely reflects both the financial support being provided by the colleges and the demand by students (which is influenced by the job
market).
Although most of the fields are in traditional areas of agriculture,
natural resources, and development, many departments are looking to
expand into non-traditional areas. For example, current fields being
offered include labor economics, public health economics, consumer and
marketing economics, rural development and demography, computational
science and engineering, and experimental economics. Although these
fields are rare in AE Cluster programs, others are looking at adding some
of these fields as well. Other departments are considering the creation of
4
The 37 departments included in this analysis are Arizona, Auburn, UC-Berkeley, UC-Davis,
Clemson, Colorado State, Connecticut, Cornell, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa State,
Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan State, Mississippi
State, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina State, Ohio State, Oklahoma State,
Oregon State, Penn State, Purdue, Rhode Island, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Utah State, Virginia Tech,
Washington State, and Wisconsin.
125
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
cross-disciplinary fields (such as environmental economics and law).
There is also interest in creating other fields that have traditionally been
housed in economics programs, such as managerial economics, economics
of education, energy economics, health policy, mineral economics and
health and nutrition. Taken together, the names “agricultural economics”
or “agricultural and resource economics” don’t begin to describe the work
being done in AE Cluster programs.
This diversification and niche marketing of programs has some important consequences for AE Cluster programs nationally. Looking back 40
years, the AE Cluster departments had a particular niche for undergraduate and graduate education. This niche was sufficiently large to create a
viable student pool. Over time, however, this pool (and the money to
support them) has shrunk. As a result, AE Cluster programs have had to
modify or mold their programs to fit the opportunities available to them.
Although expanding into new areas has helped to maintain the viability
of the AE Cluster programs (and has even created some growth), it has
created a wider variety of undergraduate and graduate programs across
the United States. As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult for all
the AE Cluster programs to reflect common philosophies.
Experiment Station and Extension Funding
Aside from undergraduate teaching, the major activities (and sources of
hard funding) within agricultural economics departments are for extension and experiment station programs. These activities have long been a
source of funding for AE Cluster programs. Experiment station monies
(along with related grant dollars) have also been a major source of income
for supporting graduate student research. Consequently, the future of AE
Cluster programs is going to be influenced by trends in these two sources
of funding.
Unfortunately, data on extension funding being used to support extension programs in agricultural economics are not available at the national
level. The Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
(CSREES) has for many years collected estimates of total federal, state,
and county dollars used to support all extension activities. Figure 7 summarizes real expenditures (indexed to the 1982 – 84 CPI) for all extension
Figure 7 Real Expenditures for Extension Programs in All States
Source: Unpublished data collected by CSREES, 1980– 2006.
126
What is the Future of Agricultural Economics
programs since 1980. Real expenditures grew by 0.6% per year during the
1980 – 2005 period; however, this percentage obscures two distinct trends.
The first was a rapid 2% per year real growth in extension funding in
1980 – 88; the second was that there was no such growth in 1988– 2005.
Equally important is the shift in funding. During 1988– 2005, federal
funding for extension declined by 2.2% per year on average. State funding
was flat during this same time period. The losses in federal funding were
made up by increases in local funding (1.4%) and growth in non-tax revenues (5.1%). Taken together, the numbers suggest a decline in funding
for extension programs at the state level, with a shift to the county level.
This shift certainly suggests a change in extension program emphasis from
statewide programs and specialists toward programs with a local focus,
such as 4-H, Master Gardner, and so forth.
Better data are available from the Current Research Information System
(CRIS) database regarding experiment station support for economic
research. The results were surprising. During the same 1988 – 2005 period,
total experiment station expenditures increased by 1.6% per year in real
terms. Federal CSREES funding grew by 1.7% per year, more than enough
to offset a small (20.3%) decline in state funding. The big growth in
funding was in the other federal (6% per year) and the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) sources (4.5% per year). These other
sources would largely be tied to grant support. Coupled with the shift in
CSREES funding from formula to grant-based allocations, these results
suggest there has been real growth in experiment station funding.
However, most of this growth has been in grant-based funding, rather
than in fixed formula funds.
Although experiment station funding overall increased in 1988– 2005,
economists enjoyed a shrinking portion of the pie. Figure 8 illustrates
overall growth in experiment station funding for economic work. Overall
real budget growth has been below 0.7% per year during this period. This
lower number is the result of below average annual growth in CSREES
funding (1.1% peryear), in other federal funding (4.6 per year), in other
USDA funding (3.7% peryear), and in a larger drop in state funding (21%
peryear). So while the growth in funding is good news relative to extension funding, economics is benefitting less from this growth than other
experiment station work.
Figure 8 Real Expenditures for Experiment Station Economists in All States
Source: CRIS Data Base, 1980–2006.
127
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
Figure 9 Number of Scientist-years in Agricultural Economics at the State Level
Source: CRIS Data Base, 1980–2006.
Figure 10 Percent of Experiment Station Expenditures in Economics by Source of Funds
Source: CRIS Data Base, 1980–2006.
Despite the overall growth in funding, there has been a decline in the
number of scientist-years (or Full Time Equivalents) devoted to agricultural economics at the land-grant universities (Figure 9). From the peak
year of 1990 to 2005, the number of scientist-years in economics has
declined by 18% (from 644 to 525). The loss in faculty is probably the
result of salaries for agricultural economists growing at a faster rate than
funding. In addition, the shift from hard funding to more grant-based
support has most likely meant fewer tenure-track positions and more
money for graduate students and postdoctorals.
Conclusions
I have provided a comprehensive look at AE Cluster programs across
the country. The focus has been on two principal drivers that are expected
to impact on departments in the future. These are 1) shifts in demand for
undergraduate and graduate educational programs, and 2) recent trends
for research and extension funding.
Educational Programs
Undergraduate diplomas awarded by the AE Cluster programs have
been growing since 1991, although at a slower rate than growth in the
128
What is the Future of Agricultural Economics
overall number of degrees being awarded in all professions. Nevertheless,
the rate of growth exceeds that of economics programs during the same
period and is similar to growth in business degrees. Restrictions on
business school enrollments at several universities seem to have inadvertently helped a number of agricultural economics/agribusiness programs
maintain enrollment numbers. MS and PhD degrees dropped somewhat
in the 1990s and early 2000s, but this seems to be a function of the strong
economy during that time period. Recent trends are definitely up,
although total degrees awarded have still not recovered to the peak levels
experienced in the 1980s.
Although undergraduate numbers have trended in a positive direction
and graduate student numbers are stable, there is also greater heterogeneity between and within AE Cluster programs. Heterogeneity in programs
is a double-edged sword. On the positive side, it signals support for creative, forward-thinking approaches to educational programs. This is particularly true when deans, states, or the federal government provide
special grants for innovative new programs. In an era of overall shrinking
faculty numbers, however, there is a real risk that greater diversification of
programs will “thin the soup,” causing departments to get involved in
many things and not do any of them well. Greater diversity also means
faculty have limited knowledge of programs outside their areas of responsibility, because they simply don’t have the time to stay informed. This
limited knowledge can turn into a “balkanization” of faculty, with the
desire to protect one’s own program at the expense of others deemed less
important to the department.
Extension and Research Funding
Extension funding has remained flat in real terms over the last 15 years.
There has been a shift in funding from the federal and state level to the
county level, with grants and fees for service also growing rapidly. The
shift in funding means a shift from statewide specialists in economics
(and other disciplines) to county and regional specialists. Experiment
station funding in economics has grown in the last 18 years, although not
as fast as overall experiment station funding. The type of funding in
experiment station research has changed, however, with most of the
growth occurring in grants and other discretionary sources of funds.
Despite modest real growth in funding, research-funded faculty FTE
numbers have declined by about 20% over the last 15 years.
Considering the teaching, extension, and research missions of the AE
Cluster programs, it appears that departments have experienced a shift in
resources. Teaching has grown modestly, so one would not expect sharp
declines in funding for teaching faculty in the AE Cluster departments.
Research support is growing slowly, but tenure-track positions are declining. Extension support is shrinking, particularly at the departmental level,
so one can presume that there has been even more loss of tenure-track
positions on the extension side.
Taken together, these trends suggest extension is going to become less
important as a source of funding within the AE Cluster programs. Much
of the recent and future growth in extension economics is likely to occur
out in the state, rather than from hiring statewide extension specialists.
The number of faculty being supported by experiment station funding
129
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
will also decline, although funding for graduate students and postdoctorals may be increasing. Some undergraduate programs that have experienced actual growth may be able to use funds generated by these students
to underwrite partially costs for graduate faculty. Other graduate programs with healthy grant support will also survive and perhaps thrive.
Graduate programs that don’t have support from these two funding
sources will find it more difficult to survive.
Describing the Future
I have provided an extensive amount of information about what has
happened historically within the AE Cluster programs and where things
are at present. Sifting and pondering on the information here and discussing it with numerous other agricultural economists across the country
leads me to make some projections about what AE Cluster departments
will look like in 20 years.
1) There are some opportunities for growth in funding for AE Cluster
programs. Certainly the recent increases in food and energy prices and
the role of biofuels will motivate the need for economic analysis and
outreach, at least over the next few years. Economic analysis in multidisciplinary issues should remain strong, but economists will need to
be engaged at the beginning of projects to avoid them becoming “bean
counting” exercises.
2) There will be about the same number of AE Cluster departments as
there are at present. A few departments may merge with economics
programs, but there will also be some dissolutions of previous mergers.
3) A few more graduate programs will be merged than exist at present.
4) Viability issues will cause some AE Cluster programs to drop their
PhD programs.
5) There will be few departments left using the name “Agricultural
Economics” and perhaps half of the AE Cluster departments will drop
the word “agriculture” entirely from their name.
6) Faculty numbers are going to continue to shrink overall. The current
mini-boom in college graduates is going to taper off in the coming
decade, resulting in less tuition and state support for teaching.
Departments seem poised for continued losses on the extension side,
with some reductions as well in experiment station positions.
7) The difference in orientation between undergraduate and graduate programs, coupled with declining resources, is causing some friction and
balkanization within departments. These issues are worse in
some departments than others, but there are no indications that the
problems are going to disappear.
8) Leadership will be critical to the future success of the AE Cluster programs. Those who can read the future trends and correctly identify
their comparative advantages will survive and perhaps even grow.
Those unwilling or unable to do these things will flounder and shrink.
Critical to the leadership process is how the frictions between undergraduate and graduate faculty are managed within a department.
9) If the AAEA can broaden its appeal, it should remain viable as an
organization. It could be a particularly important player in closing the
gap between agribusiness and applied economics.
130
What is the Future of Agricultural Economics
Appendix
PhD Fields Offered at 37 Agricultural Economics Programs
Regional and Rural Development
Resource and Environmental Economics
International Economics
Forestry Economics
Agricultural Economics
Econometrics (also Applied Econometrics)
Marketing and Industrial Organization
Quantitative Methods
Regional Economic Development
Production (also Farm Management)
Agricultural Industrial Organization
Trade (also International Trade)
Development
Food Marketing and Industrial Organization
Demand and Price Analysis
Agricultural Production and Marketing
Regional and Development Economics
Applied Statistics
Agribusiness and Marketing
Production and Finance
International Development
Industrial Organization
Marketing
Market Analysis
Markets and Trade
Management
Finance (also Agricultural Finance)
Public Policy
Food Systems
Rural Development and Demography
Public and Regional/Urban Economics
Development and International
Economic Theory
Agribusiness
Community and Regional
Price Analysis and Markets
Production/Farm Management/Finance
Community Development
Computational Science and Engineering
Price and Policy Analysis
Firm Theory and Management
Growth and Development
Econometrics and Quantitative Analysis
Marketing and Food Distribution
Family and Consumer Economics
Farm and Agribusiness Management
International and Policy Economics
Regional Economics and Public Policy
Spatial Economics
Experimental Economics
Continued
131
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
Appendix Continued
Consumer and Marketing Economics
Financial and Risk Management
Agribusiness Management and Finance
Industrial Organization and Economics of Organization
Consumer Behavior and Household Economics
Health Economics
Labor Economics
Policy Analysis
Production and Marketing
Agribusiness Strategy and Management
Finance and Production
Agribusiness and Managerial Economics
Marketing and Information
Economics of Growth and Development
Econometrics and Statistics
PhD Fields Offered at 31 Economics Programs
Advanced Economic Theory
Advanced Microeconomics
Applied and Theoretical Macroeconomics
Applied and Theoretical Microeconomics
Applied International
Applied Macroeconomics
Applied Microeconomics
Comparative and Regional Development
Comparative Economic Systems
Development
Econometrics (also Applied)
Economic Demography
Economic Education
Economic History
Economic Modeling
Economic Theory
Economics of Growth
Economics of Institutions
Economics, Justice, and Society
Environmental and Health
Experimental Economics
Feminist Economics
Financial Economics
Game Theory
Growth and Development
Growth and Distribution
History of Economic Thought
Human Resources
Industrial
Institutional Economics
International
International and Development
International Finance/Open Economy
Continued
132
What is the Future of Agricultural Economics
Appendix Continued
International Macroeconomics
International Trade
International Trade and Finance
IO
IO and Economics of Organization
IO and Regulation
Labor Economics
Law and Economics
Macroeconomics and Econometrics
Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
Macroeconomics
Markets and IO
Marxian Economics
Mathematical Economics
Microeconomics
Monetary and Financial
Monetary and Macroeconomics
Monetary Economics
Monetary Public Finance
Monetary Theory
Money and Banking
Political Economy
Psychology and Economics
Public Choice
Public Economics
Public Finance
Public Finance and Urban
Public Policy
Public Sector Economics
Regional Economics
Regional/Urban Economics
Resource and Environmental
Structure and Regulation of Industry
Theoretical Institutional
Theory
Transportation
Acknowledgement
The author thanks Steve Buccola for numerous stimulating conversations on this
subject, as well as the comments of the editor and the anonymous reviewers.
References
Buccola, S. 2006. “The Organization of Economics.” American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 88(December):1123 –34.
Colman, D. 2007. “The Rise and Decline(?) of Agricultural Economics.” Paper presented at EAAE Seminar, Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary,
September 6.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. On-line data base located at
http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/,
133
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
National Food and Agribusiness Management Education Commission. “A Summary
of Doctoral Research in Agribusiness Management, Food Business, and Industrial
Organization, 1951–2002.” Working paper #2 (no date). (https://www.agecon.
purdue.edu/cab/NFAMEC/NFAMEC%20WP2%20Doctoral%20Programs.pdf).
Weersink, A. 2006. “Agricultural Economics in Canada: Ready to Step Up or Fall
Back?” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 54(February):1–9.
134