Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:00:00.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agricultural policy debates: Examining the alternative and conventional perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Curtis E. Beus  and
Riley E. Dunlap
Curtis E. Beus
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Rural Sociology and Extension Economic Development Specialist, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2124;
Riley E. Dunlap
Affiliation:
Professor of Sociology and Rural Sociology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4006.
Get access

Abstract

Control of agricultural policymaking by the “agricultural establishment” has been challenged by a wide range of interests concerned with the externalities of modern industrialized agriculture. An “externalities/alternatives” or “ex/al” coalition appears to be an emerging force in agricultural policy debates. We surveyed three alternative agriculture groups, three conventional agriculture groups, and a statewide sample of farmers to learn whether each category forms a distinct, unified interest group whose perspectives on agricultural policy diverge substantially from the others'. There is considerable similarity among the alternative agriculture groups and among the conventional agriculture groups, the differences between them being much greater than the differences within each category. The statewide farmer sample is generally intermediate between the two sets of interest groups, but is closer to the conventional perspective on most issues.

Keywords

alternative agricultureconventional agricultureagricultural chemicalsagricultural researchinterest groupslobbiessocial movements
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 1993 , pp. 98 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Beus, C.E., and Dunlap, R. E.. 1990. Conventional vs. alternative agriculture agriculture: The paradigmatic roots of the debate. Rural Sociology 55(4):590–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Beus, C.E., and Dunlap, R. E.. 1991. Assessing alternative vs. conventional agricultural paradigms: A proposed scale. Rural Sociology 56(3):432–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Browne, W.P. 1988. Private Interests, Public Policy, and American Agriculture. Univ. Press of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
4.Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
5.Hadwiger, D.F. 1982. The Politics of Agricultural Research. Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
6.Knutson, R.D., Richardson, J. W., and Smith, E. G.. 1986. Impact of farm policies on agriculture, farm structure, and rural communities. Southern Rural Sociology 4:31–42.Google Scholar
7.Paarlberg, D. 1980. Farm and Food Policy: Issues of the 1980s. Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
8.Salisbury, R.H., Heinz, J. P., Laumann, E. O., and Nelson, R. L.. 1987. Who works with whom? Interest group alliances and opposition. Amer. Political Sci. Review 81(4): 1217–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Strange, M. 1989. Family Farming: A New Economic Vision. Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
10.Youngberg, G., and Buttel, F. H.. 1984. Agricultural policy and alternative farming systems: Politics and prospects. In Batie, S.S. and Marshall, J.P. (eds). Restructuring Policy for Agriculture: Some Alternatives. Papers from a symposium. Information Series 84–2. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg. pp. 45–66.Google Scholar