Social and political influences on agricultural systems

Abstract

Agricultural systems are situated within social and political environments that have tremendous influence on how they operate. If agricultural systems are to be sustainable, it is critical to understand how they are influenced by social and political factors. An expert panel approach was used to identify and rank the importance of social and political factors on agricultural systems in the US and to provide some insights into their impacts, interactions and mechanisms of influence. The panel identified a wide range of social and political factors that affect agricultural systems. The factors were divided into three categories: internal social factors, external social factors and political factors. Factors from each of the three categories were highly ranked, indicating that no single category dominated the others. Although there were contrasting views about the importance of some factors, there was strong consensus about many of them. Globalization and low margins that require increased scale and efficiency were identified as the two most important factors affecting agricultural systems. Several newly emerging factors were identified as well as factors needing further research. A comprehensive understanding of these factors is imperative to help guide scientific research so that beneficial discoveries are accepted and used, and to ensure that policy decisions enhance the future sustainability of agricultural production.

Full text

Social and political influences
on agricultural systems
David W. Archer
1,
*, Julie Dawson
2
, Urs P. Kreuter
3
, Mary Hendrickson
4
, and John M. Halloran
5
1
USDA-ARS, 803 Iowa Avenue, Morris, MN 56267, USA.
2
Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA.
3
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.
4
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.
5
USDA-ARS, Orono, ME, USA.
*Corresponding author: archer@morris.ars.usda.gov
Accepted 1 September 2006; First published online 30 June 2008 Research Paper
Abstract
Agricultural systems are situated within social and political environments that have tremendous influence on how they
operate. If agricultural systems are to be sustainable, it is critical to understand how they are influenced by social and
political factors. An expert panel approach was used to identify and rank the importance of social and political factors on
agricultural systems in the US and to provide some insights into their impacts, interactions and mechanisms of influence.
The panel identified a wide range of social and political factors that affect agricultural systems. The factors were divided
into three categories: internal social factors, external social factors and political factors. Factors from each of the three
categories were highly ranked, indicating that no single category dominated the others. Although there were contrasting
views about the importance of some factors, there was strong consensus about many of them. Globalization and low margins
that require increased scale and efficiency were identified as the two most important factors affecting agricultural systems.
Several newly emerging factors were identified as well as factors needing further research. A comprehensive understanding
of these factors is imperative to help guide scientific research so that beneficial discoveries are accepted and used, and to
ensure that policy decisions enhance the future sustainability of agricultural production.
Key words: social, political, agriculture, sustainability
Introduction
Agricultural systems do not operate in a vacuum. Rather,
they are situated within social and political environments
that influence the way in which they operate. Therefore, if
agricultural systems are to be sustainable, it is critical to
understand how they are influenced by the prevailing social
and political environments. For researchers and extension
educators involved with the physical and biological aspects
of agricultural systems, understanding potential social
and political influences may mean the difference between
beneficial discoveries that are accepted and used and
discoveries that, although potentially beneficial, are socially
or politically unacceptable and are therefore not applied.
For social scientists and policymakers, understanding social
and political influences on agricultural systems may mean
the difference between policies and social structures that
improve social, economic and environmental sustainability,
and those leading to disastrous consequences for agriculture
and the environment. In identifying barriers to adoption
of sustainable practices, the social, political and cultural
context of agriculture has often been ignored
1
. Indeed, with
regard to sustainability, the environmental and economic
indicators are well established, but ‘what is lacking is an
awareness of the social issues’
2
.
Most people involved with agriculture can identify social
and political factors that have impacts on agricultural
systems; however, there is a danger that some of the cause–
consequence relationships are ‘myths’ or simplifications
that miss the true underlying cause
3
. There is a need to
increase awareness and develop consensus about the factors
that have the greatest influence and for which the greatest
research needs exist to improve sustainability of agricultur-
al systems. The objective of this study was to identify and
begin developing consensus on the most important social
and political factors influencing agricultural systems in
the US. The objective went beyond simply listing the
most important factors by providing some insight into
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems: 23(4); 272–284 doi:10.1017/S174217050700169X
#2008 Cambridge University Press

their impacts, interactions and mechanisms by which they
influence agricultural system. This was part of a coordi-
nated effort to identify (1) social/political, (2) economic,
(3) environmental and (4) technological factors influencing
agricultural systems as a first step towards developing a set
of guiding principles for integrated agricultural systems. A
similar framework was used as part of the Millennium
Ecosystems Assessment, with the idea that ‘understanding
the factors that cause changes in ecosystems and ecosystem
services is essential to designing interventions that capture
positive impacts and minimize negative ones’
4
. With this
study, we help advance the effort to better understand
the factors that cause changes in agricultural systems
by identifying and analyzing those factors that have the
greatest impacts on agricultural systems. In the following
section we provide a brief overview of the historical trends
in US agriculture to provide the social and political setting
for our analysis.
Historical Trends
As society changes with time, influences on agricultural
systems also change. Therefore, any assessment of the
social and political drivers affecting agricultural systems
is time-specific, and should be seen in light of changes
that have occurred. Many of these changes can be tied to
demographic trends. In the US, farm population has
dropped in absolute terms and as a percentage of the total
population. From 1900 to 1990, the proportion of popula-
tion living on a farm dropped from nearly 40 to <2%
5
.Asa
result, most of US society has little personal connection
with agriculture. Population in rural areas has also shown a
long-term decline
6
, and although there is some evidence
that rural population losses have stabilized
7
, there are
regional differences in this trend. From an economic
standpoint, the number of farming-dependent counties has
dramatically decreased in the past 50 years
8
. Even in places
where rural populations have increased, the composition of
these populations has changed. These areas have increas-
ingly become homes for metro-area commuters and
retirees, and those seeking recreational opportunities
and natural amenities
7,9
. As a result, much of the rural
population has little connection to production agriculture,
and may have lifestyle expectations that conflict with
agricultural production practices and the traditional rural
way of life
7,10
.
There have also been important demographic changes at
the farm level. The average age of farm operators has
steadily increased, from 50.3 in 1978 to 55.3 in 2002. In
2002, 26.2% of farm operators were over the normal
retirement age of 65
11
. As the farm population continues to
age, issues related to healthcare, retirement costs and
transfer of the farm to future generations will become
important influences on management decisions.
Over the past century, the structure of agriculture has
changed dramatically. In 1900, half of US agricultural sales
were accounted for by the largest 17% of farms, compared
to the largest 2% of farms in 1997
12
. In addition, farms
have become more specialized. In 1900, the average farm
produced five different commodities, while by 2002, the
number of commodities produced per farm was just over
one
8
. Drastic changes have also occurred beyond the farm
level. There has been a general trend of consolidation
within the agricultural input, processing and retail markets.
In 1998, the top four firms marketed 67% of corn seed, 46%
of soybean seed and over 97% of cotton seed in the United
States
13
. In specific processing industries, the top four firms
marketed 90% of malt beverages in 1992 and 83% of beef
packing in 2004
14
. By 2004, the top five food retailers
accounted for 46% of retail food sales in the US
14
.
Since the 1960s, agriculture has become more globalized
and US agricultural exports have increased rapidly
8
.
Interestingly, US is both the leading exporter and leading
importer of agricultural products, and in recent years
imports have increased at nearly twice the rate of exports
15
.
This shift has tended to further separate the public from
production agriculture.
World population continues to grow with increasing
demands for food production and increasing pressure on
natural resources. Cultivated systems now cover about 25%
of the Earth’s terrestrial surface
16
. Water withdrawals from
lakes and rivers and flows of biologically available nitrogen
in terrestrial ecosystems have doubled since 1960
16
. Yet,
in 2004, 1.1 billion people were estimated to be hungry
worldwide
17
. Within the next 50 years, demand for food
crops is expected to grow by 70–85% and demand for water
by 30–85%
16
.
Ironically, in the face of chronic malnutrition and
the challenge of feeding a growing population, the world
faces an obesity epidemic. In 2000, over 1.1 billion people
worldwide were estimated to be overweight with 300
million people classified as obese
18
. In US, the population
is becoming heavier (35% of adults overweight and 30%
obese
19
), especially among minorities and the poor
20
.
Public concern about this trend could have a tremendous
influence on food consumption and agricultural production.
Other demographic trends may also influence food
consumption. The US population is aging, becoming more
affluent and more ethnically diverse. These changes are
anticipated to lead to increased demand for higher food
quality, convenience and variety
21
. Although the US
median household income has generally increased since
1967
22
, inequalities in incomes have also increased since
that time
23
. Diverging income levels between individuals
within the US and between the US and other countries lead
to differing social expectations for agricultural systems. A
common perception is that affluent individuals have greater
expectations for convenience and variety of foods, for
scenic landscapes, for a clean and healthy environment, and
for recreational opportunities to be provided by agricultural
systems
24,25
. While limited-resource individuals may have
these same desires, economic forces often mean they
struggle to obtain enough calories, let alone nutritious foods
and a safe environment.
Social and political influences on agricultural systems 273

These trends provide the relevant background for
identifying the social and political factors influencing
agricultural systems at this point in time. As will be shown,
many of these trends have a direct connection to the factors
that will be identified. Given this background, we now
provide a conceptual framework for the analysis.
Conceptual Framework
Although the term ‘agricultural systems’ can pertain to a
range of spatial scales, the farm level is the focus of this
analysis as this is where production decisions are made.
Farms are where social, economical and ecological factors
interact most profoundly
26
. Also, because any assessment
of the social and political factors influencing agriculture is
time-specific, this assessment will be contemporary. Con-
ceptually, it may be useful to group social and political
influences on agriculture into three categories: external
social factors (those originating outside of the farm),
internal social factors (those originating within the farm)
and political factors. This division allows for analysis of a
wide range of factors, while keeping comparisons among
factors tractable. The division between social and political
factors occurs naturally along discipline lines. The division
between internal and external social factors is consistent
with Van Calker et al.
27
in identifying sustainability
attributes in dairy farming and with Geist and Lambin
28
in analyzing the drivers of tropical deforestation. This
division serves to distinguish between factors that are
associated with individual farmer and farm household
behavior; and general public attitudes, values and beliefs.
These three categories of factors interact with agricultural
systems in different ways (Figure 1). External social factors
generally do not directly affect agricultural systems, but
influence agricultural systems through internal social
factors via social norms, through markets for agricultural
products and through the political process. Internal social
factors have a direct influence on agricultural systems as
they are a part of the farmer’s decision-making environ-
ment. Internal social factors may also indirectly influence
agricultural systems as farmers participate in the political
process. Political factors interact with agricultural systems
both directly and indirectly. Direct political influences are
experienced by farmers through associated regulations
and definitions of property rights that constrain manage-
ment options. Indirect political influences generally come
through the markets via such mechanisms as subsidies for
agricultural production or conservation measures, and
through government investments in public infrastructure.
Although this framework describes useful linkages, it
should be used with some caution. The danger in iden-
tifying a set of factors that influence agricultural systems is
that they may be seen as factors that are not a part of the
system and over which we have no control. It is important
to note that these factors are not independent of the systems
they influence. Analytical methods for this conceptual
framework are described in the following section.
Methods
An expert panel approach, following the procedure outlined
by Van Calker et al.
27
, was used to identify and rank the
importance of various social and political influences on
agricultural systems. Van Calker et al.
29
developed this
procedure as part of an effort to construct a multi-attribute
utility function to evaluate the sustainability of Dutch dairy
farming systems. This procedure was developed based
on weight elicitation methods used in decision analysis
30,31
.
In the Van Calker et al.
27
analysis, the expert panel
approach was used initially as a tool for identifying and
defining the relevant issues, and was designed to be
universally applicable for other agricultural sectors, for
other countries, and for other time periods. Our process
included five steps: (1) panel selection, (2) questionnaire
development by research project team, (3) expert panel
completion of initial questionnaire, (4) compilation by
research project team of factor list from expert panel, and
(5) expert panel ranking of factors. The steps of the
procedure were conducted sequentially as follows.
Panelists were selected in a two-stage process, first by
compiling a list of recognized experts, then selecting a
diverse subset of the qualified experts. For this analysis, the
research project team decided to focus on academic experts
within the agricultural social science field. It was recog-
nized that other stakeholders such as farmers, industry
representatives, consumers and members of environmental
organizations would also be capable of assessing these
factors. However, similar to Van Calker et al.
27
, the
decision was made, based on the judgment of the research
team, that academicians would have the expertise needed to
identify the most important social and political factors
influencing agricultural systems. Since this group is well
known for participatory research where they constantly
interact with other stakeholder groups, it was expected that
the views of these other stakeholder groups would be
represented. The initial list of 30 recognized academic
experts was compiled from the recommendations of the
research project team, based on discussion of their stature
and competence related to the social and political aspects of
Agricultural
Systems
External
Social
Internal
Social
Political
Market
Figure 1. Social and political influences on agricultural systems.
274 D.W. Archer et al.

agricultural systems. A diverse subset of the recognized
experts was then selectively extracted to represent a broad
range of areas of expertise, scientific institutions and
geographic experience. Again, this followed closely the
Van Calker et al.
27
process in which competence was the
main selection criterion for the experts, and panelists were
selected from a range of scientific institutions. A panel size
of nine was selected to provide a sufficient range of
expertise, while keeping data collection and analysis
manageable, and allowing a greater breadth of information
to be collected from each panelist versus collecting a more
superficial level of information from a larger group of
panelists. A key objective of this project was to go beyond
compiling a list of important factors and to gather insights
into the mechanisms by which these factors might influence
agricultural systems. The research team recognized that the
small panel size might have reduced the validity of the
ranking results; however, it was deemed that the more
detailed insights gathered in this manner would be more
valuable to social scientists, policymakers and others. This
panel size was comparable to the 7–10 panelists used by
Van Calker et al.
27
. The panel was selected to include three
rural sociologists, three agricultural economists, and three
other agricultural and food systems experts.
Using the three conceptual categories of external social
factors, internal social factors and political factors, an
initial list of factors for each category was developed by the
research project team to provide the expert panel with a
starting point. The initial list of factors was included in the
questionnaire sent to the panelists. The panelists could then
add or remove items from the list of factors under each
category. In addition to simply identifying factors, the
panelists were asked to provide reasoning on why specific
factors were added to or removed from the list. They were
also asked to identify newly emerging factors and factors
for which there were critical research needs. After sending
the questionnaires to the panelists, they were contacted by
telephone to answer any questions they might have about
the survey. They were also given the opportunity to decline
participation at this point. If the panelist declined to
participate, an alternate panelist was contacted. After the
questionnaires were returned, the panelists were contacted
by telephone a second time to discuss their responses in
more detail.
Responses from each of the panelists were compiled into
a single list of factors under each subdivision: external
social, internal social and political. The consolidated list of
factors was then sent back to the panelists for ranking.
Again following Van Calker et al.
27
, two ranking
procedures were used to allow testing for internal
consistency. In the first ranking procedure, ordinal ranking,
the panelists were asked to select the five most important
factors in each category, and then to rank them from highest
to lowest in terms of importance, with 5 being the most
important factor and 1 being the least important factor of
the top five. Factors that were not included among the top
five were assigned a numerical value of zero. In the second
ranking procedure, interval ranking, panelists were asked to
rate all of the factors using a Likert-type scale of 1 to 5,
with 1 being not an important factor at all and 5 being an
extremely important factor. To facilitate comparisons
between ranking procedures, relative importance weights
W
ij
, for each factor i, were calculated within each category
and ranking method for each respondent:
Wij =Xij

Xj
:
Within each category and ranking method, X
ij
is the
numerical ranking value of factor ifor respondent j, and 
Xj
is the average ranking value of all factors for respondent j.
Relative importance weights less than (greater than) one
indicate factors with a ranking lower (higher) than the
average ranking given by that respondent within that
category. The Spearman rank correlation test was used with
the relative importance weights to test the internal
consistency of responses for each panelist. Again following
Van Calker et al.
27
, correlations not significantly greater
than zero (a=0.05) were judged to be inconsistent and that
panelist’s responses were excluded from further analysis
within that category.
Table 1 shows the factors that were initially presented to
the panelists and the final list after including the panelists’
recommendations. Although some of the panelists recom-
mended removing some of the factors from the initial list,
no factor was suggested for removal by more than three
panelists, so all of the factors were left on the final list for
ranking. They were initially presented with 11 external
social factors, seven internal social factors and seven
political factors. They added five external social factors, ten
internal social factors and five political factors. Among the
external social factors, factors C and D were initially
presented as one, but were sub-divided at the recommenda-
tion of the panelists.
Results and Discussion
Panelist response rate and consistency
Even with the small panel size, intensive follow-up and
replacing panelists who declined to participate, the
response rate was <100%. Seven of the panelists com-
pleted the initial questionnaire and follow-up telephone
interview. The eighth panelist indicated willingness to
participate, but never completed the questionnaire. The
ninth panelist declined to participate and three additional
panelists were contacted sequentially as replacements;
however, each of them declined as well. By this time,
nearly a month had passed since the initial panelists had
completed their surveys, and it was decided to proceed with
the ranking portion while the topic was still on the minds of
the remaining seven panelists. However, only six of those
panelists completed the ranking questionnaire. These
included two economists, two sociologists and two other
Social and political influences on agricultural systems 275

agricultural and food systems experts, so the even
representation of the three groups was maintained.
Within each category, internal consistency of responses
between the two ranking procedures was checked for
each panelist and for all panelists together (Table 2). Cor-
relations for all panelists within each category showed that
responses were consistent overall. Rankings for political
factors showed the highest level of internal consistency
(0.75 versus 0.68 for external social factors and 0.64 for
internal social factors). Individual responses were also
generally consistent with the exceptions of the internal
social driver rankings for panelist E, and the political driver
rankings for panelist B. The extreme lack of consistency
among political driver ranking responses for panelist B was
explained by the difficulty this panelist had in deciding
importance among factors. Under interval ranking, this
panelist gave all but one of the factors a score of 5, while
Table 1. List of most important external social factors, internal social factors and political factors affecting agricultural systems.
ID External social factors Internal social factors Political factors
A. Meeting food and nutritional needs of
growing population
1
Aging farm operators Farm Bill commodity programs
B. Environmental concerns Farm worker safety/health Farm Bill conservation programs
C. Consumer demand for low prices Landowner perspectives of threats to
property rights
Federally funded agricultural research
D. Consumer demand for convenience Resistance to adoption of novel
technology
International trade policy
E. Consumer demand for taste/variety/
quality
Legal liability concerns Food safety regulations
F. Opposition to genetically modified
organisms (GMOs)
Lack of opportunities for beginning
farmers and ranchers
Environmental regulations, e.g., Clean
Water Act, Endangered Species Act,
etc.
G. Desire for locally produced foods Management style Federal budget constraints related to
discretionary spending and budget
deficits
H. Food safety concerns Management skills Energy policy
I. Meeting demands of affluent consumers Rising fuel prices Food industry influence on dietary
guidelines process, food and
agriculture policy
J. Meeting needs of limited-resource
families
Entrance of young people into agriculture
who see importance of strong
connection to consumers
Distorting food and agricultural policies
K. Fair trade/labor concerns Farm income stabilization Federal mandate for school wellness
policies
L. Market concentration/consolidation Risk management/resistance to risk Rural development programs (value
added, rural infrastructure programs,
etc.)
M. Increasing rate of obesity, continued high
incidence of heart disease and cancers
Fear of regulation
N. Food marketing far outweighing nutrition
education
Returns to land
O. Rural community development Intense competition for land and
resources
P. Commodity organizations Low margins that require increased
scale and efficiency
Q. Returns to land Globalization
1
Factors in italics were among those initially presented to the panelists.
Table 2. Internal consistency of panelists.
Panelist
Correlation
coefficients
External
social
factors
Internal
social
factors
Political
factors
A 0.73* 0.76* 0.83*
B 0.58* 0.58* 0.24
C 0.80* 0.86* 0.84*
D 0.70* 0.79* 0.72*
E 0.65* 0.38 0.86*
F 0.68* 0.72* 0.78*
All 0.68* 0.64* 0.75*
*The association between ranking methods is significantly
different from zero (P<0.05).
276 D.W. Archer et al.

the panelist was forced to choose among factors under
ordinal ranking. Ranking responses for these panelists were
excluded from further analysis within these categories.
External social factors
The average relative importance ranking values for external
social factors are shown in Table 3 in descending order
of the interval ranking procedure average importance
weights. Standard deviations of importance weights under
interval ranking were generally low. Standard deviations of
importance weights tended to be higher using ordinal
ranking than under interval ranking. This is not surprising
since the ordinal ranking process was designed to produce
separation among the scores given to each factor with
all but the top five given scores of zero. Although rank-
ings of external social factors were shown to have an
acceptable level of internal consistency, there were
differences in the ranking order of the factors depending
on the ranking method used. Ordinal data provide a valid
method for checking internal consistency for each respon-
dent, but the ranking process does not provide a measure of
the strength of preferences between choices
32
, and caution
should be used in interpreting the average importance
weights under ordinal ranking
33
. Thus, greater confidence
should be placed on the interval rankings.
Interval ranking of the external social factors showed
market concentration/consolidation and environmental
concerns as the top two factors. Using ordinal ranking,
panelists ranked environmental concerns as the most
important factor but they made few comments about why
this was an important factor. One panelist commented that
environmental problems are more visible and people are
more aware of the issues now than in the past, with
the implication that this increased awareness will affect
agricultural systems. This panelist also identified an
important linkage between environmental concerns and
the aging of farm operators internal social factor, indicating
that, if there is a need to shift towards more ecologically
based agriculture due to environmental concerns, it will be
necessary to have people ‘living in local ecologies long
enough and intimately enough to learn how to manage
farms well from an ecologically restorative perspective’.
There is growing concern with the environmental costs of
agricultural production
34
. However, there is also some
evidence that the concept of multi-functionality is gaining
acceptance in the US. There is a realization that agricultural
enterprises can provide goods and services that society
demands beyond food and fiber, such as improved water
quality, wildlife habitat, landscape amenities, flood control,
nutrient cycling and carbon sinks
35
. There is also evidence
that social demands for these attributes are higher in more
populated areas
36
and that they increase with increasing
Table 3. Average and standard deviation of relative importance weights for external social factors using interval ranking and ordinal
ranking procedures.
External social factors N
Interval ranking Ordinal ranking
Average
importance
weight
Std. dev.
importance
weight
Average
importance
weight
Std. dev.
importance
weight
Market concentration/consolidation 6 1.30 0.25 1.51 2.23
Environmental concerns 6 1.25 0.19 3.97 2.00
Food safety concerns 6 1.17 0.31 1.51 1.71
Consumer demand for taste/variety/
quality
5 1.14 0.40 1.13 1.90
Food marketing far outweighing nutrition
education
6 1.10 0.15 1.13 1.90
Increasing rate of obesity, continued high
incidence of heart disease and cancers
6 1.09 0.27 1.32 1.67
Consumer demand for low prices 6 1.08 0.36 1.13 2.27
Consumer demand for convenience 6 1.05 0.47 0.76 1.85
Commodity organizations 6 0.98 0.44 1.70 2.66
Meeting food and nutritional needs of
growing population
6 0.97 0.45 0.19 0.46
Desire for locally produced foods 6 0.94 0.27 0.00 0.00
Rural community development 6 0.88 0.40 0.57 0.95
Meeting demands of affluent consumers 6 0.87 0.19 0.00 0.00
Fair trade/labor concerns 6 0.83 0.32 0.57 1.39
Opposition to GMOs 6 0.81 0.14 0.00 0.00
Returns to land 6 0.80 0.29 0.00 0.00
Meeting needs of limited resource
families
6 0.78 0.41 1.51 2.34
Social and political influences on agricultural systems 277

incomes
25
. Some have envisioned an agriculture where
farmers are primarily managers of rural landscapes
and only secondarily as producers of food and fiber
37
.
Economic evidence shows this might not be unreasonable
as the income elasticity of demand for environmental
quality may be greater than that for food in the United
States, suggesting that as incomes increase, consumers’
demand for environmental quality may grow faster than
their demand for food
25
.
Market concentration/consolidation was also included
among the top five factors under ordinal ranking. Panelists
agreed that market concentration/consolidation ‘has been
a powerful driver shaping the realities of production
agriculture’. One panelist thought the influence of this
driver may be changing, indicating that ‘the wealth
concentration that this consolidation has created is now
becoming increasingly dysfunctional and the need for
wealth expansion will likely be one of the significant
drivers of the future’. Wealth concentration may not
provide the same returns to financial institutions as having
capital distributed among more entities, so these institutions
will not see an economic advantage to continue concentrat-
ing capital. A second panelist saw the emergence of a
dualistic agriculture with ‘continual pressure on some kinds
of firms to get large and become integrated upward to the
industrial buyer’ while there is an increasing opportunity
‘for niche/boutique producers to serve a more astute and
demanding consumer’. This panelist identified these two
areas as topics needing further research. Another panelist
identified a linkage among market concentration/consolida-
tion, desire for locally produced foods, and food safety
concerns. Concentration, rather than local, more diffuse
production, may lead to a higher risk of targeted con-
tamination or major disruption of food supplies.
The issue of vertical integration from the farm upward is
the latest incarnation in the continuing tension between
farming as a business and farming as a way of life, which
one panelist commented, ‘has been around forever’. In a
recent discussion with Alabama chicken producers who
produce under rigid integrator contracts, there was great
frustration expressed about the loss of independence that
had once been part of their way of life. One producer
commented, ‘We are slaves on our own farms!’ Yet, one
factor that appears to perpetuate the system is a continuing
influx of people who are looking to get into farming for
lifestyle reasons and see contract chicken farming as an
easy way to get into farming because of the systems of
available credit and management control that support
contract poultry production
38
.
Concern over food safety was also among the top five
factors under both ranking methods. One panelist indicated,
‘Food scares make people more aware of where food comes
from and the risks of the current system’. This is
particularly evident in the UK where a series of crises in
agriculture and food production has been seen as a violation
of a social contract and has led to a distrust of regulatory
authorities and a more critical eye towards technology
39
.
Two of the panelists described this factor in broad terms
indicating it was related to how food is produced, including
the desire for locally produced foods, consumer demand
for taste/variety/quality, meeting the demands of affluent
consumers, fair trade/labor concerns, and opposition
to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). One panelist
described safety with a small ‘s’, saying people do not feel
desperately threatened (by chemicals, GMOs, etc.) but they
just do not want it. ‘I want my food grown differently’. As
another panelist put it, this contrasts with the industry
notion of food safety being reduced to a set of standards
that ‘further industrialize the process of producing food’.
Another panelist added, ‘certainly not everyone wants to be
an active participant in the food system;’ however, ‘there is
a growing dissatisfaction with the status quo, a desire to
know where food is produced and how it got to them’. One
panelist identified this as an emerging factor, indicating
there is a growing concern of civil society regarding issues
‘like consumer demands to know how food is produced,
their desire for locally produced food, and their concern for
labor’. This is reflected in tremendous growth in direct sales
of food to consumers and the growing evidence that local
exchange of foods provides health, food-security, and well-
being benefits for people, communities, and ecological
systems. However, there is a danger that local direct sales
of foods can create a premium market for wealthy clientele
rather than democratizing the economy
40
.
Increasing rate of obesity, and continued high incidence
of heart disease and cancers were ranked sixth under both
ranking methods. This was identified as an emerging driver
by two of the panelists, both of whom indicated there was
rising concern about this health crisis, and a need to
understand how the current food system contributes to the
problem. Emphasizing the magnitude of the problem, one
of these panelists predicted ‘that the anti-GMO issues will
be overcome by the anti-obesity issues in industrialized
agricultural production’.
Meeting the needs of limited resource families was
among the top five factors using ordinal ranking while it
ranked lowest using interval ranking. Standard deviations
of importance weights were high for this factor under both
ranking processes, indicating widely differing views among
panelists. Two panelists selected this factor as second in
priority, while none of the remaining panelists included the
factor among the top five. One of the panelists who ranked
this factor highly indicated that the issues of meeting the
needs of limited resource families, meeting the food and
nutritional needs of a growing population, and meeting the
needs of affluent consumers were all interrelated. ‘The kind
of poverty that continues to make it impossible to keep
populations fed despite over production simply will not be
tolerated in a world that is now a global village with world-
wide communications systems. Consequently the demand
to develop a food system that provides healthy, nutritious,
good tasting food at affordable prices for all of the planet’s
citizens will be a major driver shaping the food systems of
the future’.
278 D.W. Archer et al.

Internal social factors
Our intent was to categorize social factors originating
outside the farm as external and those originating inside the
farm as internal. However, it appears that the panelists
interpreted this division differently, classifying external
social factors as those having an influence beyond the farm
level and internal social factors as those having an influence
at the farm level. Although the panelists indicated factors
appearing on the initial internal factors list were important,
once they had an opportunity to add additional factors and
rank them, none of the initial factors were included among
the top-ranked factors. Globalization, low margins that
require increased scale and efficiency, risk management/
resistance to risk, and rising fuel prices were included
among the top four factors under both ranking procedures
(Table 4). It was unexpected that globalization would be
identified as a top internal social factor and not as an
important external social factor. This may reflect a sense
among the panelists that US farmers are acutely aware
of the effects of globalization at the farm level. As one
panelist indicated, ‘US farmers are increasingly competing
in a global agricultural market. This means they will have
to produce competitively with farmers elsewhere in the
world but it also means growth in the potential markets for
their products’. The effect of globalization was also seen
from a different perspective. Another panelist observed that
many people see globalization as a form of tyranny, and as
such, may be on the verge of collapse. There has been an
ongoing debate regarding the current and future ability of
globalization to improve economic well being and lead to
free societies versus impinging on the rights of countries for
self-determination, including protection of the environment
and protection of its citizens from health risks. This debate
is at the core of the issue of free trade and the ability of
countries to restrict the importation of genetically modified
food products. To some, the restriction is seen as a type of
protectionism that reduces opportunities for farmers to
market their products abroad and, therefore, suppresses
economic growth and reduces food availability to the
poor
41,42
. However, others question whether farmers and
the poor actually benefit from free trade
43
. Some see these
restrictions as a means for consumer and environmental
protection, and contend that free trade rules interfere with a
basic right of people to determine what they put in their
collective mouths
44
. US farmers have an acute interest in
this issue, as evidenced by news reports in the popular farm
press
45
.
Low margins requiring increased scale was among the
top two internal social factors under both ranking
Table 4. Average and standard deviation of relative importance weights for internal social factors using interval ranking and ordinal
ranking procedures.
Internal social factors N
Interval ranking Ordinal ranking
Average
importance
weight
Std. dev.
importance
weight
Average
importance
weight
Std. dev.
importance
weight
Globalization 5 1.38 0.29 2.49 2.58
Low margins that require increased scale
and efficiency
5 1.37 0.33 2.49 1.48
Risk management/resistance to risk 5 1.21 0.43 1.59 2.21
Rising fuel prices 5 1.04 0.35 2.49 2.58
Aging farm operators 5 1.02 0.39 0.91 1.48
Management skills 5 1.00 0.31 1.13 2.53
Farm income stabilization 5 0.99 0.19 1.36 1.48
Intense competition for land and
resources
5 0.98 0.22 1.13 2.53
Returns to land 5 0.97 0.38 0.68 1.01
Farm worker safety/health 5 0.93 0.15 0.00 0.00
Entrance of young people into agriculture
who see importance of strong
connection to consumers
5 0.93 0.31 0.68 1.52
Lack of opportunities for beginning
farmers and ranchers
5 0.91 0.37 0.91 2.03
Management style 5 0.91 0.57 1.13 2.53
Legal liability concerns 5 0.87 0.09 0.00 0.00
Fear of regulation 5 0.87 0.24 0.00 0.00
Resistance to adoption of novel
technology
5 0.83 0.25 0.00 0.00
Landowner perspectives of threats to
property rights
5 0.78 0.22 0.00 0.00
Social and political influences on agricultural systems 279

procedures. One panelist commented that increased scale
and efficiency were important if a producer wishes to farm
full-time. ‘Its the race for technology, allowing farms to get
bigger, (and) driving down costs ...’. This ‘technology
treadmill’ is an often identified phenomenon in agricultural
economics literature
46
that leads to increasing reliance on
off-farm income
47
, decreasing farm numbers, and increas-
ing farm size
48
. Farmers feel the need to adopt new
technologies at an early stage in order to survive economi-
cally. In the US, agriculture has suffered from this treadmill
for over a century
49
, and it has been argued that farmers
need to be able to get off the technology treadmill in order
to be truly sustainable
50
. The technology treadmill has also
been shown to have a direct economic connection to returns
to land, which was identified as a newly emerging external
social factor. In the original treadmill theory, farmers adopt
new technologies to drive down their cost of production and
improve their incomes. However, this leads to increased
production, driving prices (and profits) down. The theory
was revised to include the impact of government price
supports. In the presence of government price supports,
prices are not driven down. Instead, farmers try to expand
profits by acquiring more land, which drives up land prices.
Therefore, farmers who rent land must adopt new tech-
nology to generate enough revenue to pay higher land rents,
while farmers who own land must either adopt new
technology or they can quit farming and rent their land
to other farmers
48
. The challenge in getting off of the
treadmill is finding other alternatives besides acquiring new
technology, getting bigger or getting out. Options that have
been proposed include increasing farmer bargaining power
through collective action
51
, and a movement towards
smaller, more flexible and intensively managed farms that
are able to fill niche markets
50
. In addition to the economic
aspects of this factor, one panelist commented that
competition for land within a local community can lead
to deterioration in community relationships as neighbors
are pitted against one another.
Rising fuel cost was identified as a newly emerging
driver among the top internal social factors that may affect
agricultural systems in several ways. One panelist indicated
that, ‘Fuel costs will be a driver in the adoption of energy-
saving production practices as well as strengthening support
for local food systems to reduce the distance between
consumers and producers. The driver might also provide
support for the rebuilding of value-added enterprises in
areas where they have been lost’. Another panelist stated
that rising fuel cost would lead agricultural production to
rely more on biological synergies rather than energy inputs
and increase the movement towards use of agricultural
products for energy production.
Aging farm operators was ranked fifth under interval
ranking and among the top ten under ordinal ranking. Two
panelists made a connection between this factor and lack of
opportunities for beginning farmers and ranchers. However,
they had contrasting views about the magnitude of the
problem, with one panelist indicating that there were many
aging farm operators who would be willing to rent
their land, but not to outsiders. ‘Thus, there are a lot of
opportunities for beginning farmers within the community,
particularly if they have the right social networks to access
it’. The other panelist indicated that persistent low profits in
agriculture have ‘prevented retiring farmers from setting
aside funds for their own retirement, and so less of the
farm’s assets can be transferred to the next generation’.
Political factors
Farm Bill commodity programs were the highest ranked
factor under both interval ranking and ordinal ranking
(Table 5). Using interval ranking, all but one of the
panelists gave Farm Bill commodity programs a ranking
of 5 or ‘extremely important’. Most of the panelists
made comments related to this factor. Two of them drew
a connection between commodity programs and one of
the external social drivers, ‘increasing rate of obesity,
continued high incidence of heart disease and cancers’. One
of these panelists indicated that current commodity
programs ‘perpetuate an overabundance of cheap commod-
ities that the food industry can use to create high fat, high
sugar, and nutrient-poor food products’. It has been
hypothesized that there is a connection between obesity
and the low cost per unit of energy for refined grains, sugars
and fats compared to more healthy alternatives
21
. This
connection may be especially strong for people with low
incomes who may choose these foods simply because they
are the cheapest sources of dietary energy
21
. The connec-
tion between obesity and the cost of healthy foods was
identified by one of the panelists as an area needing further
research. Also, both panelists identified the connection
between commodity programs and obesity as an area that is
poorly understood and would merit extra attention by
researchers and policymakers, and they proposed that a
better understanding of the interconnections between these
factors may lead to policies targeted towards growing
healthier food at the farm level.
These panelists also raised concerns about the influ-
ence of food industry and commodity organizations on
current agricultural policy. Food industry influence on the
dietary guidelines process, food and agricultural policy was
ranked among the top five political factors under both
ranking systems, and commodity organizations were the
second most important external social factor under ordinal
ranking.
Two panelists commented on the effect of Farm
Bill commodity programs in influencing the decision
about what crop to plant. Both indicated that the current
program is a disincentive for farmers to try new crops or
production methods, and one of them related this to the risk
management/resistance to risk, identified as an internal
social factor. This panelist lamented that Farm Bill
commodity programs discount the value of alternative risk
management methods, such as diversification into other
crops. This is supported by recent research findings
280 D.W. Archer et al.

indicating that the value of crop diversification as a risk
management tool is reduced when farmers can utilize
commodity programs and crop insurance
52
. The panelist
indicated that this was an area needing further research.
Several panelists indicated that commodity program
payments may decrease in the future due to federal budget
constraints and international trade pressures, but one
panelist was skeptical that budget constraints would lower
commodity payments because ‘the constraints are always
balanced by well-entrenched vested interests’.
Environmental regulation was the second ranked factor
under interval ranking and the fourth ranked factor under
ordinal ranking. Only one panelist commented on this
driver, relating it to Farm Bill conservation programs. This
panelist indicated that Farm Bill conservation programs
were not strictly oriented towards conservation, but were
ways to indirectly support commodity programs by help-
ing farmers comply with environmental regulations. This
comment was primarily in regard to the use of conservation
programs to fund manure management practices and
facilities for confined animal feeding operations. Advocates
of this use see it as a way to reduce the economic burden on
farmers for complying with the regulations that require
them to adopt these practices and build these facilities.
However, many in the sustainable agriculture community
see this as a corruption of the program’s intent, paying for
conservation measures that would occur anyway, providing
incentives for larger livestock operations, and taking
resources away from other conservation priorities.
Although rural development programs were near the
bottom of the rankings for political factors, one panelist
indicated that these may become more important in the
future as the non-farm rural population increases, and their
political power increases relative to the farm population.
This panelist indicated that the needs of limited-resource
farmers and the rural poor were areas needing a renewed
research focus.
Overall factor rankings
The interval ranking process used a consistent ranking scale
across all categories of factors. This allowed comparison
among factors independent of category. In order to compare
responses among categories, raw ranking scores were
used rather than relative importance weights which were
normalized within each category. Also, using raw ranking
scores showed the importance the panelists placed on these
factors. Based on average interval ranking scores, the top
ten factors included a mix of external social, internal social
and political factors (Table 6), indicating that no single
category of factors dominated the others in influencing
agricultural systems. The top ten factors all had average
interval ranking scores of at least 4.0 on a scale from 1 to 5.
The internal social factors: globalization and low margins
Table 5. Average and standard deviation of relative importance weights for political factors using interval ranking and ordinal ranking
procedures.
Political factors N
Interval ranking Ordinal ranking
Average
importance
weight
Std. dev.
importance
weight
Average
importance
weight
Std. dev.
importance
weight
Farm Bill commodity programs 5 1.29 0.46 2.72 1.84
Environmental regulations (e.g., Clean
Water Act, Endangered Species Act,
etc.)
5 1.19 0.34 1.12 0.91
Food industry influence on dietary
guidelines process, food and
agriculture policy
5 1.17 0.28 0.96 1.04
International trade policy 5 1.16 0.40 2.08 1.56
Federal budget constraints related to
discretionary spending and budget
deficits
5 1.09 0.35 0.32 0.72
Distorting food and agricultural policies 5 1.04 0.23 1.92 1.84
Farm Bill conservation programs 5 1.00 0.26 0.80 1.79
Energy policy 5 0.95 0.30 0.96 1.31
Rural development programs (value
added, rural infrastructure programs,
etc.)
5 0.89 0.27 0.80 1.39
Food safety regulations 5 0.78 0.44 0.00 0.00
Federally funded agricultural research 5 0.76 0.43 0.32 0.72
Federal mandate for school wellness
policies
5 0.68 0.07 0.00 0.00
Social and political influences on agricultural systems 281

that require increased scale and efficiency were the top two
factors overall.
Conclusion
A wide range of social and political factors affect
agricultural systems. Insights provided by a diverse group
of academic experts in the areas of agricultural economics,
rural sociology and agriculture and food systems identified
factors they considered to be particularly important
influences on agricultural systems. This analysis utilized a
limited sample size in order to gather more in-depth
information from each of the participants and thus gain a
broader understanding of how these factors are perceived to
affect agricultural systems. The research project team
deemed a small panel would be capable of identifying the
most important factors without loss of generality. The low
standard deviations of importance weights (using the
interval ranking procedure) provided some support for this
assumption. Nonetheless, because the sample size was
limited, and panelists were limited to academic experts, it
will be important to verify that these findings reflect the
views of a larger population and differing segments of
society (e.g., farmers, consumers and policymakers).
Although there were contrasting views about the
importance of some factors, there was strong consensus
about many of them. Rankings of the most important
factors produced no major surprises, except that globaliza-
tion was identified as an internal social factor. Presumably
this reflected how acutely globalization affects decisions
at the farm level. In addition to identifying and ranking
the most important factors, panelists provided information
on the reasoning behind their selections, and identified
factors that were newly emerging or for which there were
critical research needs. Newly emerging factors identified
by the panelists included rising fuel costs, obesity, potential
decreases in commodity subsidies due to budget constraints
or trade rulings, consumer awareness and demands to
know how food is produced, and economic returns to land.
Research needs identified by the panelists included the
relationship between agricultural policy and health, risk
behavior on the farm, the connections between obesity and
the cost of healthy foods, the needs of limited resource
farmers and the rural poor, the continual pressure on farms
to become larger and more integrated towards the industrial
buyer, and the opportunity for niche/boutique producers to
serve more discriminating consumers.
For physical and biological scientists, this information
will help confirm or deny preconceived notions and
improve awareness of social and political factors that
impact the relevance of their research. For example, while
most scientists involved in cropping systems research might
recognize that rising fuel costs could generate interest by
farmers in energy saving production technologies like
reducing tillage or using legumes in place of purchased
nitrogen, many would not have considered the potential that
demand for locally produced foods may increase due to
increased transportation costs, and that opportunities to
diversify crop rotations may be driven more by increasing
fuel costs than by risk management concerns. In addition,
the linkages among many of the factors have not received a
lot of attention in the cropping systems or animal science
journals. Yet, these linkages, such as panelists’ concern
about obesity and its link to an industrialized food system,
could be a very important area of study for natural scientists
since these health concerns have the ability to impact
markets for agricultural products and government policies.
Although most social scientists and policymakers may
have a good general understanding of the most important
social and political influences on agricultural systems,
Table 6. Factors with the ten highest average interval ranking scores.
Category
1
Factor N
Average
interval
ranking
Std. dev.
interval
ranking
IS Low margins that require increased scale
and efficiency
5 4.6 0.89
IS Globalization 5 4.6 0.55
ES Market concentration/consolidation 6 4.5 0.84
P Farm Bill commodity programs 5 4.4 1.34
ES Environmental concerns 6 4.3 0.82
P Environmental regulations (e.g.,
Clean Water Act, Endangered
Species Act, etc.)
5 4.2 1.30
ES Food safety concerns 6 4.0 0.63
IS Risk management/resistance to risk 5 4.0 1.00
P International trade policy 5 4.0 1.22
P Food industry influence on dietary
guidelines process, food and
agriculture policy
5 4.0 0.50
1
IS =internal social factor, ES =external social factor, P =political factor.
282 D.W. Archer et al.

the newly emerging factors and research needs identified
in this study outline priority research topics and testable
hypotheses. A comprehensive understanding of these
factors is imperative to help guide scientific research so
that beneficial discoveries are accepted and used, and to
ensure that policy decisions enhance the future sustain-
ability of agricultural production. By identifying the most
important factors, providing supporting insights into their
effects, and delineating emerging issues and research needs,
this study provides a basis upon which a comprehensive
understanding of these factors may be built.
Acknowledgements. We thank the panelists for their valuable
input.
References
1 Vanclay, F. and Lawrence, G. 1994. Farmer rationality and the
adoption of environmentally sound practices; a critique of the
assumptions of traditional agricultural extension. European
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 1(1):59–90.
2 Vanclay, F. 2004. Social principles for agricultural extension
to assist in the promotion of natural resource management.
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44(3):
213–222.
3 Lambin, E.F., Turner, B.L., Geist, H.J., Agbola, S.B.,
Angelsen, A., Bruce, J.W., Coomes, O.T., Dirzo, R., Fischer,
G., and Folke, C. 2001. The causes of land-use and land-cover
change: moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental
Change 11(4):261–269.
4 Capistrano, D., Samper, C., Lee, M.J., and Raudsepp-Hearne,
C. (eds). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Multi-
scale Assessments. Vol. 4: Findings of the Sub-global
Assessments Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC.
5 National Agricultural Statistics Service, US Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Washington, DC. 2005. Trends in US
agriculture. Available at Web site http://www.usda.gov/nass/
pubs/trends/ (verified 23 June 2006).
6 Hobbs, F. and Stoops, N. 2002. Demographic trends
in the 20th century. Census 2000 Special Reports Series,
CENSR-4. US Department of Commerce, US Census Bureau,
Washington, DC.
7 Johnson, K.M. 1999. The rural rebound. Reports on America.
Vol. 1, No. 3. Population Reference Bureau, Washington, DC.
8 Dimitri, C., Effland, A., and Conklin, N. 2005. The 20th
century transformation of U.S. agriculture and farm policy.
Economic Information Bulletin. EIB-3. Economic Research
Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
9 McGranahan, D.A. 1999. Natural amenities drive rural
population change. Agricultural Economic Report. AER-781.
Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
10 Smithers, J., Joseph, A.E., and Armstrong, M. 2005. Across
the divide (?): reconciling farm and town views of agriculture–
community linkages. Journal of Rural Studies 21(3):281–295.
11 National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2004. 2002 Census of
Agriculture. Vol. 1, Geographic Area Series Part 51. National
Agricultural Statistics Service, US Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
12 Hoppe, R.A. and Wiebe, K. 2002. Land ownership and farm
structure. Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indica-
tors. AH722-1.3. Economic Research Service, US Department
of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
13 Kalaitzandonakes, N. and Hayenga, M. 1999. Structural
change in the biotechnology and seed industrial complex:
theory and evidence. In: W.H. Lesser (ed.). NE-165 Con-
ference on Transitions in AgBiotech: Economics of Strategy
and Policy, 24–25 June 1999, Washington DC. p. 217–227.
14 Hendrickson, M. and Heffernan, B. 2005. Concentration in
agricultural markets. Department of Rural Sociology, Uni-
versity of Missouri, MO. Available at Web site http://
www.foodcircles.missouri.edu/CRJanuary05.pdf (verified 23
June 2006).
15 Jerardo, A. 2004. The U.S. ag trade balance ... more than just
a number. Amber Waves 2(1):36–41.
16 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and
Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
17 Shapouri, S. and Rosen, S. 2005. Food security assessment.
GFA-16. Economic Research Service, US Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC.
18 World Health Organization. 2000. Nutrition for health and
development: a global agenda for combating malnutrition.
WHO/NHD/00.6. World Health Organization.
19 National Center for Health Statistics. 2005. National health
and nutrition examination survey. Available at Web site http://
www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm (verified 23 June 2006).
20 Drewnowski, A. 2003. Fat and sugar: an economic analysis.
The Journal of Nutrition 133(3):838S–840S.
21 Blisard, N., Lin, B.-H., Cromartie, J., and Ballenger, N. 2002.
America’s changing appetite: food consumption and spending
to 2020. Food Review 25(1):2–9.
22 DeNavas-Walt, C., Cleveland, R.W., and Webster, B.H. Jr
2003. Income in the United States: 2002. Current Population
Reports P60-221. US Census Bureau, US Department of
Commerce, Washington, DC.
23 Jones, A.F. Jr and Weinberg, D.H. 2000. The changing shape
of the nation’s income distribution. Current Population
Reports P60-204. US Census Bureau, US Department of
Commerce, Washington, DC.
24 Freshwater, D. 2002. Applying multifunctionality to U.S. farm
policy. Staff Paper No. 437. Department of Agricultural
Economics, University of Kentucky.
25 Schweikhardt, D.B. and Browne, W.P. 2001. Politics by other
means: the emergence of a new politics of food in the United
States. Review of Agricultural Economics 23(2):302–318.
26 de Koeijer, T.J., Wossink, G.A.A., van Ittersum, M.K., Struik,
P.C., and Renkema, J.A. 1999. A conceptual model for analysing
input-output coefficients in arable farming systems: from
diagnosis towards design. Agricultural Systems 61:33–44.
27 Van Calker, K.J., Berentsen, P.B.M., Giesen, G.W.J., and
Huirne, R.B.M. 2005. Identifying and ranking attributes that
determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming. Agriculture
and Human Values 22(1):53–63.
28 Geist, H.J. and Lambin, E.F. 2001. What drives tropical
deforestation? A meta-analysis of proximate and underlying
causes of deforestation based on subnational case study
evidence. LUCC Report Series 4. Land-Use and Land-Cover
Change International Project Office. University of Louvain,
Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
29 Van Calker, K.J., Berentsen, P.B.M., Romero, C., Giesen,
G.W.J., and Huirne, R.B.M. 2006. Development and
Social and political influences on agricultural systems 283

application of a multi-attribute sustainability function for
Dutch dairy farming systems. Ecological Economics
57(4):630–658.
30 Poyhonen, M. and Hamalainen, R.P. 2001. On the conver-
gence of multiattribute weighting methods. European Journal
of Operations Research 129(3):569–585.
31 Bottomley, P.A. and Doyle, J.R. 2001. A comparison of three
weight elicitation methods: good, better, best. Omega
29(6):553–560.
32 Labovitz, S. 1970. The assignment of numbers to rank order
categories. American Sociological Review 35(3):515–524.
33 Lowry, R. 2006. Concepts and applications of inferential
statistics. Available at Web site http://faculty.vassar.edu/
lowry/webtext.html (verified 23 June 2006).
34 Tegtmeier, E.M. and Duffy, M.D. 2004. External costs of
agricultural production in the United States. International
Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2(1):1–20.
35 Batie, S.S. 2003. The mutifunctional attributes of northeastern
agriculture: a research agenda. Agricultural and Resource
Economics Review 32(1):1–8.
36 Hellerstein, D., Nickerson, C., Cooper, J., Feather, P., Gadsby,
D., Mullarkey, D., Tegene, A., and Barnard, C. 2002.
Farmland protection: the role of public preferences for rural
amenities. AER-815. Economic Research Service, US Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
37 Bromley, D.W. 2000. Can agriculture become an environ-
mental asset? World Economics 1(3):127–139.
38 Heffernan, W.D. and Hendrickson, M.K. 2002. Multi-national
concentrated food processing and marketing systems and the
farm crisis. Presented at the American Association for the
Advancement of Science annual meeting, Boston, MA, 14–19
February 2002. Available at Web site www.foodcircles.
missouri.edu.paper.pdf (verified 29 September 2006).
39 Bruce, D.M. 2002. A social contract for biotechnology: shared
visions for risky technologies? Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics 15:279–289.
40 Guptill, A. and Wilkins, J.L. 2002. Buying into the food
system: trends in food retailing in the US and implications for
local foods. Agriculture and Human Values 19:39–51.
41 Borlaug, N.E. 2000. Ending world hunger. The promise of
biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry. Plant
Physiology 124:487–490.
42 Anderson, K. 2005. Interactions between trade policies and
GM food regulations. Discussion Paper No. 0514. University
of Adelaide Centre for International Economic Studies,
Adelaide, SA, Australia.
43 Peters, C.J. 2000. Genetic engineering in agriculture: who
stands to benefit? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics 13(3–4):313–327.
44 Saul, J.R. 2004. The collapse of globalism and the rebirth of
nationalism. Harper’s Magazine 308(1846):33–43.
45 Kollock, P. 2006. WTO upholds US challenge to European
ban on biotech foods. DTN. February 9. Available at Web site
www.AgDayta.com (verified 14 February 2006).
46 Cochrane, W.W. 1958. Farm Prices: Myth and Reality.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
47 Zulauf, C.R. 1986. Changes in selected characteristics of US
farms during the 1970s and early 1980s: an investigation based
on current and constant dollar sales categories. Southern
Journal of Agricultural Economics 18(1):113–122.
48 Levins, R.A. and Cochrane, W.W. 1996. The treadmill
revisited. Land Economics 72(4):550–553.
49 Blank, S.C. 2003. Where is American agriculture in its ‘life
cycle’. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
28(3):396–418.
50 Ikerd, J. 1999. The small farm revolution. Presented
at 2nd National Small Farms Conference, St. Louis,
MO, 12–15 October 1999. Available at Web site www.
ssu.missouri.edu/Faculty/JIkerd/papers/STL-SFC.html (veri-
fied 23 June 2006).
51 Levins, R.A. 2001. An essay on farm income. Staff Paper
P01-1. Department of Applied Economics, University of
Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.
52 Archer, D.W., Pikul, J.L. Jr, and Riedell, W.E. 2003.
Analyzing risk and risk management in cropping systems.
In: J.D. Hanson and J.M. Krupinsky (eds). Proceedings of the
Dynamic Cropping Systems: Principles, Processes, and
Challenges. Bismarck, ND. p. 155–164.
284 D.W. Archer et al.