Precis of Remarks by Robert L. Thompson

(President, Winrock International)

Compiled by Don McClatchy, Agriculture Canada with apologies for any inaccuracies

These remarks are particularly influenced by the speaker’s four years spent in Washington D.C. in the late 1980s as Assistant Secretary (Economics), USDA, and by six years (just complete) as Dean of Agriculhrre at Purdue University. both positions involved consider- able interaction with politicians and others who fund research.

Several important new issues now face the profession, and strongly influence the policy agendas of governments. In particular:

Food safety concern (and policy) Natural resource and environmental con- cerns (and policy) New forms of technological change (biotechnology, e.d.p./communications) (science policy) Internationalization of b e t s (macroe- conomic, trade, foreign investment and competition policy) Animal weLfare concerns (and policy) At the same time we are faced generally

with shrinking budgets, shnnking faculty sizes, and a shrinking demand for agricultural economics graduates on the part of govern- ment, agribusiness and universities.

CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE IN THE PROFESSION

In the speaker’s opinion, part of the fall in demand for agricultural economics graduates is explained by a crisis of confidence in what agricultural economists can do.

Too often, he feels, the work of agricultural economists perceived as too disciplinary and too theoretical; i.e., it fails the important tests of “who cares?” and “so what?”. Addition- ally, confidence is often undermined by agri-

cultural economists revealing a lack of under- standing of, and familiarity with, agriculture and agricultural science; thus failing the test of “do they know what they are talking about?”.

A furfher important and common short- coming of agricultural economists today is an inability or unwillingness to communicate in lay terms. Too many of us see our responsibil- ity as limited to writing journal articles. Few attempt the potentially highly influential mute of writing for the ‘‘op.ed.” page of the Wash- ington Post or some other major newspaper.

Timeliness of results are critical; too often analyses are completed too late to be useful. Even if completed on time they often use data which is out of date. Or they are misleading deterministic when considerable variability is revealed in the data and answers provided in the form of ranges, recognizing uncertainty, would be more appropriate.

The image of agricultural economists could be improved by our displaying a more general willingness to address local and state/provincial level problems.

Last, but not least, is a vey damaging, growing perception among the broader public that agricultural economists “can be bought and don’t cost much”; that any particular re- sult an interest group would like to see can be generated econometrically.

WHAT CAN BE DONE? To rebuild confidence in ourselves individu- ally and in the profession generally, we agri- cultural economists should devote more attention to:

demonstrating the relevance of our work reporting it to voters and taxpayers

Can. J. Agric. Econ. 41: 397-398. 397

398 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

gaining more knowledge and under- standing of reahty (the sector/market/trade we are analyzing) telling the public what we do for them (public relations) engaging in multidisciplinary/interdisci- plinary work (recognition that many issues are too big for “lone rangers”). Certain institutional changes would also be

appropriate. Journal referees and editors

should pay more attention to some of the above-mentioned criteria in vetting papers. Other modif‘ications of the rewards system would also be in order.

Some institutional changes are already tak- ing place. To ensure relevance, future funding will increasingly be of a contractual or tar- geted nature. The days of untied grant funding are numbered.