The Review of Black Political Economy

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 51–71 | Cite as

Structural changes in U.S. agriculture: Implications for African American farmers

  • Adell Brown
  • Ralph D. Christy
  • Tesfa G. Gebremedhin


Structural changes in U.S. agriculture, influenced by technological and institutional forces, have altered the economic and social characteristics of rural America, especially that segment of rural America populated by farmers and their families. Changes in the structure of agriculture have greater implications for small scale farmers, many of whom are African American, in that strategic options for their farm-firms are constrained to: increasing their farm size, exiting farming, and obtaining off-farm employment to survive. This article presents a rationale for public support of limited resource farmers, identifies structural trends in U.S. agriculture and their impacts on African American farmers, discusses economic problems unique to these farmers, and recommends needs for specific public policies and development programs.


Small Farm Small Scale Farmer Large Farmer Farm Operator Land Grant College 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    William Lin, George Coffman, and J. B. Penn, “U.S. Farm Numbers, Sizes and Related Structural Dimensions: Projections to Year 2000” (Washington, D.C.: USDA/ESCS Technical Bulletin 1625, July 1980). Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress,Technology, Public Policy and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture (Washington, D.C., March 1986).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vera J. Banks,Black Farmers and Their Farms (Washington, D.C.: USDA/ERS, Rural Development Research Report No. 59, 1986).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Earl O. Heady and Steven T. Sonka, “Farm Size, Rural Community Income and Consumer Welfare,”American Journal of Agricultural Economics 56 (1974): 534–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Milton C. Coughenour and James A. Christenson, “Farm Structure, Social Class, and Farmers’ Policy Perspectives,”Farms in Tradition, ed. David E. Brewster, Wayne D. Rasmussen and Garth Youngberg (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1983).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Milton C. Coughenour and Luther G. Tweeten, “Quality of Life Perceptions and Farm Structure,”Agricultural Changes: Consequences for Southern Farms and Rural Communities, ed. Joseph Molnar (Boulder: Westview Press, 1986).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    William Nelson, “Black Political Power and the Decline of Black Land Ownership,”The Review of Black Political Economy, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Spring 1978): 253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    This section draws from Ralph D. Christy, “The African-American, Farming, and Rural Society,” inSocial Science Agricultural Agendas and Strategies, ed. Glenn L. Johnson and James T. Bonnen (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1991).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. B. Penn, “The Structure of Agriculture: An Overview of the Issue,”Structure Issues of American Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report 438, (Washington, DC: USDA/ERS, November 1979).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ibid, p. 17.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glenn L. Johnson and LeRoy Quance (eds.),The Overproduction Trap in U.S. Agriculture (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972); Dale E. Hathaway,Problems of Progress in the Agricultural Economy (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1964); George W. Coffman, “Entry and Exit Barriers and Incentives,”Structural Issues of American Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report 438 (Washington, DC: USDA/ERS, November 1970).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Professor Carlton Davis reminds us that neoclassical firm theory is characterized by the “economic efficiency” criteria for judging a firm’s performance. The theory implicitly ignores initial resource endowment or access to such resources of firms. As such, it ignores the maldistribution of resources stemming from institutional forces.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Calvin L. Beale, “The Negro in American Agriculture,”The American Negro Reference Book, ed. John P. Davis (Reprint by USDA, 1966): 170-207.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    United States Department of Commerce,1987 Census of Agriculture, Vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Geographic Area Series, Part 51, Appendix A, November 1989).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beale, op. cit.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tenant farming has considerable differences in its institutional make-up across regions in the United States. For example, tenant farmers in the South historically have exhibited a different (more inequitable) relationship with land-owners as compared to tenant farmers in the Midwest. For a theoretical discussion of the implications of different tenure arrangements on resource allocation, see George Beckford,Persistent Poverty (Morant Bay: Maroon, 1983): 154–177.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Manning Marable, “The Land Question in Historical Perspective: The Economics of Poverty in the Blackbelt South, 1865–1920,”The Black Rural Landowner-Endangered Species, ed. Leo McGee and Robert Boone (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1979).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ray Marshall and Allen Thompson,Status and Prospects of Small Farmers in the South (Atlanta, Georgia: Southern Regional Council, Inc., 1978).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,The Decline of Black Farming in America (Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, February 1982).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    William Huffman, “Black-White Human Capital Differences: Impact on Agricultural Productivity in the U.S. South,”The American Economic Review, Vol. 71, No. 1 (March 1981).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. G. F. Spitze, S. Walter DeRay and J. West,Public Agricultural-Food Policies and Small Farms. Produced as Paper I of the National Rural Center Small Farms project (Washington, D.C.: The National Rural Center, 1980).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Charles L. Schultze, “The Distribution of Farm Subsidies: Who Gets the Benefits?” (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, February 1971).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ray Marshall and Allen Thompson, “Status and Prospects of Small Farmers in the South” (Atlanta, Georgia: Southern Regional Council, 1978): 1–15.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mike McGraw and Jeff Taylor, “Driven Off the Land,”Kansas City Star, December 11, 1991.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Randall Kramer, “Reexamining Agricultural Policy: Selected Issues and Alternatives,”American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68 (1986): 1088–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    John Zippert, “Changing Public Policy: New Laws Mean More Land, Less Discrimination, for Minority Farmers,”Peace and Justice Journal, 3 (April/May 1989): 4–5.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tesfa Gebremedhin and William M. Johnson, “Small Farm Research and Policy Implications,”Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 17, No. 1 (July 1985): 47–56.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    In 1890, Congress passed legislation now known as the Second Morrill Act. The First Morrill Act, passed in 1862, established federal support for a college or university in each state to provide training in the fields of agriculture, home economics, and the mechanical arts. However, African Americans under a system of legal segregation in the South were excluded from these schools. The Second Morrill Act provided the impetus for the creation of land-grant institutions for African Americans in sixteen southern states. Alcorn was established in 1878 as a land-grant institution under the First Morrill Act. The Second Morrill Act of 1890 also designated Tuskegee University as a Land Grant Institution, thus today making a total of seventeen colleges and universities commonly referred to as the Historically Black Land-Grant Institutions or “the 1890s.” For a more detailed discussion of the historical development of these colleges and universities, see Ralph D. Christy and Lionel Williamson, eds.A Century of Service: Land Grant Colleges and Universities 1890–1990 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1992).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wallace E. Huffman, “Black-White Capital Differences: Impact on Agricultural Productivity in the U.S. South,”The American Economic Review, Vol., 71, No. 1 (March 1981).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thomas T. Williams, “The Role of the 1890 Colleges and Universities in Research on Minority Problems,”American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 50, No. 5 (December 1973): 947–951; B. D. Mayberry (ed.),Development of Research at Historically Black Land Grant Institutions (Tuskegee, AL: The Association of Research Coordinators, Land Grant 1890 Colleges and Universities, Tuskegee Institute, 1977); Fred Humphries, “1890 Land-Grant Institutions: Their Struggles for Survival and Equality,” inA Century of Service: Land Grant Colleges and Universities 1890–1990, ed. Ralph D. Christy and Lionel Williamson (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Magid A. Dagher, Ralph D. Christy, and Patricia E. McLean-Meyinsse, “Limited Resource Farmers and the Marketing System,”American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 73, No. 5 (December 1991): 1485–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adell Brown
  • Ralph D. Christy
  • Tesfa G. Gebremedhin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations