Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
The emergence in full flower, during the past twenty years, of the “positive state” has meant a great extension of administrative activity. This activity has been attacked as undemocratic by some persons whose concern was primarily with the programs carried out rather than with the means used to execute the programs. But the friends and even the originators of the programs have sometimes had an uncomfortable feeling that the traditional administrative mechanism has undemocratic tendencies. They have sought some means of democratizing the administrative process.
The most ambitious—indeed, the only thoroughgoing—attempt has been the use by the United States Department of Agriculture of the farmer committee system for the field service administration of agricultural price and income support programs, begun in 1933, and, since 1936, of the Agricultural Conservation Programs. This farmer committee system comprises over 100,000 farmers elected or appointed to serve on approximately 48 state, 3,000 county, and 29,000 community committees. The champions of this system believe that it decentralizes administration, putting authority and responsibility in the hands of those immediately affected by the programs. Further, it supplies new vitality to administration by drawing the clientele into the administrative processes. These objectives have imposed a significant structural requirement upon decentralized administration—the use of the committee system, a plural executive, in preference to a single administrator.
1 For a description and analysis of these programs, see Frischknecht, Reed L., Farm Price and Income Support Programs, 1933–1950, Research Monograph Series: Number One, Institute of Government, University of Utah (Salt Lake City, 1953)Google Scholar.
2 Herein the phrase “national administrative agency” refers to the agency responsible for the execution of the price and income support programs and Agricultural Conservation Programs, that is, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, 1933–1942; the Agricultural Adjustment Agency, 1942–1945; and the Production and Marketing Administration, 1945 to the present.
3 Brannan, Charles F., Secretary of Agriculture, “Democracy Must Go Forward: Address, PMA Annual Conference, 1950” (Washington: Office of the Secretary, Mimeographed, 1950), p. 16Google Scholar.
4 Production and Marketing Administration, Report of the Administrator of the Production and Marketing Administration 1947 (Washington, 1948), p. 8Google Scholar.
5 Hardin, Charles M., “The Politics of Agriculture in the United States,” Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 32, pp. 541–83 (11, 1950), at p. 573CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 See Reorganization of the Department of Agriculture, Hearings before the Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, 82d Cong., 1st sess., on S. Bill 1149, August 28, 1951 (1951), p. 463, where one farmer said: “The abolition of this committee system … would deal a crippling blow to the effective administration of our farm programs.”
7 Letter from Henry A. Wallace, April 5, 1952: “My recollection is that M. L. Wilson, Chester Davis, and myself worked out the ‘farmer committee system.’ I was very proud of this because I looked on these committees as more nearly democracy in action, meeting a national problem at the local level, than anything in the entire national set-up.” See also Lord, Russell, The Agrarian Revival (New York, 1939), p. 147Google Scholar: “[Critics] … liked the contract feature but … [were] not sure the plan could be made democratic with the control decentralized and with the workers, for the most part, unpaid. Wilson persuaded … [many] that it could be done, and … formed a small supporting committee—Henry A. Wallace of Iowa; Louis Clark of Nebraska, a mortgage broker; W. R. Ronald, a small city newspaperman; and R. R. Rogers of New Jersey, a life insurance man. This committee worked without funds or pay.” See also Blaisdell, Donald C., Government and Agriculture (New York, 1940), pp. 166–67Google Scholar: “Among the striking features of the farm program is the marked extent to which farmers and their representatives have become working parts of its operating mechanism. In large measure this development reflects the democratic philosophy of former Secretary Wallace and of former Undersecretary M. L. Wilson…. Mr. Wilson has shown unusual inventiveness. Farmer associations for administering agricultural adjustment … are all based on ideas originally conceived by Mr. Wilson.
“Probably no body of legislation comparable in scope to the farm program goes further in providing effective tools of economic self-government.”
8 Baker, Gladys, The County Agent (Chicago, 1939), p. 94Google Scholar: “The southern state extension leaders … were generally more willing to assume a position of substantial responsibility in their programs than extension leaders in other states.” See also Lord, , The Agrarian Revival, p. 162Google Scholar: “Field action suggestions and orders were wired from Washington to the state directors of extension, partly as a test. Amid the ensuing flareback a circular letter, bluntly drawn, was sent to the governors of the states. It told what was proposed for the alleviation of agricultural distress there, and added that the extension service would probably lead the program in each state; but, if not, a separate state AAA field setup would have to be considered.”
9 Public Law 170, 75th Cong., June 28, 1937. Several state plans were proposed but all were disapproved by the Secretary. Proposals have recently been made for making grants-in-aid to the states for carrying out the Class II or soil building practices under the Agricultural Conservation Programs. See Agricultural Act of 1948, Hearings before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 80th Cong., 2d sess. on S. Bill 2318, April 12–14, 1948 (1948), pp. 1–468. Since these hearings, one state plan has been proposed for administering the Agricultural Conservation Program in Mississippi. (Letter from Clay Lyle, Director, Mississippi State Agricultural Experiment Station and Extension Service, Jan. 3, 1953.)
10 General Farm Legislation, Hearings before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 75th Cong., 2d sess., on S. R. 158, October 4, 1937, Part II (1937), p. 1919.
11 The real core of the problem at that time has been ably described as follows: “‘Give us the money; we'll run our own program. We know this part of the country and these people. You don't.’ This, as ever, was the cry of the state leaders.
“And Washington, retorting: ‘Do you as a state leader put a man in a county, hand him public funds, and simply turn him loose? You don't. And we can't, and won't, take responsibility for the dispersal of all this federal money without a degree of authority as to programs and methods.’
“Lawyers examining the Smith-Lever Act (1914) in Washington found that it gave the Secretary of Agriculture no real authority over the state and county extension forces. Specialists in organization, examining the betangled wildwood of Departmental organization charts, threw up their hands. They called for a New Deal as to organization within the Department.” (Lord, , The Agrarian Revival, p. 163Google Scholar.)
12 Lewis, John D., “Democratic Planning in Agriculture,” this Review, Vol. 35, p. 232–49 (04, 1941), at p. 240Google Scholar.
13 Federal Extension Service, Serving American Agriculture, A Report of Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics in 1933, p. 5: “County Agents devoted a total of 191,346 days to the promotion of the various emergency campaigns.” See also Lord, , The Agrarian Revival, p. 171Google Scholar: “After great adjustment drives in one-crop areas, as many as six or a dozen members of a state extension staff will be temporarily incapacitated by physical and nervous exhaustion. Kansas sent four men to the hospital after the initial drive for wheat reduction in 1934.” William Peterson, Director, Utah State Agricultural Extension Service, reported: “One of the weaknesses of the Extension work in Utah is that the staff, in general, has been driven so hard with the multiplicity of duties, that many are just at the breaking point…. The personnel of the Service has been crowded and driven in a greater urgency than in any other period within my experience.” “Annual Report of Director of Extension, Utah 1935,” typewritten (Logan, 1935), p. 9.
14 For example, see Wheat Section, Production Division, Agricultural Adjustment Administration, Articles of Association of the Wheat Production Control Association (Washington, 1933), p. 1Google Scholar.
15 During the period 1933–34, there were 4,706 production-control associations in operation for the wheat, cotton, corn-hog, and tobacco adjustment programs. See “Summary of the 1934 Agricultural Adjustment Program,” Extension Service Review, Vol. 6, p. 15 (01–Feb., 1935)Google Scholar.
16 United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936).
17 Public Law 461, 74th Cong., Feb. 29, 1936.
18 In the Southern states, the county agricultural agent served as secretary, a member of his staff as treasurer. In other regions, the county agent was usually elected secretary by the board of directors. See Agricultural Adjustment Administration, Agricultural Conservation 1936, A Report of the Activities of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (Washington, 1936), p. 60Google Scholar.
19 In the Northeast Region, the third member did not have to be a board member; in the North Central Region, the county agent served ex officio as a committee member without vote.
20 Production and Marketing Administration, Regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture Governing PMA County and Community Committees 1949 (Washington, 1949), p. 1Google Scholar.
21 Agricultural Adjustment Administration, Agricultural Adjustment, A Report of Administration of the Agricultural Adjustment Act May, 1933, to February, 1934, p. 135.
22 Agricultural Adjustment Administration, Agricultural Conservation 1936 (cited in n. 18), p. 59.
23 Public Law 430, 75th Cong., Feb. 16, 1938. See Section 388 (a): “The provisions of section 8(b) and section 11 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, relating to the utilization of … local committees … shall apply in the administration of this Act; and the Secretary shall, for such purposes, utilize the same local … committees…. ”
24 Public Law 430, 75th Cong., Feb. 16, 1938, Section 101 (b). However, unique arrangements were made between state committees for the administration of programs in inaccessible areas. For example, see Utah State AAA Committee, “Minutes of State Committee Meeting, July 9, 1942,” typewritten (Logan: State Office, 1942), p. 3: “The ACP supervision work of the Goshute Indian Reservation in Juab County, Utah, has been handled up to date by Nevada through the White Pine County Office …. It was the decision of the Utah State Committee that inasmuch as they are willing to continue the work, it should be handled from there.” See also Utah State AAA Committee, “Minutes of State Committee Meeting, March 18, 1942,” typewritten (Logan: State Office, 1942), p. 3: “The Executive Assistant read a letter from Summit County requesting approval of the State Committee for the transfer of farms and ranches in the Lone Tree area in Summit County to Sweetwater County, Wyoming, in order to facilitate supervision. This letter was written upon request of the farmers and ranchers. An explanation was given that it would be more economical to supervise this area from Wyoming than from Utah.”
25 Public Law 430, 75th Cong., Feb. 16, 1938, Section 101 (b). See also the Regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture cited in n. 20, p. 1.
26 In the sparsely settled, or mainly urban, counties, community committees are not utilized. For example, Nevada has no community committees. See Reorganization of the Department of Agriculture, Senate Hearings, August 28, 1951, p. 420.
27 Regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, cited in n. 20.
28 This fact is certainly implied in former Secretary Anderson's response to repeated questions from members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry as to why the national administrative agency had not utilized state committees more and in the manner some witnesses claimed they did: “As we in the Department have indicated on many occasions, we favor giving State Committees as much authority and responsibility as may be practicable and feasible in carrying out the … programs.” See Agricultural Act of 1948 (Senate hearings cited in n. 9), p. 40.
29 Utah State AAA Committee, “Minutes of State Committee Meeting, July 9, 1942,” typewritten (Logan: State Office, 1942), p. 3Google Scholar.
30 Utah State AAA Committee, “Minutes of State Committee Meeting, July 20, 1945” typewritten (Logan: State Office, 1945), p. 1Google Scholar.
31 Ibid.
32 William Peterson, former director of the Utah State Agricultural Extension Service, said in an interview on August 20, 1951: “The people from Washington wanted to take over the county agents to administer the Act; I would not stand for that. Beginning then [1942] the county agent had little to do with administration, but did carry on some educational work.”
33 Utah State AAA Committee, “Minutes of State Committee Meeting, July 20, 1945,” typewritten (Salt Lake City: State Office, 1945), pp. 1–4Google Scholar. Conditions in this county at that time are revealed by the following comment: “Mr. Allred [State Executive Officer] reported to the committee the results of the visit … at ———County. He explained that approximately 300, 1944 applications for payment had been prepared in the office prior to the visit, [and that] County personnel were having difficulty in completing the work because of lack of organization. He explained that … instructions were given for completing the applications. He said that a schedule of work had been set up and assignments made to the County personnel for completing the work.” Utah State AAA Committee, “Minutes of State Committee Meeting, April 5, 1945,” typewritten (Salt Lake City: State Office, 1945), pp. 1–2Google Scholar.
34 Utah State AAA Committee, “Minutes of State Committee Meeting, August 1, 1945,” typewritten (Salt Lake City: State Office, 1945), pp. 2–3Google Scholar.
35 Utah State AAA Committee, “Minutes of State Committee Meeting, September 8, 1949,” typewritten (Salt Lake City: State Office, 1949), p. 3Google Scholar.
36 Warehousing Practices, Commodity Credit Corporation, Department of Agriculture, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the House Committee on Appropriations, 82d Cong., 2nd sess., 01 4, 1952 (Washington, 1952), p. 256Google Scholar.
37 Reorganization of the Department of Agriculture (Senate hearings cited in n. 6), pp. 334–35.
38 Ibid., p. 420.
39 Department of Agriculture Appropriations for 1952, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the House Committee on Appropriations, 82d Cong., 1st sess., Part I, Feb., 1951 (Washington, 1951), p. 599Google Scholar.
40 Utah State AAA Committee, “Minutes of State Committee Meeting, November 10, 1943,” typewritten (Logan: State Office, 1943), p. 3Google Scholar; Utah State AAA Committee, “Minutes of State Committee Meeting, May 3, 1944,” typewritten (Logan: State Office, 1944), p. 3Google Scholar; and Utah State AAA Committee, “Minutes of State Committee Meeting, June 29, 1944,” typewritten (Logan: State Office, 1944), p. 3Google Scholar.
41 Utah State AAA Committee, “Minutes of State Committee Meeting, April 25, 1944,” typewritten (Logan: State Office, 1944), p. 5Google Scholar.
42 Taeusch, Carl, “Schools of Philosophy,” in Yearbook of Agriculture 1940, ed. Hambidge, Gove (Washington, 1940), p. 1122Google Scholar.
43 Long-Range Agricultural Policy and Program, Hearings before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 80th Cong., 1st sess., on S. R. 147, Part II, Oct. 20, 1947 (Washington, 1947), p. 360.
44 One scholar has observed that “the beginning and the end of wisdom in the development of democratic theory [in administration] may lie in the recognition of inevitable limitations of the human material.” See Waldo, Dwight, “Development of Theory of Democratic Administration,” this Review, Vol. 46, pp. 81–103 (03, 1952), at p. 99Google Scholar.
45 Data derived from an analysis of the Annual Reports of the national administrative agency, 1933–52.
46 Ibid.
47 Statement made by a delegate to the Cache County, Utah, Election Convention, Dec. 8, 1950.
48 Utah State PMA Committee, “Importance of Community Committeemen in PMA Activities,” mimeographed (Salt Lake City: State Office, 1951), p. 1Google Scholar.
49 A former state executive officer recently told this writer that “participation was fairly good during the early years. Even good crowds of between 20 and 40 came out. Most of them, however, were not too interested in elections but came out to make sure that nothing happened to decrease their acreage allotments. Sometimes the payment checks were held until election time and given to the farmers at the election meetings, but most farmers came and got their checks and then left. This scheme to get more farmers out to elections didn't work very well. If ten came out to elections between 1937 and 1943, when I left the AAA, it was a good meeting.” See also W. W. Owens, Assistant Director, Utah State Agricultural Extension Service, “Annual Report 1934,” typewritten (Logan: 1934), p. 9. After noting the good attendance at community educational meetings, Mr. Owens observed: “It was not possible to get as many out to subsequent meetings … even for the organization meetings.”
50 See Agriculture Department Appropriation Bill 1943, House Hearings, Part II, 01 24, 1942, p. 727Google Scholar. See also Schmidt, Carl T., American Farmers in the World Crisis (New York, 1941), p. 271Google Scholar: “Despite heavy participation in AAA programs and apparent acceptance of the AAA … the elections of local committeemen are frequently neglected …, in many … no more than fifteen or twenty farmers will turn out for a meeting.”
51 National Farmers Union, Agriculture in the Service of Mankind, The Program of the National Farmers Union Adopted by Delegates to the 40th Annual Convention (Denver, 1946), p. 6Google Scholar.
52 See Long-Range Agricultural Policy, House Hearings, Part III, May 3, 1947, p. 383. See also Goss' statement before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry in 1948 on S. 2318, which provided for a single county-elected committee to administer all departmental programs in each county: “Our general impression is that the proposal presupposes enough interest on the part of farmers to assure widespread participation in elections and selection of men thereby who are trained in meeting technical administrative responsibilities. We are not convinced that the results would be all that we might desire.” Agricultural Act of 1948, Senate hearings (cited in n. 9), p. 141.
53 Elmer Kruse, Manager, Commodity Credit Corporation, “Problems of the Commodity Credit Corporation and Their Relation to the Production and Marketing Administration,” mimeographed (Washington: Production and Marketing Administration, 1948), pp. 2–5Google Scholar: “Is farmer thinking being reflected adequately in the administration of the price support program, especially with regard to local administration … ? I can tell you that it is a question that has been receiving very careful consideration …, nothing is gained … by assuming that operations, because they have always been handled a certain way, must continue to be handled that way…. I would like to suggest that you [state, county, and community committeemen] give particular consideration to the matter of bringing about greater farmer participation.”
54 Owens, W. W., Assistant Director, Utah State Agricultural Extension Service, “Annual Report 1935,” typewritten (Logan, 1935), p. 1Google Scholar.
55 The County Agent, p. 78. See also Agriculture Department Appropriation Bill 1943, House Hearings, Part II, Jan. 24, 1942, p. 727. A survey by the Department of Agriculture in twelve representative counties showed that of the 33 regular county committeemen in eleven counties, 61 per cent had been on the job five years or more; 12 per cent, four years; 12 per cent, three years; 3 per cent, two years; of the rest—about 12 per cent—one year or less. In four counties, all of the committeemen had served five years.
56 See Annual Reports of the Chief of the Agricultural Adjustment Agency, 1943, 1944, 1945, pages 19, 20, and 19, respectively.
57 See Hardin, Charles M., “The Politics of Conservation: An Illustration,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 13, pp. 461–81 (08, 1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 473: “Has the PMA and the AAA before it been employed to further the ends of the Democratic Party? Allegations have been made that the committee system was used to support the Democratic Party organization as early as 1934…. One story which could probably be authenticated has it that a Washington AAA official attempted to use the committee system to collect Democratic campaign contributions in 1942 …, committeemen were given a choice ‘between the hatchet and the Hatch Act.’ In some PMA meetings after the 1948 elections, there was a disposition to claim credit for a share in President Truman's victory. PMA Committeemen were much in evidence at the midwestern Democratic rally in Des Moines, May, 1949….”
58 Trigg, Ralph, “The Job Ahead,” in the “Report of Proceedings of PMA National Conference 1948,” mimeographed (Washington: Office of the Administrator, 1948), p. 5Google Scholar. See also United States Department of Agriculture, Family Farm Policy Review (Washington, 1951), p. 38Google Scholar: “Most county committeemen have been community committeemen and most State committeemen [appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture] have been county committeemen. Many of those in administrative positions in the Department in Washington have come up through the ranks.”
59 Interviews with former and present state and county committeemen who attended these conferences indicate that committee sessions were devoted in earnest to consideration of these matters. This is significant, since many of those interviewed were at that time and still are critics of the Democratic administration's policy.
60 In general the addresses given by top level officials of the Department of Agriculture have not been concerned with problems of administration but with (1) problems of economic distress within agriculture, and (2) possible solutions for such problems. The major role that committeemen should play in providing these solutions has always been emphasized. In this respect, see the addresses by Secretary of Agriculture Charles F. Brannan and William B. Crowley, Assistant Administrator for Production, Production and Marketing Administration, in Report of Proceedings of PMA National Conference 1948.
61 Trigg, Ralph, “The Job Ahead” (cited in n. 58), pp. 7–8Google Scholar. Mr. Trigg reported the process of converting the recommendations into concrete policy as follows: “I asked each PMA Branch Director to study and analyze the reports carefully … [which] relate to the programs on administration of his Branch. I also appointed an over-all committee under the chairmanship of [the] … Director of the Budget and Management Branch…. Their job will be the tabulation and coordination of all recommendations, and the initiation of necessary steps to implement them as fully as possible.”
62 Trigg, Ralph, “Address 1949 National PMA Conference,” mimeographed (Washington: Office of the Administrator, 1949)Google Scholar.
63 See Reorganization of the Department of Agriculture (Senate hearings cited in n. 6), pp. 44–45.
64 The Secretary said: “The work of the committees is intensifying as farm, income drops from postwar peaks and as production adjustments become necessary. Under these circumstances the Nation has reason to be thankful for the existence of a firmly established, democratic system of program administration and development…. All of us will not be 100 per cent satisfied with any legislation and will continue working for improvements—you by submitting recommendations to me through the PMA Administrator and I by working with the Congress — we are going to go right on working to improve the farm program and adapt it to the needs of our day,” “Summary of Remarks, Annual Conference of PMA, Memphis, Tennessee, December 6, 1949,” mimeographed (Washington: Office of the Secretary, 1949), pp. 2–3Google Scholar.
65 Production and Marketing Administration, “Selection, Appointment, and Removal of State PMA Committeemen,” mimeographed (Washington: Office of the Administrator, 1948), p. 1Google Scholar.
66 For example, see Utah State PMA Committee, “Directive to PMA County Committee Chairmen Concerning Employment Procedure for County Offices,” mimeographed (Salt Lake City: State Office, 1950), pp. 1–4Google Scholar.
67 “Reflections on Agricultural Policy Formation in the United States,” this Review, Vol. 42, pp. 881–905 (10, 1948), at p. 884Google Scholar.
68 See “Selection, Appointment, and Removal of State PMA Committeemen” (cited in n. 65), p. 1.
69 United States Department of Agriculture, Family Farm Policy Review, p. 38Google Scholar. Professor Hardin himself has observed elsewhere: “Promotions from county committees to the state PMA committee in one mid-western state, at least, were based not only upon one's Democratic regularity but upon one's belonging to the right faction in the Democratic party—according to the declarations of a number of persons to the writer in 1948–50.” See “The Politics of Conservation: An Illustration” (cited in n. 57), p. 473.
70 One state Farm Bureau Federation urged its members not to participate in the Family Farm Policy Review and concluded: “We have many well-meaning and sincere people on local PMA and County Mobilization Committees throughout the state. I hope you can help them to understand the kind of cloth this thing is made of and the danger of misusing agricultural agencies this way.” See Hill, E. Howard, President, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, “Letter to Farm Bureau Presidents, County Voting Delegates and County Women's Chairmen,” mimeographed (Des Moines: IFBF, 08 16, 1951), p. 1Google Scholar.
71 Ibid. A realistic analysis of the controversy concerning who speaks for the farmers was made in 1949 by Secretary Brannan: “The leaders of some organizations apparently take the view that they and they alone speak for the farmers. They seem to feel that farmers and the Secretary of Agriculture should be gagged and muzzled unless their voices are filtered through the purifying plants of a particular organization.
“Let me tell you how I feel about that. First, we are not in competition with any farm organization…. The organizations have work to do that we can't do. We have work to do that they can't do. Farm people need both kinds of work done. Second, it is useless to argue about who speaks for the farmer. No person can honestly claim that he alone or his organization alone has that privilege. To do so is to sneer at democracy.” “Summary of Remarks, Annual Conference of PMA” (cited in n. 64), pp. 2–3.
72 A leading political scientist has observed: “Laws must be constantly adjusted to meet changed conditions and to reflect experience in their application. The administration in power must inevitably have an important share in the formulation of legislative measures. In our executive-legislative relationships, we have made little provision for an honest recognition of this necessity.” Key, V. O. Jr., “Legislative Control,” in Elements of Public Administration, ed. Marx, Fritz Morstein (New York, 1946), pp. 349–50Google Scholar.
73 TVA and the Grass Roots (Berkeley, Calif., 1949), p. 13Google Scholar: “Cooptation is the process of absorbing new elements into the leadership or policy determining structure of an organization as a means of averting threat to, or increasing its stability or existence.”
74 Ibid., p. 261.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.