Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T11:53:03.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Food and Fiber Commission Report: Implications for the South

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Luther G. Tweeten
Luther G. Tweeten*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
Get access

Extract

The report of the National Advisory Commission on Food and Fiber displays some shortcomings, but in the main is a well conceived and extremely useful contribution to farm policy. My paper will focus principally on the implications of the Food and Fiber Commission recommendations for the South. A secondary objective will be to critique some of the recommendations, and to suggest some possible improvements in the Commission report.

I have divided the recommendations into three categories for this paper: (a) commercial agriculture, (b) world trade, aid and development, and (c) rural poverty and area development. The implications of the latter two categories are presented in a most sketchy manner. I have attempted to be more comprehensive in explaining the implications of policies for commercial agriculture.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , December 1969 , pp. 7 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1969

Access options

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

References

1.Hillman, Jimmye, “Food and Fiber for the Future,” pp. 16-31; In Agricultural Policy Institute, United States Agricultural Policy: Foreign and Domestic, A.P.I. Series 28, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, January, 1968.Google Scholar
2.National Advisory Commission on Food and Fiber, Food and Fiber for the Future, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., July 1967.Google Scholar
3.Tweeten, Luther, “An Economist's View of the Food and Fiber Commission Report,” Agricultural Policy Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1968, pp. 4, 5, 14.Google Scholar
4.Tweeten, Luther and Nelson, Ted, “Sources and Repercussions of Changing U.S. Farm Real Estate Values,” Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station Tech. Bui. T-120, Stillwater, Oklahoma, April, 1966.Google Scholar
5.Tweeten, Luther and Plaxio, James, “Implications for Southern Agricultural Production,” pp. 137–165; In Agricultural Policy Institute, United States Agricultural Policy: Foreign and Domestic, A.P.I. Series 28, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, January, 1968.Google Scholar