H ISTORICALLY a dichotomous rural-urban philosophy has characterized the United States social, economic and political environment. This traditional framework serves as a basis for contemporary rural and urban research and extension programs. But in many ways this dichotomous framework has hampered past research and extension programs in both the rural and urban sectors and promises to hamper future efforts even more. The underlying premise here, contrary to this philosophic framework, is that problems of economic efficiency can best be . viewed in terms of the interactions between these sectors. It follows that public research and extension efforts should be problem, rather than sector, oriented.With the land-grant college system and the cooperative extension service, an elaborate institutional structure has developed in the rural sector. The benefits to the agricultural sector from these institutions are wellknown and need not be detailed here. On the other hand, because the importance of allocating research resources to urban problems has been recognized only more recently, public urban research is relatively new. Consequently, the urban sector lacks an institutional framework for developing and implementing a comprehensive program to deal with urban problems.Yet the need is increasing for urban institutions oriented toward research and extension in such areas as adult education and retraining, city-county planning, and consumer marketing information and protection. Currently some of these needs are not being adequately met while others are fulfilled by various unrelated-and often uncoordinatedagencies. A single coordinated institution, however, could fulfill the needs of a variety of urban programs, such as home management services, urban safety programs and those listed above, much as the agricultural extension service now serves the rural sector.This paper discusses the implications of the traditional urban-rural philosophy for public research policy, suggests means of reconciliation o The authors are grateful to the faculty and graduate students of the Department of Agricultural Economics and H. Struck of the Department of English, Michigan State University, for helpful criticisms and suggestions durmg the development of this paper. J. N. UHL AND G. E. ROSSMILLER are graduate research assistants in agricultural economics, Michigan State University.
No abstract
When the trade ministers of the member nations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) gathered in Punta del Este in September 1986 to kick off the Uruguay Round of GATT trade negotiations, agricultural trade tensions were running high. Weak demand and good harvests had contributed to a rapid buildup in surplus agricultural stocks, and government agricultural support budgets were running out of control, particularly in the United States and the European Community (EC). There were intense pressures on trade ministers to bring agricultural program budgets and agricultural trade tensions under control.Thus began the Uruguay Round, which promised to be different from past rounds with regard to agriculture. For the first time, countries recognized the need to reform their domestic agricultural policies in order for trade liberalization to take place during the GATT negotiations on agriculture.BACKGROUND TO THE APRIL AGREEMENT In July 1987, the United States tabled its bold and sweeping proposal for agricultural reform in the GATT. It called simply for elimination of all agricultural subsidies and import access barriers to agricultural trade within a 10-year period, the so-called "zero option." Other negotiating groups, namely the EC, the Cairns Group, Canada, Japan, and the Nordic countries, quickly followed with their own proposals.The EC focused on short-term measures to calm the international agricultural markets and to reduce budget costs by increasing international agricultural prices. For the long term, they proposed significant reductions in trade-distorting agricultural support, but certainly not elimination of all trade-distorting government intervention.The Cairns Group proposed a short-term freeze and early reductions in tradedistorting support to show the seriousness of their commitment, with a long-term phasing out of trade-distorting subsidies and access barriers. The Japanese suggested that the main trade issues were a problem of the exporting countries and that major food importers should receive special consideration, including guarantees of access to sources of supply for food security reasons. The Nordic coun-
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.