PhD programs for the 21st century. General economics, a root discipline1, has undergone a good deal of soul-searching about the future of economics as a ...
Agricultural Economics PhD Programs in the 21st Century Agricultural Economics Staff Paper #390
1999 David L. Debertin Agricultural economists face a number of important questions or issues in the design of PhD programs for the 21st century. General economics, a root discipline1, has undergone a good deal of soul-searching about the future of economics as a discipline, and the implications for graduate education in economics. The Report of the Commission on Graduate Education in Economics the United States-the so-called COGEE report--(Krueger et al.) was released in 1991. The blue-ribbon panel of general economists writing the report were critical of the current state of graduate education in economics, arguing that too much emphasis is being placed in economics on esoteric mathematical model building that has little relevance to real-world economic problems.
problems based on keen observation of the behavior of individuals, groups and institutions within an economic setting. Some agricultural economists argue that despite its reliance on economic theory, nearly all the research being conducted by agricultural economists is applied - in that the research has as its core basis observable economic phenomena based upon human behavior. Like theoretical physics related to the origins of the universe, much of the most advanced economic research being conducted in what are regarded as the best economics graduate schools has little grounding in observable economic phenomena, and consists of abstract mathematical proofs of economic theories that are seldom verifiable based on data gathered from the real world.
This charge, of course, is not new, and has been the subject of ongoing debate among economists for a long time (For other perspectives on this issue, see articles by Boettke and by Parker). A comparable debate has not taken place within agricultural economics although a starting point for discussion in agricultural economics is Breimyer's article. Breimyer, an agricultural economist, is concerned about many of the same issues raised in the COGEE report. With few exceptions, agricultural economists have largely attempted to stay out of the debate currently going on within the general economics.
Formalist-deductivists vs Generalist-inductivists
Agricultural Economics is Applied Agricultural economics is by its very nature an applied discipline-a discipline that focuses on the application of economic principles taken from general economics to practical, applied
Colander discusses this important distinction in his recent paper, and argues that within general economics, the formalist-deductivists (those good at developing rigorous mathematical proofs of abstract economic theories) have increasingly taken over from the generalist-inductivists (keen observers of economic agents who are good at seeing simple patterns in real-world economic behavior), and from the economists who have skills at both. Colander further stresses that, based on the COGEE findings, within most doctoral programs, the formalist-deductivists are responsible for teaching core PhD-level theory courses. The generalist-inductivists have been pushed into non-core courses if they are permitted to teach at all at the graduate level.
A top-tier formalist-deductivist approach may not represent the ideal theory training for a person who wishes to become an agricultural economist. Agricultural economics focuses on applied problems, and such a focus is more nearly consistent with a generalist-inductivist approach. Casual observation of faculty in my department suggests that agricultural economists departments generally spend little time examining what is being taught to their own PhD students in the micro- and macro-theory courses, and even less often raise questions with respect to the appropriateness of the content for our PhD program. However, even among agricultural economists, some of the ongoing debate within economics on the role of pure theory versus application is unavoidable. Research at what are generally regarded as the top schools for graduate education in agricultural economics has also often tended to become increasingly abstract, and less heavily grounded in observable economic phenomena-following many of the trends underway in general economics. To a certain extent, this research moves away from the historic mission of experiment stations at land grant universities to focus on solving practical problems of importance to rural people. An important question is whether or not graduate education in agricultural economics is better or less well served by this approach to research. At land grant universities, research funding comes largely from state and federal sources via the Hatch act and other grant programs that are focused on finding useful solutions to applied economic problems, and there is little if any funding support for research that is not so grounded in application. Interestingly both the American Economic Association And the American Agricultural Economics Association have begun refereed journals that place less emphasis on esoteric quantitative model building and greater emphasis on a verbal approach to economics rooted in real-world economics (and agricultural economics) problems.
How many PhD programs does agricultural economics really need? Colander reports that, depending on the study, there are perhaps 15 or 20 general economics departments that could be ranked as members of the "top 10", and perhaps as many as 40 or 50 schools that have been ranked within the top 25 programs. Colander then reports that the 15 or 20 schools within the "top 10" group tend to hire graduates from each others' departments, but seldom venture outside the small but highprofile "peer" group. He then suggests that many of the schools outside this small group have much to contribute, and that PhD graduates from outside the top 10 group often look at problems in innovative and novel ways that might be useful in broadening the research paradigm within top-ten schools. But since even the best of the graduates of these departments are almost never given an opportunity to work at a top ten school, they have little influence in shaping the direction of economics within academics. The top ten economics departments represent a small percentage of the total number of economics departments in the US offering Ph.D. degrees in economics, and the graduates of these schools are only a minority of the total Ph.D.s granted in economics nationwide as well. Parker reports that 91 general economics departments produce 90 percent of the Ph.D.s in economics. The situation in agricultural economics is quite different. Perry has conducted several studies that attempt to rank graduate programs in agricultural economics in various ways. The list of top ten schools in agricultural economics he cites (the number of students completing a PhD degree in 1997 are in parentheses) include UC-Berkeley (16), UC-Davis (7), Cornell (9), Illinois (4), Iowa State (10), Maryland (7), Minnesota (13), North Carolina State(5), Purdue (6) and UW Madison (6). These 10 schools accounted for 83 Ph.D.s or nearly ½ of the 168 recipients of Ph.D.s in agricultural economics from schools in the US and Canada in 1997 (Am. J. Agr. Econ.). Hallam (who is employed by Iowa State), in reviewing Perry's article, believes that these ten schools offering Ph.D. degrees in agricultural economics could
basically supply all the Ph.D.s needed for academic departments as well as other positions in agricultural economics in the US. He further suggests that other, presumably lower ranking schools, perhaps do not need to offer a PhD program.2 Not every agricultural economics department offers a PhD degree, but the vast majority-approximately 32 departments3 do. (There far fewer agricultural economics departments than general economics departments.)4 Schools with small graduate student numbers often tend have fewer course offerings separate from general economics course work. Agricultural Economics Programs Remain Unique Colander claims that there is decreasing diversity among economics departments with respect to what is taught among the top-ten schools - that because of the inter-hiring only within the small group of schools thought to be in the peer group, there is little diversity in what is taught or in methodological approaches to research considered acceptable. As I look at the agricultural economics top-ten list, however, I see considerably greater diversity in the kinds of graduate education that would be obtained. An agricultural economics Ph.D. from Purdue would be very different from one obtained from UC-Berkeley, and no one would characterize a North Carolina State ag. econ. Ph.D. as being a clone of one produced by UW-Madison! In my view-the diversity of these graduate programs, along with the additional diversity contained in lower-ranked schools--is a source of great strength in agricultural economics, not a weakness. The "academic arrogance" associated with being listed as a "top 10" agricultural economics department, while still there, does not appear to be as much of a concern or issue within graduate programs in agricultural economics as it is for economics. Even the top-ten ranked agricultural economics departments appear to be more heterogeneous in their approaches to research and graduate education than is apparently due in general economics where the top tier programs
seem to be locked into a shared ratings-driven focus. This is in part due to the differences in applied problems and economic issues faced by the rural residents of each state, but also due to the fact that each of the departments have strong traditions of doing well in certain approaches to learning, areas of specialization and subject matters which they attempt to maintain and improve upon over time. For example, UW-Madison is thought of as the premier department in the subject matter of how institutions affect economic decision making; Berkeley is renowned for its theoretical and quantitative rigor; Purdue has a long history in applied policy analysis at the state and federal level; Illinois has a great tradition in finance; Minnesota in international trade research; North Carolina State for its statistical rigor in empirical analysis, and so on. These reputations for excellence are built over a long period of time and often (and perhaps rightfully) shape prospective students' perceptions of each department: PhD students make choices based on these perceptions, recognizing that the choice of PhD program and school will greatly influence the type of position and where they will likely be employed. The diversity within even the schools listed above suggests that the homogeniety that apparently exists among top ten economics departments from all trying to succeed according to a similar measuring stick is less of a problem within agricultural economics than in general economics. Because of these historic reputations, most agricultural economics departments would seek to hire faculty from as many of the top PhD programs as possible - and not necessarily limit their hirings to only those 10 schools that have been identified in articles that rank departments. Within agricultural economics, there is widespread recognition that students completing degrees from schools outside the top ten list can still bring valued skills and perspectives into a department.
Is there still a role for PhD programs at small agricultural economics departments? The agricultural economics PhD programs that are struggling are those who have not yet crafted a "niche" of excellence for which they are widely known and highly regarded. This issue is more than a question of specialization versus diversification of programs. Traditional areas of specialization in agricultural economics include (1) Production, (2) Resources, (3) Marketing and Trade, and (4) Economic Development (domestic and foreign). In order to offer a PhD program, most agricultural economics departments have traditionally employed faculty in each of these traditional areas of specialization. Newer categories that have been carved out of these additional specializations include areas such as finance and agribusiness management, but these newer areas tend to overlap the areas in the traditional list. For example finance might have applications in production economics and in international development (project analysis); agribusiness management is linked to both marketing and economic development. Further, some of the distinctions between the traditional areas are blurring. To illustrate, production economists now deal with have resource economics implications, and resource economists frequently study environmental issues directly linked to agricultural production activities. A major problem faced by agricultural economics departments large and small in developing a highly regarded PhD program is one of how to optimally carve the areas of emphasis and specialization. In what specific areas should a smaller department focus? Most Ph.D.s in agricultural economics who expect to be employed in an academic positions need some exposure to all of the areas of specialization listed above, in addition to having strong course work in micro- and macroeconomics and quantitative methods, primarily econometrics. In providing the necessary breadth of exposure, the larger departments have advantages in that they
usually employ more faculty in each area of specialization. The larger agricultural economics departments tend to be located at big universities that have considerable depth in the specialization of economics faculty as well. So are there still opportunities for smaller agricultural economics departments to develop first-rate agricultural economics PhD programs? Perhaps! In some ways, an agricultural economics department located in a school that does not have an economics department vying for "top-10" status may get better support than do agricultural economics departments located at schools where the economics department is vying for top-10 status. The less highly regarded economics departments might actually be more interested in and be able to support the kinds of research going on in agricultural economics. The top-10 economics departments can keep their preponderance of faculty focused on formalist-deductivist logic! Agricultural economics, by its grounding in application, is better served with by economists well grounded in a generalist-inductivist logic, and these may tend to be more often found in economics departments that are not striving for a top-10 ranking. Further, it is likely that many of the research problems being studied in these non top-10 general economics departments would be applied, and, while being non-agricultural in nature, would tend to have many similarities. The issue becomes one establishing a program plan capitalizing on the comparative advantage contained in this idea. Historically, the largest and most widelyrecognized agricultural economics departments have had advantages in recruitment of talented new faculty, but the job market for academic positions in agricultural economics over the past ten years has altered that historical advantage. My institution, Kentucky, has been fortunate enough in the past few years to have tenure track positions in agricultural economics vacant during a period of time when there were few tenure track positions in agricultural economics available nationwide. We often had 50-100 applicants for each vacant position and the screening process was extensive.
Concluding comment Graduate education in agricultural economics could be handled by a far smaller number of schools than is currently the case, but at a loss in diversity. It has sometimes been said that the strength of colleges of agriculture at land grant universities lies not in the fact that each of the 50 states approach their respective missions in a very similar manner, but rather because each of the states approaches its missions in a unique way that capitalizes on the peculiar rural problems faced by each state. The same could be said for agricultural economics departments.
Perry, Gregory M. "On Training PhDs in Economics: What Can Economics Programs Learn from Those in Agricultural Economics." Am. J. Agr Econ 80 (August, 1998) 608-615.
Notes 1
Agricultural economics has traditionally drawn not only from economics, but also statistics, operations research, mathematics, decision sciences, business management and many other related disciplines, and these disciplines were often reflected in course plans of PhD. In recent years however, PhD programs in agricultural economics appear to be relying nearly entirely on courses either in agricultural or general economics. Other than for remedial work, even the role of statistics departments appears to have declined, and most agricultural economics programs rely on courses in econometrics taught by econometricians and employed by economics departments.
2
Interestingly, there are several schools that have historically supplied significant numbers of PhD graduates o agricultural economics departments nationwide which are missing from Perry's list. The most obvious omission is Michigan State, but there are several other programs that are highly regarded but omitted as well-schools such as Oregon State and Ohio State, to name two others.
3
A number of agricultural economics departments have PhD programs "on the books," but have either not graduated PhD students in a number of years or only occasionally graduate a student.
4
These departments are located at the 50 designated 1862 land grant universities, although a few of these refer to themselves as departments of applied economics, resource economics or similar title. A number of Canadian schools also have departments. There are a few other agricultural economics departments at non land grant schools, for example Texas Tech. In addition, there are a few departments located at historically black 1890 land grant schools. schools. In 1997, The PhD degree in agricultural economics was only offered by 32 of the 1862 land grant schools in the US, by Texas Tech, and by 3 of the Canadian schools with departments called agricultural economics or a similar title.
References Am. J. Agr Econ."PhD Recipients by Institution, 1997." Am. J. Agr Econ 80 (May, 1998) 438-439. (Data reported here are incomplete of students graduating from schools not listed are by the author). Breimyer, Harold F. "Scientific Principle and Practice in Agricultural Economics: An Historical Review." Am. J. Agr Econ 73 (May, 1991) 243-254. Boettke, Peter. "What is Wrong with Neoclassical Economics (And What is Still Wrong with Austrian Economics)" in Beyond Neoclassical Economics (Edward Elgar Publishing, 1966) (http://www.econ.nyu/user/boettke/wrong.htm). Colander, David. "The Sounds of Silence: The Profession's Response to the COGEE Report. Am. J. Agr Econ 80 (August, 1998) 600-607. Hallam, Arne. "Graduate Education in Economics after the COGEE Report: Discussion. Am. J. Agr Econ 80 (August, 1998) 616-620. Krueger, Anne O. et al. "Report of the Commission on Graduate Education in Economics." Journal of Economic Literature 29(September 1991): 1035-1053. Parker, Richard. "Can Economists Save Economics? " The American Prospect no 13 (Spring, 1993 (http://epn.org/prospect/13/13park.html ).
This publication has not been reviewed by an official departmental committee. The ideas presented and the positions taken are solely those of the author and do not represent the official position of the Agricultural Economics Department, College of Agriculture or The University of Kentucky. Questions should be directed to the author(s).
