Note:
Gunnar Myrdal died in 1987, less than 70 years ago.
Therefore, this work is protected by copyright,
restricting your legal rights to reproduce it.
However, you are welcome to view it on screen, as you do now.
Read more about copyright.
Full resolution (TIFF) - On this page / på denna sida - IV. Economics - 12. New Blows to Southern Agriculture During the ’Thirties: Trends and Policies - 10. Social Evaluation of the A.A.A
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
Chapter 12. New Blows to Southern Agriculture 269
the aim in this respect was ^^reestablishment, at as rapid a rate as the Secre-
tary of Agriculture determines to be practicable and in the general public
interest, of the ratio between the purchasing power of the net income per
person on farms and that of the income per person not on farms that
prevailed during the five year period August 1909-July 1914.”®^
Such an objective is understandable in view of the fact that the relation
between the farm and the nonfarm per capita income in the United States
was 39 per cent less satisfactory, from the viewpoint of the agricultural
population, in 1932 than during the period 1910-1914*®® Yet this develop-
ment, serious though it may be, has never been the only agricultural income
problem. Even before the First World War, there certainly were farm
families, particularly among the Southern Negroes, who in spite of hard
work seldom, if ever, managed to make their living conditions approach a
real health standard. Conversely, even in 1932 many farm families had
incomes high enough to enjoy more than such a standard would indicate.
Nevertheless, in the A.A.A. program no reference is
. . . made to the fact that there are striking differences as to economic conditions
between different groups of the farm population, or that the need for aid is greater
for some groups than for others. The A.A.A. programs are concerned with total
or average income only. . . . A.A.A. contains important elements of long-time planning
already. It is, therefore, difficult to see why so little has been done to secure by legal
provisions certain advantages of the policy for the working classes affiliated with
commercial agriculture.®®
One can explain this on several counts. To limit the programs in this
way was necessary politically in order to organize a united farm bloc.
Public assistance for the needy was to be kept in a separate compartment of
federal activities. In the agricultural economics compartment there was to
be ‘^social neutrality” as far as the income distribution within agriculture
was concerned. In an ‘‘economic” policy there was to be nothing that tasted
of “relief.”
Logically, however, there is a flaw in the argument. As in the case of
other relief appropriations, the idea is that the A.A.A. benefits shall be paid
by the taxpayers of the nation. To give more out of the public budget to
those who have more is not exactly to maintain a position of “social neutral-
ity.” A sample study for 246 Southern plantations shows that the planter’s
average net cash income per plantation was $2,528 in 1934 and $3,590 in
^
937* Out of these amounts not less than $979 and $833, respectively,
came from A.A.A. payments. The tenants on the same plantations, on the
other hand, had a net cash income for these two years of $263 and $300,
respectively, out of which but $ii and $27 were A.A.A. payments.""’ Thus,
even in proportion to their higher “basic” income, the planters received
much more of this assistance than did their plantation tenants.®^ A few
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
