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 - 12. Farm Security Programs
<< 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.
An American Dilemma
276
Many critics of the program have failed to recognize all of these dif-
ficulties, Their criticism should not be directed so much against the Farm
Security Administration as against the traditional social and economic
patterns in Southern agriculture—against the fact that the small entre-
preneur has had so Jittle encouragement, and that the typical tenant has
not been accustomed to much independent action and independent plan-
ning. This is not to say that no mistakes have been committed. There is no
doubt that, particularly during the earlier stages of the development when
there had to be much improvisation and experimentation, several projects
were unnecessarily expensive. Too, there seems to have been some uncer-
tainty about the objectives. The existence of a considerable rural over-
population, the apparent over-production, and the growing belief that
industrial stagnation could never be broken, brought about a wide-spread
feeling that the only solution would be to let the excess population on the
rural farms establish themselves on a basis of almost complete self-suf-
ficiency. The feeling that small owners have difficulties In surviving without
an elaborate system of agricultural cooperation was behind the organiza-
tion of resettlements, where clients were given the chance of becoming
owners while engaged In certain cooperative activities. Certain doubts as to
whether ownership is really the best form of tenure for the small farmer
explain the organization of settlements of rental cooperatives which are
particularly favored by the Southern Tenant Farmers^ Union.*^® These
settlements of various kinds, however, since they are expensive to organize
and since many of them have both Negro and white clients working
together on the same footing, have caused much resentment In the South.
Therefore, this particular part of the program, except for the rental coopera-
tives, is not being pushed any more.
Already before 1935, during the period of the Federal Emergency Relief
Administration (F.E.R.A.), it occurred to some interested persons that it
would be far better to help needy rural families, who were competent and
willing to work, to grow their own food and earn a little cash income on
farms, rather than to give them cash doles. A program to this end was
inaugurated In 1934.^^ The activity was soon taken over by the Resettle-
ment Administration and, later, together with certain related programs
started by other agencies, by the Farm Security Administration, which was
instituted in 1937.
The so-called rehabilitation program, which includes assistance of various
kinds on an individual basis, takes up the major part of the work and the
appropriations of the F.S.A. The total amount of loans made under this
program until the middle of 1941 was $574,000,0005 the grants amounted
to $132,000,000. The South, although containing more than half of the
rural farm population—^and an even greater part of those in need of this
assistance—has received less than hdf (43 per cent) of the loans and
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
