Farmers and landowners are increasingly looking to the federal government for financial support and a comprehensive policy that would encourage the reduction of soil loss on agricultural lands. One general problem has been developing a policy that is both effective and equitable. Of the options available, the most discussed proposal has been the cross-compliance program that bases other agricultural program benefits on the ability of the farmer to meet a specified soil conservation standard. This study concludes that such a policy would have a regressive impact on farmers, and probably consumers, and would in the long run be ineffective.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BUTTEL, F. H. , G. W. GILLESPIE, P. W. LARSON, and C. K. HARRIS (1981) "The social bases of agrarian environmentalism: a comparative analysis of New York and Michigan farm operators."Rural Sociology46: 391-410.
2.
DUNCAN, G. J. (1976) "Food expenditure changes between 1972 and 1974," in G. J. Duncan and J. N. Morgan (eds.) Five Thousand American Families Patterns of Economic Progress, Vol. 4. Ann Arbor: Institute of Social Research, University of Michigan.
3.
EARLE, R. R. , C. W. ROSE, and A. A. BROWNLEE (1979) "Socio-economic predictors of intention toward soil conservation and their implication in environmental management."J. of Environmental Management9: 225-236.
4.
HOIBERG, E. O. and G. L. BULTENA (1981) "Farm operator attitudes toward governmental involvement in agriculture."Rural Sociology46: 381-390.
5.
KORSCHING, P. F. (1984) "Farm structural characteristics, institutional support, and the use of soil and water conservation technologies." Presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists, Nashville, TN.
6.
MORRISON, D. E. and R. E. DUNLAP (forthcoming) "Is environmentalism elitist?" in F. H. Buttel and C. R. Humphrey (eds.) Environment and Society. University Park: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press.
7.
NULTY, L. E. (1977) Understanding the New Inflation: The Importance of the Basic Necessities. Washington, DC: Exploratory Project for Economic Alternatives.
8.
PAMPEL, F. and J. C. VAN ES (1977) "Environmental quality and issues of adoption research."Rural Sociology42: 57-71.
9.
RISSER, J. (1983) "Less carrot, more stick in erosion fight."Des Moines Register (July 3): 1-1.
10.
RODEFELD, R. (1978) "The causes of change in farm technology, size, and organizational structure," in R. Rodefeld, J. Flora, D. Voth, I. Fujimoto, and J. Converse (eds.) Change in Rural America. St. Louis, MO: C. V. Mosby.
11.
SANDBACH, F. (1978) "A future look at the environment as a political issue."Int. J. of Environmental Studies12: 99-110.
12.
SCHNAIBERG, A. (1975) "Social synthesis of the societal-environmental dialectic: the Role of distributional impacts,"Social Sci. Q.56: 5-20.
13.
SENECA, J. J. and M. K. TAUSSIG (1979) Environmental Economics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
14.
SILLS, D. L. (1975) "The environmental movement and its critics."Human Ecology3: 1-41.
15.
SINCLAIR, W. (1982) "Plowing a political minefield."Columbia Daily Tribune (February 21): 57-57.
16.
TAYLOR, D. L. and W. J. MILLER (1978) "The adoption process and environmental innovations: a case study of a government project."Rural Sociology43: 634-648.
17.
TUCKER, W. (1982kProgress and Privilege: America in the Age of Environmentalism. New York: Anchor Press.
18.
WISCHIMEIR, W. H. and D. D. SMITH (1978) Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide to Conservation Planning. Agriculture Handbook No. 537. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service.
