scholarly journals SOME THOUGHTS ON THE ROLE OF THE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS PROFESSION IN AUSTRALIA*

1969 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross M. Parish
1993 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wayne D. Purcell

AbstractMorale and faculty development are closely related. The agricultural economics profession must decide what it is about. There is room to practice the principle of comparative advantage and allow a degree of specialization in teaching, extension, and research. To continue in the role of an applied discipline, there must also be an opportunity for the young professional to establish rapport with, and understanding of, the private sector and the policy-making arena. If that is to happen, there must be encouragement in the institutional setting and by faculty colleagues who respect the importance of investment in building rapport and in establishing credibility. If that environment is present, morale should be good and faculty development will occur.


1976 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur J. Coutu

This paper is another of many that looks into a hazy future. The overall purpose is to identify some possible departmental strategies for the agricultural economics profession. These strategies follow from a discussion of the status of higher education, a review of findings from the Carnegie Commission reports, and from a study on alternative organizational structures—particularly institutes and centers.Strategies for the next decade relate to a serious set of issues particularly crucial to social science departments within universities. The issues seem related to clarifying the role of agricultural economics, to increased linkage of professional and political decision types, to greater balance of theory and empiricism on complex societal problems, and to increased concern for indirect effects of scientific and technological developments.


2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 862-922 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurizio Canavari ◽  
Andreas C Drichoutis ◽  
Jayson L Lusk ◽  
Rodolfo M Nayga

Abstract In this paper, we review recent advances in experimental auctions and provide practical advice and guidelines for researchers. We focus on issues related to randomisation to treatment and causal identification of treatment effects, design issues such as selection between different elicitation formats, multiple auction groups in a single session and house money effects. We also discuss sample size and power analysis issues in relation to recent trends in experimental research about pre-registration and pre-analysis plans. We position our discussion with respect to how the agricultural economics profession could benefit from practices adapted in the experimental economics community. We then present the pros and cons of moving auction studies from the laboratory to the field and review the recent literature on behavioural factors that have been identified as important for auction outcomes.


Author(s):  
Marion Clawson

In the past 75 years agricultural economics as a professional field has evolved from a relatively small and fragmented group of concerns into a large professional activity, with highly developed theory, sophisticated research techniques, much data, and many outputs. Agricultural economists have developed, during the same time and as part of the same process, from a small number of pioneers, often shrewd and hardheaded men, but typically not well-trained by today's standards, into a large, well-populated, well-trained profession with many subfields. Agricultural economists today have permeated many aspects of modern American life—fact of which we boast, and one which some of our critics may deplore. How this came about, and what our role is or might be today, are the subjects of this paper.


1993 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph D. Christy

AbstractThis address is directed toward applied economists as they provide information to private and public decision makers. Central to this discussion is the role of markets as institutions in achieving society's desired ends. Current “economic correctness”–the view that unfettered markets are superior in achieving efficiency, growth, and welfare-has attempted to return a larger role to the private sector, but the relative roles of market-oriented versus government-oriented solutions to problems are often not well appraised. Views presented herein calls for agricultural economists to move simultaneously toward an understanding of the strategic behavior of firms in imperfectly competitive markets and toward an adoption of policy analysis consistent with a socially complex and globally integrated economy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document