3 pages, Figure 1 above appeared on July 31, 2018, in Bloomberg. Bloomberg tweeted this graphic on August 13, and twenty-four hours later it had been retweeted by 84 twitter accounts and “liked” 118 times. Chances are you have seen this graphic on your social media newsfeed (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) by now. It is a novel idea to portray how U.S. land use could be represented across the United States. However, to the casual observer, which is most everyone viewing a graphic on social media, this graphic is misleading.
37 pages., Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic is the most recent example that global development problems can occur anywhere, rebutting the assumption of a world divided into developed and developing countries. Recent scholarship has coined the term “global development” to capture this changing geography of development problems.
Purpose
Our article contributes to these debates by proposing a novel empirical approach to localize global development problems in country contexts worldwide.
Methods and approach
Our approach rests on a universal understanding of “development.” We identify countries that are particularly relevant for global problem-solving and consider not only the problem dimension but also countries’ capacities to address these problems.
Findings
Our results show that countries with the most severe combinations of problems are as diverse as Afghanistan, Nigeria and the United States. Two thirds of countries with above-average contributions to global problems are authoritarian regimes. We also find that middle-income countries have hardly anything in common apart from their income level.
Policy implications
Our analysis shows that traditional development concepts of a binary world order and of foreign aid as financial transfer to remedy imbalances are not enough to address constellations of global problems and capacity that have long evolved beyond rich and poor.
12 pages, We use the 2013 cotton precision farming survey data to study the adoption of irrigation technologies by cotton farmers in 14 states of the United States. We find that farmers with a higher irrigated yield, and who are from the Southern Plains (Texas and Oklahoma), adopt water-efficient irrigation technologies, such as sub-surface drip and trickle irrigation technologies. There are 10 irrigation technologies that farmers can adopt for cotton production in these 14 cotton-growing states. The intensity of the irrigation technologies, as measured by the number of irrigation technologies adopted in cotton production, is affected by the irrigated cotton yield realized, land holding (total land owned), education, computer use, and the origin of the cotton farmer being from the Southern Plains. We use a multivariate fractional regression model to identify land allocation by the different irrigation technologies used. Our results indicate that significant variables affecting land allocation with different irrigation technologies are the age of the operator, the cover crop, the information sources used, the per acre irrigated yield, the education, and the cotton farmer being from the Southern Plains.
12 pages, Food waste and food insecurity are two concurrent major public health issues. To address them, gleaning programs can reduce waste and enhance food security by diverting produce to food pantries. To understand the experiences of farmers and gleaning programs, interviews were completed with 12 farmers who had participated in a gleaning program and 16 farmers who had not donated produce through a gleaning program within the Greater Kansas City metro area. For farmers who had participated in the gleaning program, the ease of donating and tax incentives were primary benefits. Inadequate experience and inefficient volunteers were cited as challenges. Farmers without experience with gleaning programs cited safety and liability issues as concerns. Because farmers communicate frequently with other farmers, food rescue organizations should consider enlisting their support. Communities and government agencies should provide financial support to improve the resources and infrastructure of gleaning organizations to improve farmer-gleaner relationships.
11 pages, Food, waste, and food waste are embroiled in a wide array of political and moral debates in the United States today. These debates are staged across a range of scales and sites—from individual decisions made in front of refrigerators and compost bins to public deliberations on the U.S. Senate and House floors. They often manifest as a moral panic inspiring a range of Americans at seemingly opposed ends of the political spectrum. This article contrasts three distinct sites where food waste is moralized, with the aim of deconstructing connections between discarded food and consumer ethics. In doing so, we argue that across the contemporary American social strata, food waste reduction efforts enfold taken-for-granted ideas of moral justice, or theodicy, that foreground individual responsibility and, as a result, obfuscate broader systemic issues of food inequality perpetuated by late stage capitalism.
Yu Jin (author), Huffman, Wallace E. (author), and Department of Economics, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics
Department of Economics, Iowa State University
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2016
Published:
Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 16 Document Number: D10455
17 pages., Via online journal., This article provides new estimates of the marginal product of public agricultural research and extension on state agricultural productivity for the U.S., using updated data and definitions, and forecasts of future agricultural productivity growth by state. The underlying rationale for a number of important decisions that underlie the data used in cost‐return estimates for public agricultural research and extension are presented. The parameters of the state productivity model are estimated from a panel of contiguous U.S. 48 states from 1970 to 2004. Public research and extension are shown to be substitutes rather than complements. The econometric model of state agricultural TFP predicts growth rates of TFP for two‐thirds of states that is less than the past trend rate. The results and data indicate a real social rate of return to public investments in agricultural research of 67% and to agricultural extension of 100+%. The article concludes with guidance for TFP analyses in other countries.
13 pages, This article looks at the United States’ federal H-2A Temporary Agricultural Visa Program and reforms proposed by the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. In this policy analysis, we draw on media content analysis and qualitative interviews to compare the viewpoints of farmers, workers, grower and worker advocacy groups, intermediary agents, and politicians. We find that perspectives on the program are dependent upon actors’ level of direct interaction with workers. Moderate-sized farmers and regionally based worker advocacy groups tend to be the most concerned with day-to-day program operations and fair working conditions. In contrast, national-level advocacy groups, intermediary agents, and politicians are less critical of the program and seek to broadly expand farmer access to guestworkers, justifying proposed program reforms with discourses of national food security and immigration reform. Ultimately, we suggest that engaging a food systems lens to understand these policies provides a more nuanced perspective, addressing national food security and immigration as related issues.
