Nelson, Gleen L. (author / Resident Fellow, National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.; Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Minnesota)
Format:
Conference paper
Publication Date:
1984-12
Published:
USA: Ames, IA : American Agricultural Economics Association.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 87 Document Number: C05831
AGE 85925357; Paper presented at the "Annual Meeting at the American agricultural economics Association," 1984, August 5 - 8; Ithaca, NY, This paper addresses issues surrounding a paradigm for rural development. The first section develops further the consequences of the lack of a generally accepted paradigm. The following three sections present elements of a framework by focusing in turn on target variables, policy instruments, and the structural relationships which link causal factors and target variables. The final section draws conclusions about developing better paradigms and improved policy analysis.
AGE 84925163, The study evaluates 145 health care programs that were implemented in the 1970s to serve nonmetropolitan populations in the United States. The evaluation employs multiple indicator unobserved variable models to disaggregate the effects of the socio-environmental milieu; i.e., education, income, racial composition, poverty, housing conditions, crowding, occupation structure, and rural health care programs on physician availability and two health status indicators--neonatal mortality and post-neonatal mortality. The results show that rural health care programs did not increase the availability of physicians in the targeted areas. However, implementation of the programs contributed significantly to lowering the neonatal mortality rate.
AGRICOLA IND 92034694, The cooperative extension system in American agriculture is widely viewed as the paradigmatic public sector technology transfer system. Empirical evidence supports the view that research and extension are complementary inputs in increasing agricultural productivity. Cooperative extension, however, does not perceive itself as a technology transfer system; but as an informal education system. Many participants at the federal, land grant university, or county levels in cooperative extension would not recognize their work within a technology transfer framework. Moreover, many would object to such a characterization of their work. The differences in perspective is accounted for, in part, by the fact that agricultural extension is part of the larger system of cooperative extension. This system, which encompasses agriculture, home economics, 4-H and community and rural development, requires a more encompassing framework than technology transfer to provide an integrated rationale for its program elements. Within the technology transfer framework, the roles of the different components of the system across the states are both highly variable and changing. Based on site interviews in nine states, analysis is presented of the current and prospective roles of extension specialists and county agents. (original)
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 195 Document Number: D07934
Notes:
John L. Woods Collection, RB #353. Development Training and Communication Planning, United Nations Development Training and Communication Planning Asia and Pacific Programme, Bangkok, Thailand. 10 pages.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 95 Document Number: C07436
Notes:
INTERPAKS; copy in ACDC files, In: M. Drosdoff, ed. World food issues, 2nd ed. Ithaca, NY: Center for the Analysis of World Food Issues, Cornell University, 1984. p. 73-78., Discusses two competing communication strategies. One is a descendent of traditional extension philosophy, which emerged in the US and was developed in the first half of the 20th century. The second is related to the emergence in recent years of the concepts of "integration" and "participation" in rural development. Describes and analyzes each of these strategies and the issues they pose.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 95 Document Number: C07428
Notes:
INTERPAKS, In: D.F. Cusack, ed. Agroclimate information for development : reviving the Green Revolution. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1983. p. 313-329., Addresses the challenges of the information revolution with particular emphasis on using agroclimate information for agricultural development: 1) how to sort out and organize the information already available; 2) how to identify and collect the right kinds of information; 3) how to absorb, analyze, and interpret the information; and 4) how to put it to work for the benefit of humankind. Presents a model of process approach by which agroclimate information may be transferred to benefit agricultural development.
