Abstract

The current crisis in U.S. agriculture has broadcast a rather simplex message. It is that the traditional family farm is in serious trouble. This message is apparent in the agricultural programs that have emerged in direct response to the farm crisis. Using Michigan's experience as illustration, these programs are shown to share similar objectives supported by a singular policy orientation. They utilize a ‘farm as firm’ model and treat the small farm operation as the unit of problem analysis and remedial action. They focus attention inward upon the ‘victim’ and attempt to change the victim's behavior through improved farm and farmer management.The paper considers the limitations inherent in this prevailing orientation. At the same time, it argues for the utility of an alternative perspective—one that places the farm in a wider context and considers the relationships between the farmer/victim and those who are more powerful—locally, nationally, and internationally. It advocates the need for research and programs that question these extra-farm relationships and their implications for farmer behavior. If agricultural programs are to assist the family farm, on any but a short-term basis, it is these relationships, and not the farmer, that must be changed