Whither rural economics in Cambridge?

Rural Economics in Cambridge

Ian Hodge Professor of Rural Economy

For many years the University, alongside other universities and colleges, has contributed to the Farm Business Survey. In fact, this has run annually since 1936. This year the Department for Environment, Food and Rural A airs (DEFRA), following a process of tendering, has decided to move the contract to a new contractor, Promar International, a commercial consultancy company. The aim here is not to reflect on the wisdom or otherwise of this move. Su ce it to say that the move from a non-profit, independent partnership with very strong, longstanding personal relationships with farmers, to a commercial company risks a major break in the continuity of the data on the state of farm businesses at a time when the agricultural sector is facing a period of major upheaval.

Coupled with my retirement as Professor of Rural Economy, this looks like it could be an end of an era for agricultural and rural economics in Cambridge. Dr Zhaoyang Liu (Leo), appointed as my replacement, is a specialist in the economics of ecosystem services in China and developing countries. He has valiantly taken on teaching of Paper 16, Land, Food and Ecosystem Services (previously Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development), with its UK rural land focus but this is not, at this stage anyway, the focus of his scholarship.

The first formal engagement in this area dates back at least to the endowment of the Lectureship in the History and Economics of Agriculture by Sir Walter Gilbey in 1896. In 1917 Sir William Dampier, Senior Tutor at Trinity, produced a flysheet advocating the creation of a ‘great School of Rural Economy’. This didn’t come to pass although estate management was introduced with the establishment of a University Readership in Estate Management in 1919. Work on farm accounting had been pioneered by Dampier, as reported in his presidential address to the Agricultural Economics Society in 1930. From Cambridge, J. A. Venn, R. McG. Carslaw and Dampier were all involved in various ways in the establishment of the Farm Management Survey1 (FMS).

The FMS, subsequently the Farm Business Survey (FBS), was undertaken in the Farm Economics Branch until the closure of the School of Agriculture in 1969 when it was transferred with the Agricultural Economics Unit into the Department of Land Economy under the Directorship of Ford Sturrock. Ian Sturgess took over the Directorship in 1977. At that time the Unit undertook a range of projects for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) alongside the FBS, notably

Lyn Hinton on Horticulture or Bob Ridgeon on pigs. Michael Murphy, who led the FBS work, was well known amongst the farming community for his quickfire and often rather pessimistic presentations. At this time, the funding available from MAFF also supported half of the Director’s salary and a further research post, held by John Cathie, that made a significant contribution to teaching in the Department and wider research activity. Many graduates will recall Michael Murphy’s first year statistics lectures.

The AEU became the Rural Business Unit (RBU) in 1998 better to reflect the focus of its activities. Alan Renwick took over from Ian Sturgess and Ben Lang in turn from him. Over time the work for MAFF and subsequently DEFRA, increasingly focused on the FBS, including its on-line dissemination for benchmarking and other applications maintained by Mark Reader, to the point where the FBS dominated the work of the RBU. Other work in the RBU includes the agri benchmark Cash Crop analysis, generating international comparisons of farm business statistics, and participation in the University NERC funded Centre for Landscape Recovery project in the Fens. But the loss of the FBS represents a severe blow to the RBU.

The holders of the Gilbey lectureship (Venn, Whetham, Wallace, Hodge) have provided another stream of teaching, research and engagement in wider rural policy issues. There was a brief flowering of rural economic research in the late1990s and early 2000s under the aegis of Cambridge Rural Economics Research by Alan Renwick, Uwe Latcz-Lohmann and me. However Uwe’s departure to a professorship at the University of Kiel, Alan ultimately to a professorship at the University of Lincoln in New Zealand and my distraction as Head of Department brought things to an end.

While the numbers have been small, Cambridge has made a significant contribution to rural economics over the years.

The case for rural economics

JA Venn2, (Gilbey Lecturer and President of Queens’ College) in 1933, defined the subject as follows: “If in Marshall’s words ‘Economics is the study of man’s actions in the ordinary business of life’. Then Agricultural Economics is clearly the study of man in his relation to the land.” That remains the case (excepting the inappropriately gendered language) but our appreciation of the nature and significance of land has changed. In Venn’s time, the use of land for the production of food and fibre dominated human endeavours around the world. We now recognise the critical importance of rural land as a source of multiple values. We understand better the influence of alternative land uses on flood risks in the face of increasing climate variability, the threats associated with biodiversity loss, the importance of soils as a store of carbon, the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and the importance of access to nature and open space as o ering recreation, health and psychological benefits to a pressured, largely urban population.

Other than agricultural commodities, these values are not delivered by markets, although an understanding of markets (and their failure) is fundamental to an understanding of the economics of land. These values are generally, especially in an ‘old world’ context such as in the UK, generated under multiple land uses. Some values are complementary: landscapes rich in biodiversity typically hold higher levels of carbon and o er attractive landscapes for recreation. Some, especially more intensive farming practices, are deeply damaging to other values. The consistent delivery of these values typically depends on a long term commitment, beyond the span of individual occupiers. Further, these multiple land values are situated within complex institutional environments of property rights, competing and aligned interests, uneven power and profound moral debates.

All this complexity represents a fundamental challenge for the development of governance and policy to promote sustainable ‘optimal’ land use outcomes. The immediacy of the issues arises not simply from the exigencies of the climate and biodiversity emergencies or the recent reassertion of the critical importance of food and energy security. Following Brexit we have a one-time opportunity to forge new approaches; an opportunity that the current government might, if reports in the media are correct, be minded to throw away.

These are fundamental questions for rural economics, alongside other disciplines in law and social and natural sciences. Land use and management is dominated by private property and personal motivations but the values are of great social consequence. This is the challenge for policy: to grasp the importance of the science, derive appreciation of the many values and to craft institutions to direct motivations and actions towards socially desired outcomes. This is the realm for a contemporary rural land economy.