Past, present, and future: A perspective

Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Aug 2002 by Ethridge, Don E

I am most honored to be receiving the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Southern Agricultural Economics Association and take great pride in this recognition by my peer group. Since being notified that I would be receiving the award, I have reflected at length on the past 35 years and what the many experiences during that period have meant to me. I have also worried over what I should write in response to this occasion that would be worthwhile. I decided that my thoughts and opinions may be of some interest on two matters: (1) a few of the major lessons that I have learned and (2) the directions in which I see us going as a group of professional applied economists and some opinions on those changes. I believe that we should be willing to express our (hopefully well-reasoned) judgments on matters of our collective interest. Perhaps my remarks will stimulate some healthy debate.

Lessons Learned

While I am often and consistently reminded of how much I do not know, there are some things of which I am pretty certain; I hope they embody some wisdom. These things include the following:

(1) Whatever any of us accomplish is attributable in large part to many other people-our families, our mentors, our colleagues, our students, and others in the larger world with whom we work and interface. This in no way minimizes individual effort and initiative, but in the realm of intellectual and educational activities, where most of us spend most of our time (teaching, research, extension, and even administration), we draw heavily on each other's talents, work, and leadership. Most of us are generally aware of our reliance on these groups, but do we reflect on and appreciate it enough? An important, but sometimes overlooked, part of this contribution is what we learn from our students. I have long recognized that our students will teach us, particularly about the new tools and techniques, if we let them. My own technical training obsolescence would have occurred much earlier if my students had not taught me. My many colleagues and coworkers have helped me in many different ways, and I did not recognize the gifts of some of my teachers and mentors until years later. I hope that what my mentors, colleagues, and students have received from me constitutes a fair bargain.

(2) Learning (the acquisition of knowledge and understanding) is truly a lifelong process. It can occur only when students (all of us) engage as active participants. We should never delude ourselves by thinking that we have achieved mastery of a subject; there is really no such thing. To carry that thought a step further, information may be correct or incorrect, but knowledge has differing degrees of reliability. Knowledge cannot be bad, but people can do good or bad things with it. While I believe it is important for us to be concerned with the process of learning, it remains a mysterious thing.

(3) There is no inherent hierarchy of knowledge or avenues through which to seek it (i.e., research). Disciplinary knowledge is not superior to problem-solving knowledge, but each is important and has its own role or function. Given that, each research activity should be judged on the basis of how well it is done, not by what type of activity it is. I will return to this point in my following remarks.

(4) It is a waste of time to become involved in speculation and gossip on matters that we cannot impact or that are really none of our business. Keeping one's focus on those things for which we are each responsible is a great asset; it enhances productivity and avoids many unnecessary problems. I have seen enough cases of "office gossip" and idle speculation destroying productivity and creating interpersonal problems over the years to develop a strong disdain for it. Related to this lesson is a prescription: When in doubt, extend the benefit of the doubt to others.

Future Directions

Where are we headed as a professional group-as a profession? In looking at this question, I think we always must extrapolate from our past, both recent and distant, but none of us really knows. As I interpret the trends over the past 30 years, I see a few unmistakable patterns. One is that we are becoming stronger and more sophisticated in using quantitative and empirical tools. In this respect, we are true to our empirical roots; we embrace most of the quantitative analytical tools and techniques that we encounter. We have been able to make progress on this front in part because of advancements in computer technology, which have expanded dramatically, particularly in the last decade. We routinely solve algorithms today that we did not even address when I was in graduate school because the computational capacity to solve them did not exist. Our focus on empiricism has generally served us well, and I agree with McCloskey in his contention that if economics wishes to be more "scientific," it should focus itself more like agricultural economics has done. This commitment to quantitative analysis is a widely recognized attribute and asset, even though many of those with whom we work find it a bit mysterious. However, I also think that we are in real danger of carrying this too far-becoming too focused on the techniques themselves rather than on the reasons for using them, a point to which I will return shortly.