THE IMPACT OF NON-FARM OCCUPATIONS UPON SELECTED ATTITUDE CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM RESIDENTS Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ALLAN D. STEEVES 1967 11:1331? “ '1}? Michiga “1‘1 eat: Univet‘sxty III III IIIIIIIIIIII ' ., 319123 10751 0459 This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE IMPACT OF NON-FARM OCCUPATIONS UPON SELECTED ATTITUDE CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM RESIDENTS. presented by ALLAN D. STEEVES has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Eh.D . degree in_S_Q_C_i_QlQEI lg; 7m Cl169 ‘m' '32? E" alnsmc av HUAG 8 SUNS' 305W BINIIFIIY INC. I Hi ‘qv; . E99 1 ABSTRACT THE IMPACT OF NON-FARM OCCUPATIONS UPON SELECTED ATTITUDE CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM RESIDENTS‘ by Allan D. Steeves Investigated was the degree to which non-farm occupa- tions affected selected attitude characteristics of rural farm residents after age, education and income differences had been controlled. Data were gathered in two closely coordinated state— wide farm operator surveys in Michigan and Wisconsin during the spring of 1965. Comparability checks with the 1964 Census of Agriculture indicated the Michigan sample to be essentially representative of the same universe while the Wisconsin sample was not. In all, 804 useable interviews were obtained in Michigan and another 425 in Wisconsin. For selected sections of the analysis the two were combined giving an enlarged sample N of 1229. An elaboration of contingency tables analysis was used. The results indicated 43% of Michigan farm operators were working off—farm 20 or more hours a week at the time of the study. Twenty—two percent of the Wisconsin operators worked off—farm 100 or more days in 1964. In Michigan Allan D. Steeves another 33% had worked off—farm full time in the past. Indeed 43% of the respondents not presently working off the farm 20 or more hours a week had earned income from off-farm work in 1964. Only 24% of the farm operators had never worked full time off-farm. Although the study indicated differences between farmers and those who had held off-farm jobs on attitudes toward collectivism, government involvement in agriculture, change orientation and industrial dissatisfaction, these differences largely disappeared after age, education and income variables were controlled. This finding suggests that the distinctive class and status positions of farmers as againstthose involved in other industries would be more instrumental in eXplaining attitudinal differences than is the distinctiveness of the occupational setting. The study is also suggestive of the degree of growing interdependence between farm and urban occupational sectors in highly industrialized settings. THE IMPACT OF NON-FARM OCCUPATIONS UPON SELECTED ATTITUDE CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM.RESIDENTS BY Allan D: Steeves A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1967 6- +1 14') 5"»; a-e“3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Although custom dictates, readers often smile at the consistent form which dissertation authors follow in dis- tributing claim for the modest contributions of their work. This form, with minor variations, acknowledges the under- standing of committee members, the tangible support of financial sources, the patience of typists, the emotional support of family members, and terminates exonerating all of the above from any blame for the study's negative qualities. I too have smiled, but find upon reversal of reader-author roles, the custom, often beguiled by me in others, suddenly deemed highly appropriate. Humility is not easily under— stood until experienced. For the facilitation of my chairman D. E. Morrison, the encouragement of J. A. Beegle, the critical reasoning of S. F. Camilleri, and the attentiveness of W. H. Form, I am grateful. The value of experience is often not appreciated until its necessity is encountered. For financial support, the assistance of the Agri— cultural Experiment Stations at both Michigan State University and the University of Wisconsin in the data gathering stages, and the Canada Council for fellowship support in the latter ii stages of analysis and reporting, must be gratefully acknowledged. My remaining gratitude, I prefer to distribute among my brother John, my Mother, the Almighty and the unmentioned in approximately that order. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE Statement of the Problem Theoretical Framework Variable Structure of the Problem Theoretical Relationships and Hypotheses Recapitulation II. THE EMPIRICAL SETTING Comparative Reward Structures of Agri- culture and Non-Agricultural Industries Occupational Structure of the Rural Farm Residence Category Rates of Multiple Jobholding in Agriculture Summary III. OPERATIONAL STRATEGY Description of the Data Measurement Strategy Appraisal of the Data Analytical Design and Operational Hypotheses IV. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS . . . . Reporting Format Analysis and Results Individualism-Collectivism Pro-Government--Anti-Government Change Orientation Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction Summary of Results iv Page 15 31 33 35 35 38 4O 43 44 44 48 57 59 65 65 66 66 75 83 89 98 51 T\\v~ nu... n...“ It»... u y. ...‘~ A... . 5"“ Chapter Page V. DYNAMICS OF THE RELATIONSHIPS AND THE EXPLANATION OF INCONSISTENCIES . . . . . . . 102 Individualism—Collectivism 102 Pro-Government--Anti-Government 110 Change Orientation 117 Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction 122 Reconciliation of Collectivism and Dissatisfaction Themes 128 Summary 136 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . 137 APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l8l Q. h. \. Table 4.1 LIST OF TABLES Uncontrolled Present-Farmer Collectivism Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . Collectivism: Present-Farmer Off-Farm Work Comparisons (Michigan Study) Age, Edu- cation, Income Controlled Simultaneously Uncontrolled "Present," "Past," "Never" Off-Farm WOrk Comparisons: Collectivism (Michigan Study) . . . . . . . . . . . Collectivism: Present, Past, Never Off- Farm WOrk Comparisons (Michigan Study) Age, Edu- cation, Income Controlled Simultaneously . Collectivism: Years Off-Farm WOrk Con— trolled For Years Managing A Farm . Collectivism: Labor Union Membership Con— trolled For Present-Past Off-Farm Work (Michigan Study) . . . . . . . . . . . Uncontrolled Present—Farmer Pro—Government Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pro-Government: Present-Farmer Off—Farm WOrk Comparisons (Michigan Study) Age, Edu- cation, Income Controlled Simultaneously Uncontrolled "Present," "Past," "Never" Off- Farm WOrk Comparisons: Pro-Government Orientations (Michigan Study) . . . . Pro-Government: Present, Past, Never Off- Farm WOrk Comparisons (Michigan Study) Age, Education, Income Controlled Simultaneously . . . . . . Pro-Government: In Agriculture: Years Off— Farm Employment Controlled For Years Managing A Farm Sequentially And Simultaneously . . . . . . . . vi Page 68 69 7O 72 73 74 76 77 78 8O 81 N. A/\ Table 4.21 Pro-Government in Agriculture: Labor Union Membership Controlled For Present—Past Off-Farm WOrk (Michigan Study) . . . . Uncontrolled Present-Farmer Traditionalism Comparisons . . . . . . . . Traditionalism: Present-Farmer Off-Farm Work Comparisons (Michigan Study) Age, Education, Income Controlled Simultaneously . . . . . . . . . Uncontrolled "Present," "Past," "Never" Off- Farm WOrk Comparisons: Traditionalism (MiChigan StUdY) O O O O O O O O O O O Traditionalism: Present, Past, Never Off- Farm Work Comparisons (Michigan Study) Age, Education, Income Controlled Simultaneously . . . . . . . . . . Traditionalism: Years Off-Farm WOrk Con- trolled Eor Years Managing A Farm Both Se- quentially And Simultaneously . . . . . Traditionalism: Labor Union Membership Con- trolled For Present-Past Off-Farm WOrk (Michigan Study) . . . . . . . . . . . Uncontrolled Present-Farmer Dissatisfaction Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . Dissatisfaction: Present-Farmer Off-Farm W0rk Comparisons (Michigan Study) Age, Education, Income Controlled Simultaneously . . . . . . . . Uncontrolled "Present," "Past," "Never" Off— Farm WOrk Comparisons: Dissatisfaction (Michigan Study) . . . . . . . . Dissatisfaction: Present, Past, Never Off- Farm WOrk Comparisons (Michigan Study) Age, Education, Income Controlled Simultaneously . . . . . . . . . Dissatisfaction: Years Off-Farm Work Con- trolled For Years Managing A Farm Both Se- quentially And Simultaneously . . . . vii Page 82 84 86 87 88 9O 91 92 93 94 96 97 19. II1 Page Dissatisfaction: Labor Union Membership Controlled For Present—Past Off-Farm WOrk (Michigan Study) . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Collectivism: Present-Farmer Comparisons; Age and Education Sequentially Controlled . 103 Collectivism: Present-Farmer Comparisons (Michigan Study) Education, Income; Age, Education; Age, Income; Controlled Simultaneously . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Collectivism: Present, Past, Never Com- parisons; Age, Education, Income Con— trolled Sequentially . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Collectivism: Present, Past, Never Com— parisons (Michigan Study) Education, In- come; Age, Education; Age, Income; Con- trolled Simultaneously . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Pro-Government In Agriculture: Present- Farmer Comparisons Age, Education and In- come Controlled Sequentially . . . . . . . . 111 Pro—Government In Agriculture: Present- Farmer Comparisons (Michigan Study) Edu— cation, Income; Age, Education; Age, In- come; Controlled Simultaneously . . . . . . 114 Pro-Government: Present, Past, Never Com— parisons; Age, Education, Income Controlled Sequentially . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Pro-Government in Agriculture: Present, Past, Never Comparisons (Michigan Study) Edu- cation, Income; Age, Income; Controlled Simultaneously . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Traditionalism: Present—Farmer Comparisons; Age, Education and Income Controlled Sequentially . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Traditionalism: Present-Farmer Comparisons (Michigan Study) Education, Income; Age, Education; Age, Income; Controlled Simultaneously . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 viii Table 5.11 5.12 5.16 Traditionalism: Present, Past, Never Com— parisons; Age Education, Income Controlled Sequentially . . . . Traditionalism: Present, Past, Never Com- parisons (Michigan Study) Education, In- come; Age, Education; Age, Income; Con- trolled Simultaneously . . . . Dissatisfaction: Present—Farmer Compari- sons; Age, Education and Income Con- trolled Sequentially . . . . . . . . Dissatisfaction: Present-Farmer Compari- sons (Michigan Study) Education, Income; Age, Education; Age, Income Controlled Simultaneously . . . . . . . . . . . . Dissatisfaction: Present, Past, Never Com- parisons (Michigan) Age, Education, In- come Controlled Sequentially . . . . Dissatisfaction: Present, Past, Never Com- parisons (Michigan Study) Education, In- come; Age, Education; Age, Income; Con— trolled Simultaneously . . . . . . . . Selected Characteristics of "Present," "Past," And "Never" Sets-—Michigan APPENDIX A Trends In Farm Inputs By Type of Input Selected Measures of Income of Persons 1950 and 1960 By Residence, Sex and Color: United States . . . . . . . . . . . Earning in 1959 Of Persons In the Experi- enced Civilian Labor Force, By Occu— pation and Sex, For the United States: 1960 O O O O O O O O O O O I O o O O 0 Farms in the U.S. Selling Products Valued At Specific Amounts . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 120 121 123 124 126 127 131 148 149 150 151 1: t‘ Table 10. 11. 12. 13. Farms in Michigan Selling Products Valued At Specific Amounts Farms in Wisconsin Selling Products Valued At Specific Amounts . . Estimated Number of Farms, Income, and Parity Income Positions of Farms by Eco- nomic Class, 1965 . . . . . . Occupation of Employed Labor Force by Resi— dence For U.S.A., Michigan, Wisconsin; 1960 u o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Occupation of Employed Males by Residence; 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . Occupation of EmpIOyed Males by Residence; 1960 O O O O I O O C o O 0 O o O 0 Changes in Time Spent At Off—Farm WOrk by Farm Operators (Nation) . . . Michigan Farm Operators Reporting Off-Farm WOrk . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wisconsin Farm Operators Reporting Off—Farm WOrk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B Comparative Distributions of Off-Farm WOrk: 1964 Census of Agriculture and Michigan Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparative Distributions Off-Farm WOrk: 1964 Census of Agriculture and Wisconsin Survey . . . . . Comparative 1964 Census of Agriculture and Survey Age Distributions For Michigan and Wisconsin Farm Operators . . Comparative 1964 Census of Agriculture and Survey Education Distributions For Michi- gan and Wisconsin Farm Operators . Page 152 153 154 155 156 158 159 160 161 163 163 164 165 Table 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Figure Comparative 1964 Census of Agriculture and Survey Gross Farm Sales Distributions For Michigan and Wisconsin Farm Operators Individualism-Collectivism: Combined Item— Item Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . Individualism-Collectivism: Michigan Item- Item Correlations . . . . . . . . . . Individualism-Collectivism: Wisconsin Item— Item Correlations . . . . . . . Pro-Government--Anti-Government in Agri- culture: Combined Item-Item Correlations Pro-Government--Anti-Government in Agri- culture: Michigan Item—Item Correlations Pro-Government--Anti-Government in Agri- culture: Wisconsin Item—Item Correlations . . . . . . . . Change Orientation: Combined Item-Item Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . Change Orientation: Michigan Item-Item Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . Change Orientation: Wisconsin Item-Item Correlations . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction (Alienation): Combined Item-Item Correlations . . . Satisfaction—Dissatisfaction (Alienation): Michigan Item-Item Correlations . Satisfaction—Dissatisfaction (Alienation): Wisconsin Item-Item Correlations . Occupational Distribution (Farm Occupations Excluded) of the Employed Labor Force for the U.S.A.; by Rural and Urban Residence: 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Page 166 167 168 169 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 157 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE Statement of the Problem In this thesis I investigate the impact of nonfarm work upon selected attitudes of rural-farm residents. The particular attitudes chosen for investigation are (1) individualism—collectivism; (2) pro-government--anti- government; (3) traditionality-modernity; and (4) satisfactionr dissatisfaction. Literature on the problem indicated that important determinants of attitudinal structures measured by non-farm work experience are (1) the more bureaucratic nature of the organization of work in nonfarm settings; and (2) the increased degree of interpersonal Contact with those holding more urban-industrial value sets. I shall argue that the ef- fects of these determinants are negligible in highly in- dustrialized settings after age, education and income have been controlled. This argument is based upon theoretical reasoning initiated by theories of "metropolitan dominance" and the "End of Ideology." In aggregate, such an argument is a step toward urging an increased emphasis upon the factors of social organization promoting or inhibiting the inte— gration (rather than segregation) of the rural and urban sectors in highly industrial social systems. !» y In. . .2 .1. hi,- us- Although the impact of industrial technology and the structure of factory organizations upon agrarian workers in settings at all stages of industrial development has been much studied, there is little investigation of the direct attitudinal impacts. The essential issue to which these studies are addressed is the degree to which factory organi- zation and technology alter demographic and ecological pat- terns of social organization. The predispositional effects are normally inferred only indirectly. These studies may be characterized by those focussing upon: (1) the study of geographic migration using primarily demographic techniques;1 (2) the impact of residential back- ground (farm—nonfarm) on rates of mobility (actual or per- ceived) in the urban-occupational structure;2 (3) the analysis 1See the work cited in Donald J. Bogue, "Internal Mi— gration," The Study of Population, ed. by Philip M. Hauser and Otis Dudley Duncan (Chicago, 111.: The University of Chicago Press, c1959), 486-509; and J. Allan Beegle, "Popu— lation Changes and Their Relationship to Changes in Social Structure," Sociologia Ruralis, 14:3-4 (1964), 238-252. 2Essentially this set of studies may be divided into two sub-sets: (1) those concerned with measuring actual rural-urban rates and their determinants--for example, Seymour Martin Lipset, "Social Mobility and Urbanization," Rural Sociology, XX:3—4 (Sept.—Dec., 1955), 220-228; Peter M. Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan, The American Occupational Structure (New York: John Wiley and Sons, c1967), 277—294; and (2) those concerned with measuring the barriers to occu— pational mobility perceived by rural adolescents. See the work cited in William H. Sewell and Alan M. Orenstein, "Community of Residence and Occupational Choice," American Journal of Sociology, LXX (March, 1965), 551—563; Archie O. Heller and William H. Sewell, "Farm Residence and Levels of Educational and Occupational Aspiration," American Journal of Sociology, LXII (January, 1957), 407—411; and 5.» -.~ boy- (I: III .— v of barriers to assimilation of the rural—farm population in- to urbanvindustrial structures;1 (4) the impacts of in- dustrialization and modernization and the changing distri— bution of resources governed by altered stratification sys- tems;2 and finally (5) the study defined in anthrOpological literature as the "interface problem."3 Walter L. Slocum, "The Influence of Reference Group Values on Educational Aspirations of Rural High School Students," Rural Sociology, XXXII:3 (September, 1967), 269—277. 1For interesting work taking this sort of approach done in Europe see G. Beijer, Rural Migrants in Urban Setting (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1963); For work done in Israel see S. N. Eisenstadt, The Absorption of Immigrants (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1954). For reference to the NOrth American literature in this set see J. Allan Beegle, "Sociological Aspects of Changes in Farm Labor Force," Labor Mobility and Population in Agriculture (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, c1961), 73-81; Charles Tilly, Migration To An American City (Agricultural Experiment Station and division of Urban Affairs, University of Delaware in co- operation with Farm Population Branch, Economic Research Service, U.S.D.A., April, 1965); also Allan D. Steeves, "A Study of Internal Migration with Specific Reference to the Flow of People From the Atlantic Provinces to Guelph, Ontario" (unpublished M.S.A. thesis, University of Toronto, 1964). 2See Clark Kerr et al., Industrialism and Industrial Egg (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964); Neil J. Smelser, Social Change in the Industrial Revolution (Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press, 1959); Richard D. Lambert, "The Modernization of the Labor Force," Moderni- zation, ed. by Myron Weiner (N3‘Y.: Basic Books, 1966); Bert F. Hoselitz, "Interaction Between Industrial and Pre- Industrial Stratification Systems,"_§gcia1 Structure and Mo— bility in Economic Development, ed. by Neil J. Smelser and Seymour M. Lipset (Chicago, 111.: Aldine, c1966), 177-193. 3See Wilbert E. Moore, Industrialization and Labor (Ithaca and New York: Cornell University Press, c1951); this approach is also evidenced in the edited volume by Wilbert E. Moore, and Arnold Feldman, Labor Commitment and Social Change in Developing Areas (N.Y.: Social Science Research Council, c1960). See also Peter WOrsely, The Third WOrld (Chicago, Deg. .. . .. ~u shy. "R: ‘u. ‘7’1 A weakness common to all of these studies is that they do not separate the effects of residence and occupation when inferring predispositional changes.1 Rather, the ef- fects of altered residence and occupation are confounded and the effects attributed to some combination of both. In this study I address the more restricted question of occupational impact while essentially controlling for rural—farm residence in a highly industrial setting. Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework for this study emerges from a synthesis of four distinct areas of sociological interest. Initially, stimulation was provided by the assertion that urban residential structures marked by high population size, density, and heterogeneous cultural backgrounds have unique effects upon their individual constituents.2 Debate 111.: The University of Chicago Press, c1964); Manning Nash, Primitive and Peasant Economic Systems (San Francisco, Calif.: Chandler Publishing Co., c1966); Clifford Geertz (ed.), Old Societies and New States (N.Y.: Free Press, c1963); Max Gluckman, Order and Rebellion in Tribal Africa (N.Y.: Glen— coe Free Press, c1963). 1Two worthwhile exceptions to this criticism are William A. Faunce and M. Joseph Smucker, "Industrialization and Community Status Structure," American Sociological Review, XXXI:3 (June, 1966), 390-399; and M. Joseph Smucker, ”Com- munity Status Systems and Appraisal of Life Conditions” (un— published paper presented at the Midwest Sociological Associ- ation Meetings, April, 1967). 2See Louis Wirth, "Urbanism As A Way of Life,” Ameri- can Journal of Sociology, XLIV (July, 1938), 1-18. Also see Ferdinand Toennies,_§ommunity and Association (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1955). a . ¢‘~ A; ~..~ s on precisely what impacts these residential settings have takes place both in rural and urban sociology.l Alex Inkeles and others have argued that the in— dustrial work setting, manifested principally in factory and corporate structures, has a universally distinctive impact upon the personality structures of those who work within it, regardless of the cultural context. The resulting model has been described as "Industrial Man" and more recently ”Modern Man." They conceive the impact of the industrial setting as a “syndrome" of distinctive characteristics which have a tendency to vary together and develop according to the con— ditions imposed upon the work environment by technology and factory settings. The basic Inkeles propositions are that ”modern man” incorporates the conditions of his own change into his pattern of activity and that his readiness for change clearly demarcates him from the "traditional" cohort, who depend upon lOscar Lewis asserts that, "It is in the evaluation of the personality of the urban dweller that urban theory has gone furthest afield. It leaps from the analysis of the social system to conjecture about individual personality; it is based not on solid psychological theory but on personal values, analogies, and outmoded physiopsychological concepts. . . . The delineation of the urbanite as blasé, indifferent, calculating, utilitarian, and rational (presumably as a de- fensive reaction to preserve his nervous system from the ex— cessive shocks and stimuli of city life, suffering from anonymity and anomie, being more conscious and intellectual than his country brother yet feeling less deeply remain mere statements of faith." See "The Folk-Urban Ideal Types," Philip M. Hauser and Leo F. Schnore (eds.), The Study of urbanization (N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons, 1965), p. 496. nyA a y--.— . any; :., «v. u ~ (A! "t learned ways of acting, thinking, and feeling to guide their present and future activity.1 This variable shall be an im- portant dependent theme in this thesis. The point of departure of this thesis is that the in- verse argument may also apply: Highly industrial settings may be conducive to the adoption of "modern ideologies," re- gardless of whether the constituents are occupationally in- volved in highly bureaucratic factory environments. In other words, either characteristic is both necessary and sufficient for the development of attitudinal structures regarded as "modern." This idea suggests that "Industrial Man" may ap- pear in the absence of highly developed industrial factory 0C=<2upational settings. All that is required is a residential or institutional structure modelled after urban-industrial Set—‘tings. A third set of issues to which I address this Study emerge from the research literature on social mo- bil ity. American studies of social mobility have concen— tra ted primarily upon the study of upward mobility through t . . he occupational structure and Simultaneously, but secondarily, \ Zat . 1.The basic theoretical position and operationali- A]. lon of this work is laid out in the follow1ng papers: 66?): Inkeles, "Industrial Man, " American Journal of.Sociology, 013-4 (July, 1960), 1-31; Alex Inkeles, "The Modernization Bo man," in Modernization, Myron Weiner (ed.) (N.Y.: Ba51c Seeks, 138-150); David Smith and Alex Inkeles, "The O.M. vi:16: A Comparative Socio-Psychological Measure of Indi- Aleual Modernity," Sociometry, 29:4 (Dec., 1966), 353-377; X Inkeles, Becoming Modern (forthcoming) - 1 Day .4». 1» n... n 0“ ”1 UV .a-A u 'v . ‘o‘. It) . ‘ , C.”- ‘~..E through the class structure. In contrast, this study may be conceived as a study of "proletarianization" which is de- fined as the process of converting land owners and operators 1 to wage earners. The impact of proletarianization upon attitudes, values and beliefs has been of theoretical importance since the time of the industrial revolution and remains so, par- ticularly in the developing nations of the world where private ownership is being rapidly replaced by new forms of corporate ownership. Much of the importance of the process is due to the fact that considerable class, status and prestige has ac- Cr ued to the owners of land and property in all societies Since the inception of property rights and the growth of stable community structures. The relinquishing of this privilege may therefore involve downward mobility in some Sense. The study of "proletarianization" has been ignored by American sociologists. This neglect may be attributed paIT‘tially to (l) the Marxian overtones; (2) the concentration upon the issue of an "old middle class" in transition rather \ of This definition is essentially the same as that Grfexed by Archibald O. Haller. See his "Urban Economic. lgowth and Changes in Rural Stratification: Rio de Janeiro, Mes 3-62" (Paper prepared for and presented at the Annual Fletings of the American Sociological Association, Miami, . lyag’ 1966), p. 2. Haller has, in this definition, essential- o - Ollowed Alfred Meusel, "Proletariat," Ency_clopedia of the N Sciences (New York: 1933, reprinted e MacMillan Co., Ptember, 1951), pp. 510—518. than in discontinuity; and finally (3) to the restrictions imposed by the rural-urban cleavage within the discipline of sociology. An emphasis upon continuity rather than dis- creteness led stratificationists to study the mobility of members of the "old middle class" both intergenerationally and intragenerationally into "the new middle class" com— prised of managers and other white collar workers in the tra- dition of the mythical Horatio A1ger.1 It was a process of proletarianization to which the Russian Revolution of 1917 is frequently attributed. Much labor unrest in many emerging Latin American nations is also attributed to this process. It is out of a combination of diSsatisfaction and collectivism that these social movements aI‘ise. The predispositions of dissatisfaction and collectiv- ism shall form important dependent themes in this thesis. \ v? 1For literature on this set of issues see: R. Richard 10111, "The Rags to Riches Story: An Episode of Secular ideal- M3111," in Class, Status and Power, Reinhard Bendix and Seymour I ‘ Lipset (eds.) (Glencoe, 111.: Illinois Free Press, 1953). bgdeed it might well be argued that the cases of downward mo- 6 3‘1 ity have been best documented by novelists. See for ex- ample: Sinclair Lewis, Babbit (New York: Harcourt, Brace M26 Company): Bud Schulberg, What Makes Sammy Run (New York: (Ndern Library, 1952); Arthur Miller, Death of a Salesman Ste“ York: The Viking Press, Campus Books, 1958); John 9% inbeck, The Grapes of Wrath (New York: A Bantam Book published by arrangement with The Viking Press, Inc., c1939) . mo - For a review of some of the literature on downward Skit? :Llity see Harold L. Wilensky and Hugh Edwards, "The Arm3L<3der: Ideological Adjustments of Downward Mobile Workers," wean Sociological Review, XXIV (April, 1959), 215—231. 13' . 2For a general review of the literature on social mo- 8:1 lty up until the end of the 1950's the classic work is inthour Martin Lipset and Reinhard Bendix, Social Mobility Wustrial Society (Berkeley and Los Angeles, Calif.: The collectivism and dissatisfaction of a "proletariat" with rural backgrounds, mediated by conditions of employment inse- curity, lack of training, economic deprivation, and social discontinuity, many authors note, often becomes translated i nto militant extremism . University of California Press, c1959) . I believe that this work will now be largely superceded by the work contained in Peter Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan, The Occupational Structure of the United States (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967) . For the relationship between mobility and attitude changes see Robert K. Merton, and Alice S. Kitt, "Reference Group Theory and Social Mobility,” in Class, Status and Power, lst ed., op. cit., 1953, p. 403; Also Andrezj Malewski, "The Degree of Status Incongruence and Its Effects," Class, Status and Power, Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds.) (2nd ed.; New York: Free Press, c1966), pp. 303-308. For the interpersonal interaction consequences of mo— bility see Peter Blau, "Occupational Mobility and Interperson- a1 Relations," American Sociological Review, XXXI (1956), 290- 295 . Also Richard E. Curtis, "Occupational Mobility and Urban s"~-'3’<:::ial Life," American Journal of Sociology, LXV (1959—1960), 296-298. For some of the structural consequences of occupation— a1 mobility, see Gino Germani, "Social and Political Conse- quences of Mobility," Social Structure and Mobility, in Neil E ‘ Smelser and Seymour Lipset, op. cit., 1966. A130 see orlald Freedman and Amos H. Hawley, "Migration and Occu- pa tional Mobility in the Depression," American Journal of w, LV (1949-1950), 171-177. b For an analysis of the rate of flow across stratum c)L-lhdaries in the U.S.A. see the excellent analysis by Peter M‘ Blau, "The Flow of Occupational Supply and Recruitment," \Zunezrican Sociological Review, XXX (August, 1965), p. 490. 1For reference to studies in this vein see John C. Leggett, "Uprootedness and Working Class Consciousness," glue :lcican Journal of Sociology, LXVIII:6 (May, 1963), 682-692 nd , "Economic Insecurity and Working Class Con- :gicusness," American Sociological Review XXIX (April, 1964), th6~234. Also see Maurice Zeitlin, "Economic Insecurity and lee - Political Attitudes of Cuban Workers," American Soc10-.- Emal Review, XXXI:1 (February, 1966), 35—51 together with Camés Petras and Maurice Zeitlin, "Miners and Agrarian Radi- 113m," American Sociological Review, XXXII:4 (August, 196'7) , 578-586. 10 A final set of interests rests on Moore's assertion that social stratification (unequal rewards for social per— :Eormance) rests on the differential talents of individuals. fie argues that ”existing systems tend to transform inequality Therefore, c>f position into inequality of opportunity." ”(Commitment to a system of rewards based on merit and mo- lajfility consistent with talent and training may require the l Iparrticipant to alter the system as well as his place in it." The argument on the differential functional importance C>if positions fits neatly into the classical debate in eco- The essential proposition nomics on the mobility of labor. (>11. mobility of factors of production was developed in terms C315 the theory of "comparative advantage" first stated by Sthi;th and later elaborated by Ricardo. The argument stems fl31>an the classical assumption that the nature of labor was 5‘ f1c>mogeneous, fluid mass flowing from position to position VVFIEBIuever opportunity costs were not covered. The antagonists have argued that labor is rather a heterogeneous non-competing set of status groups with both d - C O I C I J‘islfferential access and restraining barriers to various so- cfiLEill. positions. It is in the investigation of the __““‘_‘ %§E§¥E§;_and Social Change in Developing Areas (New York: lveence Research Council, c1960), p. 69. 2For a discussion see Harry G. Brainard, Inter- al Economics and Public Policy (New York: Henry Holt M and Co. , c1954) , . 114-129. Labor Commit- Social 1Wilbert E. Moore and Arnold Feldman, 11 heterogenity of labor and the barriers restraining mobility that economics and sociology supplement each other. In economics, essentially three kinds of impediments to the transfer of labor from agriculture have been con- .sidered. They are: (l) unemployment in the non-farm sector; (2) imperfect knowledge in the labor market; and (3) re- enaurce fixities in agriculture. The first argument holds tJuat labor mobility from the agricultural sector is tied to 'tlie non—agricultural unemployment rate. As the unemployment Jrarte increases, mobility from agriculture will decrease. flTIiis thesis was given contemporary importance by Bishop1 and its most convincing presentation by Perkins and Hathaway. 1Entry into some of the better work in this theoreti- Cal tradition particularly with respect to labor flows out C’if agriculture, may be gained through the following materials: (3" 13. Bishop, "Economic Aspects of Changes in Farm Labor," in léééléfipr Mobility and Population in Agriculture (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, c1961), p. 36; C. E. Bishop, IPEaltfin Labor in the United States (New York: Columbia Uni- ‘Ieaicwsity Press, c1967); Bishop also contributed two of the €3E351TJLy pieces which pointed out the effect of the non- :3E371?:icultural industrial structure (particularly the employ- eent rate) upon labor flows from agriculture. See his "Under- ITVEDJLoyment of Labor in Southeastern Agriculture," Journal of liEiEEEED Economics (December, 1954), p. 1151. (3 2The most recent study which vastly improves the evi- aence on this subject is that presented by Brian B. Perkins :fr1<3_ Dale E. Hathaway, Movement of Labor Between Farm and None 'ESEEEEEQ_£22§ (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State UniverSity E:CJJC’chultural Experiment Station, Department of Agricultural CO nomics, 1966), Research Bulletin 13. I) Also important in this regard is the following study: F218 E. Hathaway and Arley D. Waldo, MultipleJobholding by jgésEZILTOperators (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State Uni- cursity, Agricultural Experiment Station Department of Agri— 1VtWJral Economics, 1964), Research Bulletin 5. 12 The “imperfect knowledge" thesis maintains that communication Tbetween non-farm employers and potential employees from the farm sector is poorly developed, introducing inefficiency in- to the labor market allocation of labor.1 Finally, the "as- set fixities" explanation maintains that an asset is fixed in aagriculture when its net earnings are less than its acqui- ssition costs but greater than its salvage value.2 In summary, this study seeks to integrate theoretical :iriterests in the impact of community residence structure, so- <::ia1 mobility, and occupational setting on the attitudes, Vraalues and beliefs of farm residents in a highly industrial S etting . I therefore choose to follow the work of Donald Bogue who maintains that, \ 1The information hypothesis was developed by D. Gale Johnson in the following articles: "Functioning of the Labor M? rket," Journal of Farm Economics (February, 1951); "Poli— cies and Procedures to Facilitate Desirable Shifts of Man- ?OWer," Journal of Farm Economics (November, 1951); and ALébor Mobility and Agricultural Adjustment," in Agricultural wstment Problems in a Growing Economy (Ames, Iowa: Iowa éte College Press, 1958); and "Policies to Improve the Labor TITalmsfer Process," American Economic Review (May, 1960) . For I:<fl"~3.‘.lltional information on this hypothesis see Archibald O. (2:1 :Ler and William H. Sewell, "Occupational Choices of Wis- 11 Sea ssin Farm Boys," Rural Sociology, XXXII (March, 1967); R&1§?Trlour Martin Lipset, "Social Mobility and Urbanization," ES~JEE§11,Sociologya XX:3-4 (September—December, 1955), 220-228; ' 3E). Geschwind and Vernon W. Ruttan,_Job Mobility and M1- figEFEISiion in a Low Income Rural Communipy (Lafayette, Ind.: serd ue Agricultural Experiment Station, September, 1961), Re— Eill‘ch Bulletin 730. G1_ 2The "fixed assets".hypothesis has been developed by A 91.11'1 L. Johnson, "Supply Function—-Some Facts and Notions," IO:E;-"~<=Liltura1 Adjustment Problems in a Grow1ng Economy (Ames, £3: Iowa State College Press, 1958), 78. 13 Within highly industrialized societies, metropolitan structures emerge which exercise an organizing and integrating influence upon the sodial organization of a broad expanse of territory far beyond its civil boundaries and thereby dominates populations within this area of influence.1 Traditionally, social distance was closely "tied“ to Iohysical distance. In highly industrial settings technology lias assisted in "untying" this relationship. Communications saystems and transportation systems increasingly remove physi— c:al.distance and social isolation as a parameter of social cairganization. Such a position is not new. Durkheim commented : Territorial divisions are thus less and less grounded in the nature of things, and consequently, lose their significance. We can almost say that a people is as much more advanced as territorial di- visions are more superficial. On the other hand, at the same time that the segmental organization is thus effaced, occupational organization comes out of its torpor more and more.2 Thus the urban industrial institutional sphere has been ex- tzealixfled to the rural hinterland altering localistic and small (:CDTTInnunity forms of social organization. \ 1Probably the classic statement of "Metropolitan C>rrldinance t. Theory" was by Donald J. Bogue, The Structure of jgle§L1_M§E£opolitan Community: A Study of Dominance and Sub- 'EEEEELQEEQBEE (Ann Arbor: Rackham School of Graduate Studies, “31:13\Iersity Of Michigan, 1950). See also more recent state- EfiilfiVtzs by Harold Goldsmith and James H. Copp, ”Metropolitan Du. fiLnance and Agriculture," Rural Sociology, XXIX (1964), 5::“ 385-395. Rupert Vance and Sara Smith, "Metropolitan a 1T1:iLnance and Integration," in Hatt and Reiss (eds.), Cities ril§1__§pgiggy (New York: The Free Press, 1964). t 2Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, riiifs. by George Simpson (New York: The Free Press, c1933), ‘ £37. 14 This body of theory may be related in its impli- cations for attitude, value and belief structures of indi- viduals through the work of Daniel Bell, Edward Shils and S. M. Lipset. These authors maintain that ideological differ- ences are largely wiped out in highly developed nations by elaborate trans— advanced and universal communication media, the recession of isolation, the elabor- portation systems , atixan of national markets, policies, educational systems and! other systems of social exchange, that create a structure iJI Vehich role sets are highly differentiated and intermeshed: thllss reducing distinctive cultural value positions through Taken to eXtsansive cross-pressuring of the role occupants. :itis logical extreme, this theoretical stance suggests that OCCupational variation has little effect upon ideological differences and predisposition structures between agricultur- EVL 61nd non—agricultural sectors in highly industrialized con- tea3*‘tt:s.l Indeed it suggests few fundamental differences ireannaain. This position related to Bogue's idea of urban in- Ciulsrtrial dominance implies that ideology in urban—industrial EsertPtings may be diffused throughout the metropolitan area as W . . €31~las its hinterland without the direct phys1ca1 involve— Such n“$3111: of the individual in the industrial work setting. \\y\\\> EQYmour Martin (Lipset, ngpany, Inc., c1960), pp. 439-456. c5L1nt see Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology (Glencoe: Free Press, 1960). 1For a brief elaboration of ideas in this area see Doubleday & Political Man (New York: For a more detailed ac- The 15 developments in industrial settings are manifested by the de- cline of a distinctive agrarian institutional structure, which is being replaced by the consolidation of education systems and political regions together with the centralization of service centers as agriculture becomes increasingly com— mercial and small local communities give way to larger re- gional exchange systems with urban loci. Given this theoretical operator, the variable nature Of the problem must now be made explicit. Variable Structure of the Problem Jdependent Variable The central independent variable in this study is "degree of off—farm work contact." Its strategic theoretical importance, has already been explicated. This variable is intlended to measure the degree to which farm owner operators haVe had actual work experience in a non-farm occupational Setting. Sc3%rol Variables Many studies have shown that off-farm work is se- lective for young and for highly educated farm residents. The se studies also demonstrate that these persons earn hiSher net family incomes than the. remainder of the farm 1: . I . esidence category. Therefore, in order to av01d as much as pQSsible the spurious attribution of variation on the 16 dependent variables to the independent variable, the de- cision was made to control age, education and net family in- come in the design of this study. Empirically these three variables clearly are most systematically related to occu— pational mobility out of agriculture. Their theoretical bearing must now be discussed in the context of effect upon attitudinal characteristics and the structure of metropolitan dom i na nce . Education and income are universalistic criteria of evaluation used in role assignment in industrial societies. In contrast to particularistic criteria of evaluation such as age and sex traditionally used to assign role and status b . lExemplary studies finding a relationship between age; and non-farm work among rural-farm residents include: G- 8' Tolley and H. W. Hjort, "Age Mobility and Southern Farmer Skill," 'Journal of Farm Economics, XLV (February, 1963), 31— 46 7 Arley D. Waldo, "The Off-Farm Employment of Farm Oper- 61.:ch in the United States" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ml(lhigan State University, 1962); Karl E. Taeuber, "The Resi- CieIIt-ial Redistribution. of Farm Born Cohorts," Rural Sociology, II:1 (March, 1967), 20—36; Don Kanel, "Farm Adjustments by 29$ Groups, North Central States 1950-1959," Journal of Farm W, x1.v:1 (February, 1963), 47—60. ed Studies finding a consistent relationship between clucation and non-farm work among rural-farm residents in— a ude: Brian B. Perkins, "Labor Mobility Between the Farm Mr'ld the Nonfarm Sector" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Mlchigan State University, 1964); William H. Sewell and Allan Ar; Orenstein, "Community of Residence and Occupational Choice," D\e:l:ican Journal of Sociology, LXX (March, 1965), 551-553; R. <3eschwind and V. W. Ruttan, op. cit.; and Arley D. Waldo, Ib\io Studies finding a consistent relationship between net Eamily income and non-farm work among rural farm residents Anelude: Arley D. Waldo, Ibid.; Brian B. Perkins, Ibid.; rley D. Waldo, "The Impact of Outmigration and Multiple Job— Igglciling Upon Income Distribution in Agriculture," Journal of % Economics, XLVII:5 (December, 1965), 1235-1244. - . "o-~ A» “-Lu 9"?» e .- haw-ab , H-”‘ .e»... (u (I, C); n \‘A‘ ((1 a... a C.» an 1, V-nv ‘ n.‘ - ‘~o "'-. . 1». "—u. 0 Q‘ -P‘In Q‘.“ (1 D (I! I): r ). I M r '9 17 duties, universalistic criteria represent the degree to which activities are assigned on the basis of achievement rather than ascription. Universalistic criteria of achieve- ment gain importance in industrial societies and presumably also in industrial agriculture. Since education and income are demonstrably good measures of socio—economic status in industrial structures and socio-economic status has been shown to be to a large extent determinant of many industrial attitudinal characteristics, their control in this problem would appear mandatory in order to avoid as much spurious at- tribution of variance on the attitudinal variables to "off- farm work contact" as possible. Age also must be carefully controlled. There is clear evidence that mobility rates decline with age due to differences in (1) education; (2) the differences in the lifetime over which the transfer costs (which may be in- flated because of mobility impediments) are to be spread; (3) to the differences in ownership of fixed assets; and (4) to age ceilings on unskilled and skilled labor in the non- farm labor force. It is also clear that younger individuals would be socialized into a more urban-industrial set of values than those who were older. Transition in the insti- tutional structure of agriculture has been its trademark over the last century. In fact Moore indicates that this transition is accelerating through time, if the rate of de— cline of the agricultural labor force may be used as an q .,~. .ud- ‘sr... Dc nun I ’1 -“-. "‘.b ,- u. e... ' 18 indicator. He found that for the 19th century, the average annual rate of decline was 0.43, for the period 1900—1950 the annual rate was 0.51, and for 1950-1960 the rate was 0.67.1 The argument that those who are younger are social- ized into a more highly industrial set of values and beliefs implicitly asserts a social lag in the value transition of those who are older and committed to more traditional ways. Let it be explicit here. Each of these variables 143 also to a substantial ex- tent instrumental in differentially assigning individuals to interaction sets. Those with higher education and income levels are more likely to interact with others at similar levels. Members of age cohorts associate more closely with- in the cohort rather than across cohort 1ines. Differential interaction rates as well as socio-economic status levels lead to differential predispositional structures. There are of course, a large number of other vari- ables which could conceivably be differentially related to attitude formation. For example, type of farm, major enter- prise on farm, organizational memberships, community orien— tation, etc.‘ In terms of this study, the selection priori- ties were made on the basis of criteria of theoretical im- portance and probable empirical power. lWilbert E. Moore, "Changes in Occupational Structures," Social Mobility in Economic Development, Neil J. Smelser and Seymour Martin Lipset (New York: Aldine, c1966), p. 203. 19 Dependent Variables To this point I have discussed in general terms the impact of the bureaucratic industrial work setting upon the individual; his attitudes, beliefs, and values. Explicitness in the discussion of precisely which attitudes, beliefs, and values, may now no longer be deferred. The idea was to isolate theoretically relevant as well as pragmatically important predispositional themes which have been important historically and command contemporary in— vestigation. These would be general attitude areas which presumably are altered by involvement in bureaucratic work settings. The first theme to be discussed is individualism--I collectivism. It has often been maintained that the farm— owner operator is more individualistic than the factory worker. Crockett has put the argument as follows: The work setting . . . shifts from one in which most individuals work on their own or in firms of small size to one in which most individuals work in large-scale organizations. Where individuals were previously led to compete'occupationally with others, they are now called on to blend their personalities harmoniously with the personalities of others working in the same organization and to fit their efforts co- operatively into the complicated activity through which some group—product is achieved. Changes in oc— cupational structure and work setting, then, alter the terms on which occupational success and upward mobility are widely available. Rather than rewarding the self-reliant, competitive, risk—taking individual 20 (Riesman's "inner—directed" man) as before, the present social arrangements reward the friendly, af— filiative person whose greatest satisfactions are derived from effective performance as a member of a team (Riesman's ”Other-directed" man). Whyte has noted this problem in a slightly different context. He asserts that with the ascendency of the Protest- ant Ethic, the pursuit of individual salvation through hard work, thrift, and competitive struggle was the heart of the American achievement motive. As industrialization, with its increased secularization proceeded, the Protestant Ethic as a source of motivation receded and the "Social Ethic" as— cended. .Briefly, the "Social Ethic" asserts that conflict between man and society can be overcome by applying the methods of science to human relations.2 Marx consistently maintained that factory workers (the proletariat) were more "collectivistic" than the peasants; a characteristic which enabled the development of "class-consciousness." He further asserted that this in- crease in collectivism could be attributed to the work structure of the mills and factories.3 On the other hand, 1Harry Crockett, "Psychological Origins of Mobility," in Social Structure and Mobility in Economic Development, Neil J. Smelser and Seymour M. Lipset (eds.) (Chicago, 111.: Aldine, 1966), p. 306. 2William H. Whyte, Jr., The Organization Man (New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1956), 7-8. 3Mitrany maintains that Marx simply chose to over- look the extent of peasant expression of discontent and its effectiveness both historically and in his own contemporary period. See David Mitrany, Marx Against the Peasant (New York: Collier Books, c1961). 21 he claimed it was difficult to convince the peasant of his "class interests" because: (1) his occupation was ecologi- cally segregative; and (2) the individual family firm nature of peasant holdings introduced competition rather than cooperation. More recently, Daniel Lerner has stressed the im- portance of increased empathic ability by those who reside and participate in more urban-industrial settings. Defining empathy as "the capacity to see oneself in the other fellow's situation," Lerner continues: It is the major hypothesis of this study that high empathic capacity is the predominant personal style only in modern society, which is distinctively in- dustrial, urban, literate, and participant. Tra- ditional society is nonparticipant--it deploys people by kinship into communities isolated from each other and from a center; without an urban-rural division of labor, it develops few needs requiring economic interdependence; lacking the bonds of interdependence, people's horizons are limited by locale and their de— cisions involve only other known people in known situations. In addition to its theoretical relevance, this theme has a good deal of pragmatic importance in the context of the contemporary scene in_American agriculture. The in— creased interest in the extension of industrial labor practices and laws to agriculture, together with adamant de- mands by groups of farmers for collective bargaining lDaniel Lerner,_The Passing of Traditional Society (Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1958), p. 50. 22 procedures in the pricing of farm products, increases its 1 2 relevance here. ’ ii The second theme is the idea of support or rejection of government regulation or involvement in agriculture. The issue of laissez-faire-socialistic government policy has long been an issue of sociological importance paralleling the "collectivism" issue. Both went hand in hand. With the decline of land-owning aristocracies and feudal lords in all countries experiencing industrialization and the rise of the working classes has come increasing support for governmental regulation and involvement in industrial and business affairs. With this transition also went the transition from monarchy and other autocratic governmental forms to more represen— tative government of a democratic-socialist nature. 1For citations to some of the issues here see Denton E. Mbrrison and Allan D. Steeves, "Deprivation, Discontent and Social Movement Participation: Evidence on a Contemporary Farmers' Movement; the N.F.O.," Rural Sociology (forthcoming). 2An interesting approach to the development of indi- vidualistic or collectivistic personality types under differ- ent types of agricultural production is developed by Irwin L. Child and Margaret K. Bacon, "Relation of Child Training to Subsistence Economy," Ameridan Anthropologist, LXI (February, 1959), 51-63. 3An interesting account of this transition and others is contained in Gerhard Lenski, Power and Privilege (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966). 23 The issue of the relation between the institutions of business and industry (economic) and the body politic is no less important in contemporary America. Of particular interest in this thesis is the relation of agriculture to the political institution. The need for a reliable supply of low cost food and fiber is (and has been) of strategic im— portance to the growth and development of all industrial societies particularly as the labor force shifts into non- agricultural industries. In order to assure the stability of this production, governments in all highly industrialized nations have related distinctively to the agricultural sector. In the U.S.A., the involvement of government in agriculture has had the effect of: (l) maintaining prices above what farmers would have obtained on a "free" market; (2) increasing land values; while (3) diminishing returns to labor; and (4) introducing programs based on production cri- teria rather than on such criteria as financial need, or the creation of equal opportunity.1 In short, as Schultz has pointed out, "the behavior of rural people, their represen- tatives and their institutions implies a materialistic bias in favor of plants, land and animals and against people." 1For the most complete account of contemporary issues on this subject see: Dale E. Hathaway, Government and Agri- culture: Economic Policy in a Democratic Society (New York: MacMillan Company, c1963), pp. 12—13. 2T. W. Schultz, "Underinvestment in the Quality of Schooling: The Rural Farm Areas," in Increasing Understand— ipg of Public Problems and Policies (Chicago, Ill.: The Farm Foundation, 1965). 24 Interestingly, the dilemma of government in agri— culture has been unsatisfactorily resolved in the assessment of all concerned parties. Those in low income positions in agriculture have labelled government farm programs, "Social- ism for the rich, laissez-faire for the poor." Social com- mentators have been antagonistic particularly in the light of the recent emphasis on urban poverty, the development of the poverty program, and the fact that one—half of all people defined as having incomes below the poverty line ($3,000) re- side in rural areas.1 Those in relatively high income positions in agri- culture have campaigned for the operation of the "free market" forces on the basis of two tenets: (1) They argue that government price support policies tend to maintain a large number of marginal producers who are unnecessary and earn only subsistence incomes; (2) Secondly, they argue that price support programs tend to decrease the power of the individual in production planning. This position is, of course, embodied most 1For some comments on this general issue see Michael Harrington, The Other America (Baltimore. Maryland: Penguin Books, c19627, p. 60. A more sophisticated treatment of the issue is given by James T. Bonnen, "Rural Poverty: Programs and Problems," Journal of Farm Economics, XLVIII:2 (May, 1966), 452—465; and Dale E. Hathaway, "Some Implications of Continuing Present Farm Price and Income Support Programs" (unpublished paper, 1967). -~n:~ van-V a (I! '(1 ~a.,. “"o4 s. ' .v‘ A L} I 9‘ 1 9 rl') ' h I 9. In . cc ¥ 25 unequivocally by the Farm Bureau Federation and its political lobby in Washington.1 iii The third theme "orientation to institutional change,” is patterned after the Inkeles theme of "readiness for change."2 Essentially it is intended to measure the degree to which farm operators are willing to exchange old insti- tutional arrangements in agriculture for the institutional structure demanded by the industrial system (i.e., efficiency of production, equal returns to factors, etc.). Such is an important variable in any ideological set, for in some sense, it measures the degree to which a population feels it can effectively manipulate its environment rather than the in— verse (a characteristic of more "modern" populations accord— ing to Inkeles). lSee Farm Bureau Policies for 1966 (Chicago, 111.: American Farm Bureau Federation, 1966), pp. 2-5. It should be noted that by and large the ends of all groups in agri- culture are essentially the same--equal returns to equal re- sources in agriculture compared to other industrial sectors. The difference is in beliefs about how these ends may be best attained. Farm Bureau claims without government as- sistance Farmers' Union and the Grange have supported the extension of government programs as has the N.F.O. generally, although there is a move to believing that limiting pro- duction and collective bargaining may be more instrumental in the achievement of this purpose. 2See Alex Inkeles, "What Makes a Man Modern? Theo- retical and Methodological Issues." (Prepared for an inter- departmental symposium on "problems on Cross-Cultural Re- search in Developing Areas," at Michigan State University, May 25-26, 1967.) 26 This variable takes on particular significance in this study because, generally speaking, many people in agri— culture view changes in the industrial structure as depriving agriculture of its former power, authority, and wealth.1 To the extent this is so, those most involved in the activities of this industrial sector have been predisposed to advocate no change or a return to a past position rather than embrace innovative positions.2 Institutional arrangements which may arouse most nostalgic reaction in agriculture are: (1) the family farm; (2) the free market; and (3) institutions of independent pro- prietorship and marketing, etc. All of these arrangements have been_modified in recent years in American agriculture. 1In all probability they are correct. Just as Smelser notes that during the 18th century in England, con- trol of capital began to slip from the workman's grasp and came more and more into the control of the master manu- facturers in the putting-out system, differentiation has al- so indisputably increased processor control and diminished "farmer power" in contemporary American agriculture. See Neil J. Smelser, Social Change in the Industrial Revolution (Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press, 1959), p. 59. 23y and large it seems that "farmers" or "peasants” as an occupational group have been more prone to accept re- actionary rather than innovative positions. Evidence for this hypothesis might be taken from C. P. Loomis and J. A. Beegle, "The Spread of German Nazism in Rural Areas," American Socio- logical Review, XI (1946), 724—734. Also see Samuel A. Stouffer, Communism, Conformit , and Civil Liberties (New York: Doubleday, 1955), pp. 109-130. This generalization must be tempered by caution in the light of some extremely innovative positions taken in agrarian politics in many nations. See for example Seymour Martin Lipset, Agrarian Socialism (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1950). 27 Indications are that the family farm structure of American agriculture is slowly changing with the assistance of an "efficiency oriented low-cost food” government policy; a policy which has received the support of a now urban domi- nated political structure. The proverbial free market has long since become oligopsonic or even monopsonistic in that processors have found, and taken advantage of, increasing returns to scale and centralization.l This has left a farm producer group which, though numerically high, is in a very weak bargaining position because it produces heterogeneous products. The preference of a highly differentiated processing industry for "large lot” buying of homogeneous quality produce has increasingly operated to increase returns to high volume producers. This, in turn, has resulted in a more corporate form of organization of the former "family farm firm." High volume, increasingly differentiated production has also enabled large producers to make maximum use of tech— nological innovations as a substitute for labor. The dis- tortion of returns to resources inserted by a government policy--the effect of which is to "over-value" land and ”under-value" labor in agriculture--assures "corporate" structure (a form of organization where labor is more 1See John Kenneth Galbraith, The New Industrial State (Boston, Mass.: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1967). 28 plentiful--therefore cheaper resource) in industrial agriculture.l iv Finally, I introduce the attitudinal theme of in- dustrial “satisfaction-dissatisfaction(alienation).” This theme is theoretically interesting on two distinct counts. First, sociologists have predominantly viewed those emersed in "gemeinschaft-like" structures as "poor but contented." Seldom have the subjects of conflict, anomie, alienation, or disorganization been discussed in this context.2 1On this issue see Dale E. Hathaway, "Farmers and the Great Society," Challenge (Nov.-Dec; 1965) and , "Agriculture's Status and POtential" (unpublished paper, 1967). 2For the most part, studies of rural communities and small peasant communities tend to view such structures as beautiful, prystine, quaint, and good. Seldom is the con- flict and segregation found in these communities ever very well documented. Only recently has this been appearing in the literature. For examples see: Shirley Evelyn McPhee, "Social Organization and Economic Change In A Fishing Com- munity" (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of New Brunswick, 1965); George Foster, "Interpersonal Relations In a Peasant Society," Human Organization, XIX (1960-61), 174-178; also "Peasant Society and the Image of Limited Good," American Anthropologist, LXII (April, 1965), 293—315. Also on this theme see Charles Erasmus, in Heath and Adams (eds.), Con- temporary Cultures of Latin America (New York: Random House) 193-199. Wilbert E. Moore and Arnold Feldman, "Preindustrial Forms of Organized Werk," Labor Commitment and Social Chaoge in Developing Areas (New York: Social Science Research Council, c1960). Probably a particularly key study is: Oscar Lewis, Life in a Mexican Village: Topotzlan, Re- studied (Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois Press, 1951). For a more recent dialogue on this issue see the chapters by Lewis and Philip M. Hauser, in Philip M. Hauser and Leo F. Schnore, The Study of Urbanization (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965), pp. 496-514. 29 Secondly, Marxian theory views the “proletariat” as the basis of revolutionary activity primarily because of its ability to express its dissatisfactions. The peasants he viewed as too "stupid“ to either be aware of or express their discontents. Yet theorists have often noted that the U.S.A. is in some sense distinctive in that throughout much of its history it has harboured an undercurrent of agrarian radicalism while experiencing a relatively quiescent adap- tation of the proletariat.l Certainly related to both these themes is the adap— tation which the agricultural sector has had to make to the increasing economic and political dominance of the non— agricultural industrial sector. With the technological revo- lution has come a declining value of labor and declining con— trol of the factors of production by agriculture. Given this trend, one would expect high and increasing rates of dis- satisfaction in the agricultural sector as the non-agricultur— al industrial structure steps into power and agriculture is forced to adapt its activity with an institutional structure that is lagging. 1I prefer to deal with this issue at more length when I discuss the relationship between "satisfaction- dissatisfaction" and "individualism—collectivism," in the sequel. At present allow me to simply note the following treatment of this issue; NOrbert Wiley, "America's Unique Class Politics: The Interplay of the Labor, Credit and Com— modity Markets," American Sociological Review, XXXII:4 (August, 1967), 529—541. 30 These considerations lead one to expect farmers in industrial societies to be more dissatisfied than those who have found non-farm jobs and thus managed to increase their reward and opportunity structures. Farmers prevented from taking this transition because they lack apprOpriate skills (trapped in agriculture), should be increasingly discontent with their lot as the rewards to labor in agriculture decline relatively and as urban reference units are accepted as in- creasingly relevant. This theme is also important in light cxf growing evidence of social disorganization and conditions of? anomie in rural areas of industrial America as evidenced (l) the growth of a viable farmers' movement; (2) the by: 3 and (3) the cxnnparatively high rates of rural suicide; 1See T. W. Schultz, "A Policy To Redistribute Losses Euxmn Economic Progress," in Labor Mobilityyand Population in jflgrdxnilture (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, c1961). pp. 158-168. 2D. E. Morrison, and A. D. Steeves, op. cit. 3On this subject see Widick W. Schroeder and J. Alla‘n Beegle, "Suicide: An Instance of High Rural Rates," &1ral Sociology, .XVIII:l (March, 1953) . For an interesting rSPlicatuion of this study see Ruth E. Dennis, "Suicide Differentials in Michigan:A Replication" (unpublished M.A. 'the81s snabmitted to the Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1967) . rH' 31 decline of small communities.l’2 Theoretical Relationships and Hypotheses The basic terms of the thesis have been stated, and their relevance explicated. The theoretical design of the study calls for sequential and simultaneous controls on age, education and income in order that the relationship between "off-farm occupational contact" and the dependent variables (collectivism, pro-government orientation, traditionalism and (lissatisfaction) be understood more fully. The derivation of the relationships expected between tkma variables based upon the theories of urban-dominance and the: "End of Ideology" must now constitute the order of business. 1See Maurice R. Stein, The Eclipse of Communipy CRrinceton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1960). lpittan has noted the discontinuity in the mutuality of interestzrelationship which previously existed between com- Inercial..agricu1ture and the local community through the product.1narket and the market for purchased inputs. In- creased «economies of scale now make it more economical for large Ccnnmercial producers to purchase their inputs outside ‘the locafil community and develop new export markets for their less divmarsified product. See Vernon W. Ruttan, "Agricultur— a1 POlicxy'in.an Affluent Society," Journal of Farm Economics, XLVIII:5 (Dec., 1966), pp. 1116-7. :2Treatment of the process by which high rates of in- <3ustria1. dissatisfaction may be stimulated by feelings of IFelative: deprivation among a farm population increasingly lutegrated with an urban-industrial structure, but denied to some extent its equal rewards, its link with increased rates c3f collectivism and social movement agitation where "self- 1blame" is translated into "structural blame" is expounded in ID- E..Morrison and A. D. Steeves, op. cit. 32 The central hypothesis of this study states that, "Farm residents with high non-farm occupational contact will demonstrate small but consistently greater degrees of sup- port for (l) collectivism, and pro-government involvement in agriculture but lesser degrees of traditionalism and occu— pational dissatisfaction than those with low levels of off- farm experience. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that these relationships will be largely removed after age, education and income controls have been applied simultaneously, demon— strating that the farm-non—farm occupational setting per se has; little unique impact upon these attitudinal character— istzics in highly industrial settings. Secondary relationships between the control and de— pendent variables lead us to expect that as age increases, (Killectivism, pro-government support and dissatisfaction will decrease, while traditionalism should increase regard— less of non—farm occupational contact. Thirdly, as education increases, pro-government sup— port increases, while collectivism, traditionalism and dis- Satisfacfl:ion decrease, regardless of non—farm occupational <20ntact. Finally, as income increases, collectivism, pro- government support, traditionalism and dissatisfaction de- (Ireases, regardless of non-farm occupational contact. Theoretical rationale for the direction of these SSecondary hypotheses is nearly non—existent in this dis- CEUSSiOn- They are nonetheless important. However, I have TH‘ 33 limited the discussion to the impact of these variables upon the attitude characteristics of farm residents achieving varying degrees of off-farm occupational mobility. In this sense, these second order hypotheses are regarded as im- portant over and above their value as controls for their po- tential explanatory value in describing the impact of insti— tutional characteristics on farm residents in highly in- dustrial settings. Recapitulation In summary the problem to be investigated is the im- gxact.ofioff-farm work contact upon the selected attitude cruaracteristics of farm residents. The theoretical argument rues been that the more bureaucratic nature of off-farm work settings together with the increased probability of associ- atifinltwith other non-farm people serves to influence atti- tudinal characteristics. But since non—farm work contact is seleetiveefOr low age, high education and high income, these variablxes must be controlled in order that attitudinal vari- ability' not be attributed spuriously. Age and attitudes were hYPOthesized to be related on the basis of different time 'Periods 13f socialization as well as the changing physical nature <>f labor with age in an occupation demanding high ‘PhYSical exertion. =Education and income essentially are used as measures of socio—economic status. Theoretically those who are both‘better informed and are rewarded b. l 34 disproportionately highly for their occupational endeavors would have different attitudinal responses than their comple- mentary set. Our theoretical calculus based on metropolitan dominance theory and the regress of ideological cleavages (rural-urban) in pluralistic industrial settings led to the derivation of the central hypothesis of no relation between "degree of off-farm work contact" and the selected atti- tudinal themes after age, education and income character- istics had been controlled. rHI CHAPTER II THE EMPIRICAL SETTING The settings chosen for this study were the states of Michigan and Wisconsin. In both states there is located substantial industrial activity combined with a progressive agriculture. The objective of this short chapter is to point cuit features of this setting which are crucial to the later development of the problem. Comparative Reward Structures of Agriculture and Non—Agricultural Industries Labor is allocated to a substantial extent by the ‘wage structure in highly industrialized structures. Table l (AppendixA)1 shows the rate of decline of labor as a factor of PrOduction in American agriculture together with the rising titility of its substitutes.2 1All table and figure referrals hereafter in this chapter shall be found in Appendix A. 2Solow has defined technological change as equal to 'the Charnge in output not accounted for by the changes in ‘Cmpita1_ and labor. Using such a measure he calculated that the average growth rate in the non-farm sector was approxi- Imat§LY 1%%.annually between 1909—1949 compared to the techno— lflglcal change function in agriculture of approximately 3.49% for the same period. Thus, "technological change in agri- cmlture has been twice as rapid as in the private non—farm 35 36 As labor diminishes in utility in agriculture so do its relative rewards. Thus, for the short time period from 1950 to 1960 Table 2 illustrates a proportional decline from .48 to .46 in the income of rural farms compared to urban in- This residential disparity also exists in the case of But comes. farm occupations for both males and females (Table 3). differences in age, sex, and education of those employed in agriculture versus those in other industries require that adjustments be made for these factors in order that labor be amuse comparable. Hathawayl adjusted for sex, age, labor ca- pa<:ity, labor force participation, share of labor earnings, gnnrchasing power of money income, income tax payments and vaJJme of home produced food at retail prices. On the basis cxf this calculation, he concluded that per capita income re- ‘turns in agriculture (based on 1960 census data) ought to be 88% of non-farm 1evels-—up from 70%—-a comparable figure for 1950.2 Boyne, analyzing data from the current population Surveys (CPS), found that over the period 1948-1960 "the sector." For a general discussion see Lester B. Lave. lleehnOlcnqical Change: Its Conception and Measurement (Engle- ‘Mmod Cljnffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, c1966), pp- 33-57- 1Dale E. Hathaway, Government and Agriculture (New ‘york; 'The MacMillan Co., c1963), pp. 33—34. 2D. Gale Johnson, "Labor Mobility and Agricultural :Adjuebnent," E. O. Heady et al. (eds.), Agricultural Adjust- JTEEE_E£QQlems in a Growing Economy (Ames: Iowa State Col- lege press, 1958), pp. 163—172. 37 money income position of farmer and farm manager families had declined relative to other families in the economy. Absolute real incomes have increased only about one—third (15% vs. 41%) as fast as real incomes of all families. In 1960, 75 percent of farmer and farm-manager families were in the lowest 40 percent of income receiving units in the U.S."l Although from this data one must conclude that_pop§ people employed in agriculture receive lower incomes than those in ruin—farm industrial sectors, one must investigate the income distmibution before asserting the tempting generalization that all do . Table 4 indicates that returns to firms in agri- cnfilture are highly concentrated. Indeed the top 8% of the farnns operate 37% of the acreage in farms and sell 50% of tine product value while the bottom 44% of the farms own 16% «of the land and sell only 5% of the product value.2 Tables 55 and 6 .indicate the disparities are not as great in Michigan and Wiscxansin. In fact Boyne has shoWn that.over the period 1948-19Ei3 "the income distribution for farmer and farm-manager . . 1David H. Boyne, "Changes in the Income Distribution ll‘gfrlcnilture," Journal of Farm Economics, XLVII:5 (1965), :2A similar situation applies in Canada though less 80- There, 10% of the farms produce 45% of the product while the bottom 46% of the farms sell only 10% of the product. hose in the top group supplement their incomes by working Ein.average of 5 days off—farm annually, while the bottom CJPOUP‘WOrk76 days annually. See Dominion Bureau of Sta— tllStICS, 1961 Census of Canada, Series, 5.1, Agriculture, <3anada, Bulletin 5.1—1, Table 31, pp. 31-37- 38 families was greater than for any other occupational group identified by CPS income. Although the concentration de— clined by 15% over the period, it has in recent years "been about equal to that of other self—employed groups." This evidence suggests that rewards in agriculture flow disproportionately to a few large producers. Indeed, Table 7 solidifies the assertion by indicating that large producers ($20,000+) more than cover their opportunity costs while smaller producers (the great bulk in terms of numbers) are yell below parity.2 Such a finding does much to dispel the: idea that government support price programs are geared u: assisting the small producer. Occupational Structure of the Rural Farm Residence Category A second topic must be addressed--that is the occu- Pational structure of the farm residence category and its Similarity or distinctiveness when compared to that of the Other residence categories. lDavid H. Boyne, op. cit., 1966. 0 2The best single discussion of the parity returns position ‘of American farmers is the following: United States Department of Agriculture, Parity Returns Position of W (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Aug” 1967), Senate Document No. 44. "Some implications of Continuing 3Dale E. Hathaway, (unpublished IPresent Farm Price and Income Support Programs" paper. 1967) . rH| 39 A minority (43.6%) of the employed labor force classified as rural farm residents are occupationally classi- fied as farm operators by the U.S. Census (See Table 8). 53% of the rural farm category For the male farm residents, inere classified as farm operators (Table 9). More important— .ly, however, the rural farm residents are uniformly under- :repmesented at the top of the occupational structure (pro- fkessional, technical and kindred; mgrs. officials and pro- salesworkers) compared to prietors; clerical and kindred; ‘tlieir urban counterparts. Similarly they are over-represented fore— Eit: the bottom of the occupational structure (craftsmen, rneeru, kindred; operatives and kindred; private household). arrieese lead one to conclude that farm residents are predis- first fired" urban occu— posed to being in "last hired, In periods of recession and depression pa t ional categories . The most rural farm residents are often "twice displaced." c'91'1‘7incing data here are those marshalled by Perkins where he fC’Llrld.a net backflow into agriculture during the 1957—58 re- ceaESfision as well as an underrepresentation of rural farm 1 wC’ITICers in the higher prestige occupational categories. is the fact that the compara— Worth noting, however, tli¥\7HBUMQQOU 70 who had worked full time off the farm in the past. This pro- duced the trichotomous categorization of those who were (1) "Presently" engaged in off-farm work; (2) engaged in off- farm work in the figast": and (3) flggygr" engaged in off-farm work. Data were available only for the Michigan sample. The logic of our theoretical position led us to hypothesize that: 2(a) Uncontrolled, the "presents" will be more collectiv- istic than the "pasts" and the "pasts" than the "nevers"; and: 2(b) After age, education and income controls have been applied simultaneously, there is no difference in collectivism between the "presents," "pasts" and nevers" which can be at- tributed to degree of off-farm work contact. Table 4.3 presents the data on hypothesis 2(a). There is no support indicated for the hypothesis. Indeed it is the "pasts" who are most collectivistic. This "unexpected" re— sult shall be followed up in the next chapter. TABLE 4.3 UNCONTROLLED "PRESENT," "PAST," "NEVER" OFF- FARM WORK COMPARISONS: COLLECTIVISM (MICHIGAN STUDY)* __A % N' Present 65 .1421 . 2204 Past . 68 '%%%% Never ‘ - ‘ 65 I%%% ‘ (*Sample N = 804 No. of Items = 8 1H 71 Table 4.4 presents the data on hypothesis 2(b). Here once again we have a fairly wide variation of results, but no consistent relation indicating lack of support for our hypothesis. Tentatively, then, our null hypothesis must be accepted. Particular caution must be exercised in assessing this result. Particularly in some of the categories of low education-low income, high education-high income, the number of cases is extremely small. Hypothesis 3 After "years managing a farm" has been controlled, the greater the number of years spent working off-farm, the greater the collectivism. Table 4.5 would indicate that our hypothesis is un- supported by the data. In fact, neither "years worked off- farm" nor ”years managing a farm" appears to influence de- gree of collectivism in any substantial degree. Hypothesis 4 Labor union membership will increase collectivism among those who have worked (or are working) off—farm. Table 4.6 indicates our hypothesis is unsupported. In fact, the reverse hypothesis would seem to receive more support from the data. I shall comment upon this finding at more length in the following chapter. 72 .02 .wom Z OHQEmm .m n mEmuH m0 N mm mm. mos smm Amm NO was NH em mm 06 mm ms mom «6 zoom Bum I 0 mm mm. mm. mm Eli .2 mgammwm mm mm mm mm m« mm mm mm anaemz .nmxuoz Hwbmz mes mma mm. mm. Awe mo mm« mm mm 60H up mm up mm no 3oq NN «ma has mme Amm No mmm mm km em «6 HOH mo mom mo nmflm mmm CH mm. .ww and mos Avmumev mom ammuuumo me me ow mm H so me as am Eganmz msasuaflsm 0 .HO mud HOH moo mm. Ave mo mom 6 x 3 was 66 mos no om as me am sou oos mm. was Hma Amm NO was Ho Ho OH om ka as mm mm nmflm EHm l -m pm. com was remumev mom mcmxwwm mes so om ms mmm mm as .66 ssflcmz saucwmmum coo mm. Hmm Hm. law We woe emm we we we mom mm m mp 30a z x z x z x z x mEOOCH swam mEoocH 30A mEOUcH swam mEOOCH 30A coflumosom cmfim coflumospm 3Oq .wqmsomzmeqosz quqomezoo mzoozH .onamz .amam .azmmmmm "SMH>Heomuqoo ¢.v mqm<8 73 .m H mEmUH W0 .02 .Oom u z mesmm. \\ Ln H m H _ m OHm Hafia Eummlmmo mam Eummlmmo mam mo ONO OO mumm» OH N. A” OOHH OO, mmOH OO Omxuoz mmw th EhmmlmmO HOOH ©m¢ Eummlmmo Now no HHm mo mummh OH V Nam mo mom om fimxHQS HO>OZ ,. «a z X z x. z X om N. on V MHOSIGOZ mummw om N. mummw om V Eumm m mcflmmcmz ammo» IxHOS Eumm a mCHmmcmz mummw maouuqoo wsomcmuasEHm Eumm m mcflmmcmz mnmww nmmm Eummlmmo mumow OmmH mo .OH N.OmxHoz mummw om HMMH. EHthmmo ohmm Op Hmsvm HO MHHH om mummm 0H can» OOOH 66 Oman Hoummuo mmmq omxuoz avom mummy om hama Enmmlmwo vaa 00 away mama mom mm mmxuoz Hw>mz z _x z .x cowaowucowco pavemoamam Eummlmmo mo OOHHOm Omaaouucooco sAMDDBm Z<0H$UHEV mQOMBZOU mDONZfiBQDZHm 92¢ AflHBZMDomm ILSMdm fl UZHO‘ZflS madmfi mom QmAAOMBZOU KMO3 Eddhlmmo mmHBUMQHOU 74 TABLE 4.6 COLLECTIVISM:‘ LABOR UNION MEMBERSHIP CONTROLLED FOR PRESENT--PAST OFF-FARM WORK (MICHIGAN STUDY) UNCONTROLLED % N Member 1532 of Union 67 2272 944 Non—Member 69 1367 CONTROLLED FOR PRESENT-PAST OFF-FARM WORK Presently WOrking Not Presently Off—Farm WOrking Off Farm % N % N Member of 66 929 70 603 Labor Union 1408 864 Never A Member of 68 443 70 501 A Labor Union 650 717 *Note: Only those who were Multiple Jobholders or had been Multiple Jobholders in the past were included in this analysis. **Omitted Items: Do you think farmers can work to- gether to solve the problem through their own organizations? ***Sample N = 804 — "Nevers" No. of Items = 7. 75 Pro—Government--Anti—Government _Multiple Jobholder-- Farmer Comparisons On the basis of some theoretical conjecture and popu- lar notion, there is held to be a positive relationship be- tween individualism and support for laissez-faire government policy. Therefore, it is held the farmer is more supportive of laissez-faire government policy as well as much more indi— vidualistic. The relationship is posited as a contingency. As examples, the policy basis of the Farm Bureau is often taken to reflect (and be representative of) farmers' opinions on this matter. It was largely on this very tentative basis that we were led to hypothesize that: 1(a) Uncontrolled, "presents" will be more pro—government in agriculture than farmers. Table 4.7 reveals that this hypothesis is uniformly unsupported by the data. On the contrary, it appears that farmers are more pro-government in agriculture than are the "presents" particularly in Wisconsin. Hypothesis l(b) After age, education and income have been controlled, there will be no difference between "presents" and "farmers" on pro—government in agriculture which can be attributed to degree of off-farm work contact. Table 4.8 indicates that after the controls have been applied, substantial variation between comparable "present" 76 TABLE 4.7 UNCONTROLLED PRESENT-FARMER PRO-GOVERNMENT COMPARISONS COMBINED MICHIGAN WISCONSIN" STUDY STUDY STUDY % N’ % N %» N Presents 37 553 38 388 46 157 1477 1030 343 Farmers 38 1032 39 521 53 645 2692 1339 1209 Sample N 1229 804 425 No. of Items 4 4 4 Item Con- sistency-— Farmers) Presents 75% 75% 100% *The items in the Combined and Michigan analyses are the same. Items in the Wisconsin analysis are different from those in the other two analyses. 77 .Oom u z OHOEOO .O u mEOuH mo .02* mm. mm. OHH OOm Hmm NO «Om OH mO Om Om BO Om OOH HO OOHm OO mm. OOH mm. HOmumOv mmm mHOEHm mm. Om O OO HO Om HO HO EOHOOz O «OH OOH mm. ww. HOO mo OOO mm mm B Om mm BO Hm OO 30H .mN m. .OuO| mm 3m .0 OOO OH OO O NO Om Om Hm Om . BOHm mOH mm. HOH mm. HOmumOv OOO mucmmmum mm mm m Om NO Om mm OO GOHOmz OON mm. mOH m. HOO mg OOH HOH Om OH mm on mO m OO 30H 2 x z x z x z x OEOOCH comm OEOOCH BOA OEOOCH 30mm OEOUCH 3Oq comumosom cmmm coaumospm 30A «WQmDOWZowlomm m.¢ mflm<8 78 "farmer" scores remain. However, these differences have no distinct or consistent pattern which could be attributed to degree of off-farm work contact. Therefore it would appear our hypothesis gains some support. Hypothesis 2(a) Uncontrolled, "presents“ will be more pro—government in agriculture than "pasts" and "pasts" than "nevers." TABLE 4.9 UNCONTROLLED "PRESENT,” "PAST,“ NEVER" OFF-FARM WORK COMPARISONS: PRO—GOVERNMENT ORIENTATIONS (MICHIGAN STUDY)* % N Present 38 388 1030 Past 39 305 778 Never 38 216 561 *Sample N = 804 No. of Items = 4 Table 4.9 reveals the hypothesis to be unsupported by the data. In fact, there appears to be little or no differ- ence between the categories on degree of pro-government sup- port in agriculture. Hypothesis 2(b) After age, education and income have been controlled, there will be no difference between "presents," "pasts," and 79 “nevers" on degree of pro-government support in agriculture which can be attributed to degree of off-farm contact. Again there is substantial variation in the controlled data (see Table 4.10), a good deal of which may be contributed by the very low number of cases in some of the cells. We notice, however, that there is no consistency in the vari- ation which can be attributed to off-farm work contact. In short, our hypothesis receives slight though unsatisfactory support. Hypothesis 3 After "years managing a farm" has been controlled, the greater the number of years spent working off-farm, the greater the degree of pro-government support. Data presented in Table 4.11 reveals no support for this hypothesis. Given the data, the null hypothesis appears to be more appropriate. Hypothesis 4 Labor union members will be more pro-government in agriculture than non-labor union members who have worked off- farm. In this case, the data presented in Table 4.12 would reveal support, though slight. Even after we control for presently or not presently working off—farm, the labor union members remain consistently more pro—government than those .Oom n z OHQEmm .O u mEOuH mo .OZB 80 mm. mm. mm. OOH Hmm.Nv OOO SHOOIOOO B OO O mN BH mm mO OO OOHO OSHBuHHOO Omxnoz mm. mm. mm. mm. HOmumOV OOO HO>Oz OH Nm OH Om OH Om ON Hm SOHOOS .mw NO. .HNI m. :O we 2% ON ON mN Bm OH OO NH BO 30H .ww mm. .mm OON HOO.NV OOO O mm mN Om Om mO BO NO OOHO mm C mm mm .OIO. pm 33: BOO Erma“ O ON mH Om BN NO OH Nm SOHOOs OBHauHHOO O .HO NO. mm mm OB... 2:. 9 OH... O x 2 mm Om ON Hm mN BO O mm 30H BO. O. mm m... 3m NO m2 OH OO O NO Bm Om HN Om OOHO . EHN l mOH mm. HBH ON. HOmumOv OOO chxwwm mm Nm m ON NO Om mN OO SOHOOS NHHcOOOHO OON mm. mOH m. HOO mg OOO HOH Om OH BN OB mO N OO 30H z x z B 2 x 2 R OEOOCH nmmm OEOOCH 30A OEOOCH 30mm OEOOCH 3OA coHumosOm OOHm coHHmusOm 30H *WAmDOWZdBADZHm QMAAOMBZOU ESOOZH NZOHB¢UDQM AMO€ AMQDBm Zmz «Emma NBmemmm "Ezmzzmm>owlomm OH.¢ mqmOz z x z X z x. z x. xnozlcoz ON N ON v Laos mummh on N. mummw on v Emmm d mchmcmE mummw Enmm d mCHmmcmz mummw mHOHucOO msOOCOHHOEHm ONHH Emmmlmmo mummw HNO Bm OH N 93303 mummy ON Summammo mBMH Ou Hmsvm no How mummw OH cane va Bm cmcu Hmummno Omm mm mmwn COMHO3 mmNH mummw om HMO eummlmmo mBO mm can» mmmn mBN mm owxuoz HO>O2 Z .8 Z R COHHOHOCOOGD Eumm < mchmcmz mummw COHHOHucOOCD HCOE>OHQEN Eummlmmo mo OOHHOm MHmDOflZdBADZHm 92¢ WflflflHBZmDOmm Eddh 4 OZHOQZQS BZHZHOAQZQ Emowlomm mm¢mM mom QMAQOfiBZOU HH.¢ mqm<8 82 TABLE 4.12 PRO-GOVERNMENT IN AGRICULTURE: LABOR UNION MEMBERSHIP CONTROLLED FOR PRESENT——PAST OFF-FARM WORK (MICHIGAN STUDY)* UNCONTROLLED % N Member 39 476 Of Union 1226 278 Non-Member 37 753 CONTROLLED FOR PRESENT-PAST OFF-FARM WORK Presently Working Not Presently Off-Farm Working Off Farm % N % N Member of 39 293 39 183 Labor Union 755 471 Never A Member of 36 127 38 151 A Labor Union (.0) U1 :9: DJ \0 k0 *Note: Only those who were Multiple Jobholders or had been Multiple Jobholders in the past were included in this analysis. **Omitted Items: None. ***Samp1e N = 804 - "Nevers" No. of Items = 4. 83 who had (or were presently) worked off-farm but not been members. Summarily, our hypothesis tends to be supported. Change Orientation The guiding theoretical orientation for this theme was the Inkeles concept of "modern man" and his ability to accept changing institutional arrangements. This reasoning led to hypothesis 1(a). Hypothesis 1(a) Uncontrolled, the "farmers" will be more traditional— istic than the "presents." Table 4.13 would indicate support for the hypothesis. In the combined study 40% of the "presents" versus 47% of the "nevers“ fall into the traditionalistic category. In the Michigan study, using only two items in addition to those used in the combined study, the difference between categories remains approximately the same. One would expect, however, after age, education and income were controlled, these differences would diminish. In fact, to the extent farmers were well integrated into the industrial structure, one would expect, on the basis of theories of urban-industrial dominance, the differences to wash out completely. The Inkeles model would maintain the differences should remain and that these differences should be attributed to the distinctiveness of the work settings. 84 TABLE 4.13 UNCONTROLLED PRESENT-FARMER TRADITIONALISM COMPARISONS COMBINED MICHIGAN STUDY STUDY % N % N Presents 40 818 43 869 2029 2016 Nevers 47 1708 49 1263 3646 2575 Sample N 1229 804 No. of Items 5 7 Item Consistency-- Farmers>Presents 100% 100% 85 On the basis of our guiding notion of urban-industrial dominance, we hypothesized that: l(b) After age, education and income have been controlled simultaneously, there is no difference in traditionalism which can be attributed to off- farm work contact. The results presented in Table 4.14 lend support to the hypothesis though admittedly it is tentative. Table 4.14 would tend to indicate that the controls have more to do with "traditionalism" than the work setting. For in— stance, farmers of low age are consistently more traditional than "presents" of low age after the age and education con- trols have been applied. However, for the groups of medium and high age it appears that regardless of income level, farmers of low education are consistently more traditional- istic than their "present" counterparts while the inverse as— sertion obtains for those of high education. These consistencies noted, and further comment in the next chapter promised, it must be concluded that our hypothesis tends to be supported by this data. Hypothesis 2(a) We hypothesized that, uncontrolled the "farmers" will be more traditional than the "pasts" and the "pasts" than the "presents." Data in Table 4.15 indicate our hypothesis is supported. I - d 86 1. Aw... .OOO u z OHOEOO .b u mEOuH mo .OZO mm. OOH NmN mHB HOO.NV OOO Om OO NO OO mNH mO mOm OO EOHm ONH mm. mOH OOH HOOuOOO OOm OHOEHOO BO Om BO OO OO OO BHH NO SOHOOS NON HBN BmH OOH HOO mg OOm OHH NO BNH BO mO OO OO OO 30H mm. Om. OBH OHH HOO.NO OON BO OO NH mO OO NO OO OO OOHO BON _ww OOm mm. HOOIOOO OOm OHOOOOHO OO Om ON HO OOH OO OO OO SOHOOS NOO mm. OON Hm. HOO mu OOO OOH Om ON HO ONH NO O OO 30H z .x. z .x. z .x. 2 .O OEOUEH :mHm OEOUCH 30H OEOUCH cmHm OEOUCH 30H coHumUsom cmHm coHumospm 304 .NHOOOOZOHHOSHO amqqomezou mzoozH .onHOOOOm .mom HNOOHO zmonOHzO OzoOHOONEOO SO63 zmTZ E. E. ON ON E. N .2. OO OO BO OO HN OO BH NO 30H ON. NNH OmH OHO HOO mu OOm HN OO OO OO OB OO OHN NO OOHm Om. mw. mNH mm. HOOuOOV OOO BOON OH Hm OO OH OO mO mO OO NO SOHOOS EHOOIOOO - OEHBuHHOm NOH OOH mm. mm. HOO mg OOm Omxuoz OO Om OB OO NO OO ON OO 30H mm. OH. OBH OHH HOO NO OOm BO OO NH mO OO NO OO OO EOHO BON Ow. OOm mm. HOmuOOO OOO Bmmewwm OO Om ON HO OOH OO OO OO EOHOOE NHHEOOOHO NOO mm. OON Hm. HOO mg OOO OOH Om ON HO ONH NO O OO 30H 2 R z N. z N. z B. OEOUGH smHm OEOUGH 30H OEOOCH anm OEOUOH 30H OEOUGH anm coHumosom 304 :NHOOOOZOHHOSHO OOHHOOHZOO mzoozH .onHOOOOm .mOO Hmooam ZOOHOOHZV Ozommmmmzoo xmoz zmmz .emmm .ezmmmmm "SOHHOZOHHHOoz 2 OO 2 X 2 OO 2 OO VEHOSICOZ OHOON ON N. mummy ON v ON N. ON v uxuos Eumm d mchmcmz mummw Emma fl mchmcmS mummw WHOHUCOU m5 OQQMUHDEHW mMHN EHmmlmwO mHMOM OOO OO OH.N.OoxHoz whom? om summlmmo NOON on HOOOO no OmOH mummy OH OmOH NmmH om cmnu HOumOHO OHO 0O mmmH owxuos OHON mummw om HNOH EHMhlmmo mmOH OO cmnu OmOH mmn Hm menoz HO>OZ z .X z .x COHHOHDCOOED UOHHOHHEOUGD UCOE>OHmEm Eumm m mchmcmS mummw EOOOIOOO mo OoHHOO I ll |II OMHmDOWZ¢EHDZHm 02¢ MfiflflHfizmbomm maom SMflm d OZHO mom quqomfizou Mm03 2m¢himm0 mm Presents 67% 80% 93 .OOO n z OHOEOO .OH H OBODH Ho .02: OO HON ONm ONOH HOO Nu OOO MM OB mOH OB OON OB BNO OO OOHO NOH OmH NBN OBN HOOuOOV OOO OHOEHOO ONH OO HHH NO BOH NB ONN mO SOHOOE HHO OOm mOH HOH HOO MO OOO OON OB OBN OO HOH mB HNH OO 30H NNH mm. OON OBH HOO NO OOO OO mB ON BB BON HO OOH NO EOHE HON mm. HOO mOH HOOnOOO OOO OHOOOOHO HHN NB OO OB OBm OB OHH BB EOHOOS OOB Om. ONO Om. HOO MO OOO OOO NB mB OB mmm OB OH OO 30H 2 R. z H _z N 2 R OEOUGH anm OEOUCH 30H OEOUCH anm OEOUGH 30H coHumosom anm COHumUsom 30H .NHOOOOZOHHOSHO OmHHomezoo mzoozH .onHROOOm £04 c668 2435sz OzoOHOOOzoo xmoz zmTZ OOH HOH mm mm. HOO OB OOO ONH OO OHH mO Om OO OO OB 30H mm. OBH NOH BBO HOO NO OOO OO mB OmH OB HOH OB OOO HO OOHE m 2 OO. Om. OOH HOH HOOuOOv OOO Emmmmmmm BO OO OO HO OHH OO mHH OO SOHOOS OEHHIHHOO ONN OON OmH mm. HOO MO OOO Omxgos OOH OO OmH NO OO NB OO OO 30H NNH mm. OON OBH HOO Nu OOO BO HB BH OO mOH OB ONH OB OOHm HON mw. HOO mOH HOOnOOO OOO emmeme OOH OO OO BO OOm HB mOH NB BOHOOS NHDOOOOHO OOB Om. ONO Om. HOO mg OOO mHO OO OO OB OOm NB OH NO 30H z x z N. z H z x OEOUEH EmHm OEOUCH 30H OEOUEH anm OEOUCH 30H coHumosom anm coHumUOOm 30H ONHOOOOZOHHOEHO OmHHOOBzoo mzoozH .onaaooom .OOO HNOOBO ZOOHOOHEV OzomHmmz .emmm .Bzmmmmm ”onHommOHHOOOHO NN.¢ mqm<8 l(l?E‘7LvU:hvc H1 . N1 o F: HON}! Md {yH.. 97 .OH H mEmpH MO .02 .Oom u z mHmEmmO mHmH oomH Eummlmmo mmmm mhmm Eummlmmo OOO mB OOmH OB mummy OH N fl. HOOH OB OOOH OO Omxuoz mOHH OOOH Enmmlmuo OmOH mmm Eummlmmo mom mm mmm mo mummw 0H v BOHH on mmO HB omxuoz HO>OZ z x z x. z .* z _x xHOSIcoz mumww on N. mummw om v om N. om v IxHOS Emma N mchmcmz mummm Eumm 4 mchmamz mummw mHOHucOU mOOOGMUHseHm mmom Emmmlmmo mummw NONN HB OH N H.330: mama» om Eummlmmo ommm Op Hmsvm HO mOHN mummw OH can» momm OB swap Hmumwuw mmmH mm OmOH OOxHOB mOOm mumww om omom Shantmmo BHON on can» OmOH ommH OB ©0£HO3 HO>Oz 2 OO 2 OO OOHHOHuCOUED COHHOHHEOUCD ucOE>OHQEm Eumm < mchmcmz mummw EHmmlmmO MO @OHHOQ maom SMfih 4 OZHO¢Zwu OED cam uuommsm o: mO>HOUOH mHmmnuomhn mODMUHUEH I .OOOOUHOGH OH mHmmzuommn HHsc Osu OOm uuommsm 0c mO>HOOOH memnuomhn mmumUHch o .uuommsm OEOm wO>HOUOH MHmmnuomws mmumoHocH + I + + I mHzmHOQEOS SOHO: HOQmH + + o o xuoz EummImmo mo mummw + + + + OOHHOHHCOU mesowcmuHsEHm Any O + O O OOHHonucoocp HOO mcomHHmmEOU HO>OqummqucmmOHm + + + + OOHHOHucOO , mHmsomcmuHsEHm Any + + I o omHHOHDGOUcp HOV OEOOHHOQEOO HOEHmthcmmOHm mmmmmeomwm mmmmmBOmwm mmmmmfiomwm mmmmEBOmwm ZOHBUflhmHBowlomm SmH>HBUmQHOU mBHDmmm ho Nm¢EZDm mN.¢ mammB 101 On the remaining three themes we have gone astray with some degree of consistency. Where no differences were predicted for the simultaneously controlled hypotheses, we were correct on all themes. It was where we hypothesized differences that we encountered static from the data. For the present-farmer comparisons, the data indicate the null hypothesis would be more appropriate for collectivism. Re- versal of our hypothesis for pro-government is suggested. For the uncontrolled "present," "past," "never" com- parisons our hypotheses erred for all themes but "tradition- alism." In each case the null hypothesis was suggested. The data also suggest the null hypothesis would have more appropriately described the relationship between years off-farm work and the two themes of collectivism and pro-government. The labor union membership hypotheses failed us com— pletely in the cases of collectivism and dissatisfaction. In both cases, the reverse of the theoretically derived hypothe- sis is suggested. These areas Of lack of fit between theory and data are addressed in section two of the following chapter. CHAPTER V DYNAMICS OF THE RELATIONSHIPS AND THE EXPLANATION OF INCONSISTENCIES The first objective of this chapter is clear. Al- though we hypothesized relationships between off—farm work contact and the dependent variables in the uncontrolled cases, we hypothesized no relationships after age, education and income had simultaneously been controlled. Undiscussed was the way in which these variables operated to "wash—out" the relationship. This topic shall be addressed in the first part of this chapter. Although we were able to muster partial support for 15 Of the 24 hypotheses, there were 9 cases where no support was suggested. Indeed, in 3 of these cases the reverse hy- pothesis was suggested. A second objective of this chapter is to explain, or at least comment on, possible reasons for this non—support and its implications for the theoretical position constructed. Individualism-Collectivism First let us look at collectivism. Table 5.1 re- veals that in each study, degree of collectivism, though 102 103 RN O n OEOUCH COHWMWDOW mucmmmum A mHOEHmmI BNO u omfl IlmocwumecOU EOUH w u wEOuH mo .02 Oow u z OHQENOO HOHH OOOH mHHH mBOH mmNH O O . OBm . . HOB BO OOHH BO omB mO OMHH OO Omm OO mNO mO OOO mO muwfiumm BowH Bmm OOOH mmHH mOO OB BHOH OOHH OO HON OO NOO OO OOB mO mmN OO OOO OO OOO OO wucOmOHm z X z X z X z X z x z X z O .OGH .Hm .OOH .OH .Om .Hm .Om .OH OOO .Hm OOO .Omz OOO .OH omqqomszoo mzoozH QMHHONBZOO onemooom omHHomezoo mom *Mooam zmonOHz *mO u COHumUDOu mucwmmum A mHOEHmmI OBOO u OOO IINucOumHmcoO 53H B n 95H mo .02 ONNH n z OHOEOO... mbH Omom NOOH BHNH mmmH NmHH NO OOON OO mHNH mO OOB MO HQNH OO muoEHmm OBNH OOOH OOm Hmm mmmH HmB NO. mmm mO Bmm OO NBm BO ONO NO mucOmOHm z x z O z X z x z x . .Om .Hm .OH .OH Ow< .Hm me .OOZ OOm .OH omqqomezou onBHBOmHHoo 1H. m mHmHBUNAAOU 107 With education and income controlled, Table 5.2 ap- pears to support the assertion that status inconsistents (low education, high income or vice versa) are more collectiv— istic than their comparable sets particularly among farmers but also among high education--low income presents. Table 5.3 reveals a singularly interesting result. With age, education and income controlled sequentially, it is the "Pasts" who are consistently the most collectivistic. From the last chapter it may be recalled this was also true of the uncontrolled result. This finding bears more in- spection. Table 5.4 reveals that this pattern of result is maintained for the simultaneous results taken two at a time but is particularly apparent for the medium age category on both education and income. Inconsistencies in this pattern are located in the low and high age categories at high in- come and education levels. The explanation for these incon- sistencies is not apparent. Clearly, this pattern is un— expected given our theoretical position. 'It shall be discussed at greater length in the sequel. Two reasons may account for the lack of support for the collectivism theme among those presently working off-farm. First, the items have to do with collectivism in agriculture and in particular, collective bargaining. It may be that those currently working off-farm, having gained more labor union experience, may have become convinced that it would be inappropriate to generalize these mechanisms to agriculture. 108 TABLE 5.3 COLLECTIVISM: PRESENT, PAST, NEVER COMPARISONS (MICHIGAN) AGE, EDUCATION, INCOME CONTROLLED SEQUENTIALLY AGE CONTROLLED Lo Age Med. Age Hi. Age % N % N % N Present 64 646 66 488 66 293 1017 744 443 Past 68 345 70 253 67 508 504 359 761 Never 70 263 59 176 65 326 374 297 498 EDUCATION CONTROLLED Lo. Education Hi. Education % N % N Present 65 745 64 682 1139 1065 Past 69 687 66 419 989 635 Never 66 451 65 311 686 480 INCOME CONTROLLED Lo. Income Hi. Income % N % N Present 66 261 64 1166 397 1807 Past 68 644 68 462 943 681 Never 66 463 63 289 706 460 Sample N = 804 No. of Items 8 109 o n mamuH oo .02 vow u z oagEmm. .ww. “6H .ww. ea vb we vm mum mo .ocH .flm Hw>mz EH. FIB ...o... an” no OOH eo qum me .ocH .oq Eh 8...; E... oma oo mvH. mo ewe mo ocH .am ummm -oem ooH mmm - mmm no HHH: up Hoe mo .ocH .oq 6mm mmm Hmm mma no mmm mo 0mm mo .UCH .Hm ucmmmum mwa moH Mm mm eo OHH mo om mo .ocH .oq E. E". P. v.3 8N Jva oo o.H mo Hg mm wo mm mom Hm .cm .Hm E“. B... E. E”. mm. 352 mma on mmm vo wwm oo. WOJ No Ho mo .om .oq .....- En. El. -..... E”. Ema mo uh“. mo aqa mo ow on ,mwm oo .pm .flm ummm loom EV. E. E“. E”. mmm an ”a: mo mxm mo moa on mma Nb .cm .oq NE E. mh E- E. mmm vo vm oo as oo ohm oo mm: «o om .Hm ucmmoum mmm vow mmm New me who mo noa oo mmm mo mom mo vfim No .om .0q 2 x z x z x z x z. x .ucH .Hm .UCH .oq wm4 .flm 004 .cwz om .oq quqomazoo MEOUZH nmqqomazoo mw¢ MAmDomz¢BADZHm qunomazoo kMSOUZH amo< uZOHB¢UDQm .m0¢ umzoozH .ZOHBmz .Bmdm .BZMOMMm "SmH>HBUmquU v.m mflmda 110 It is therefore plausible that while they might support labor union collectivism, they would be negative to collective procedures in agriculture. Secondly, they may be convinced that if collective bargaining were introduced in agriculture and worked, most of the increased costs would be in all probability passed on to consumers. Thus conflicts of inter- est may play a role in the explanation of the response of those presently working off-farm. Pro-Government--Anti-Government Half our hypotheses with respect to pro-government support in agriculture received some support. It is hoped that further inspection of the data might cast some light upon the reasons for non-support of the remainder, possibly enabling correction and explanation. Table 5.5 reveals our dilemma. Though we hypothe— sized that the presents would be more pro-government in agri- culture, there seems to be little or no difference between farmers and presents in the combined and Michigan studies with age, education and income controlled sequentially. The effects of all three variables in these two studies are parallel for both sets. Although age appears to have little effect on the relation, increased education diminishes pro-government sup— port with some unequivocality in the combined and Michigan studies and among farmers (but not presents) in the Wisconsin study. 111 Row n wEoocH Rem u cofiumoscm mucwmonm A meEHmm I RNw u 0mm Inhocmpmflmcoo EmuH v u mEmpH mo .OZ wow N Z oamfimme (D V Ln r-l Ch 1\ L0 m I!) V‘ O CD CD 0 k0 r-i N M 0‘ 0 <1‘ mom Om Nam mm OOH mm mmm av mvm ov «NH mm OH Om mumEHmm mom HOH mOv va OHN Ovm who mmm Om OO Om mna mm OHN ow mm mm mma Om m H mm mpcmmoum Z X Z X Z X Z K Z X Z x Z fi .ocH .Hm .ocH .oq .om .Hm .om .oq mmm .Hm mom .ooz mom .oq QMAAOMBZOU mEOUZH QmAAOMBZOU ZOHBOUIOMm m.m mamfla 112 *wm n cowumoscm mucwmoum A mHmEHmml xmo om< unaccoumflmcoo souH o u mEouH mo .oz owe u z oagfimm. Hoe mos on oam m o saw we owe om boa mo msa mo oom mm mHoEumm ovH oma Wm. HM oma mo so oo oo om me me ow mo ow mucomoum z x z x z x z x z x .om .flm .om .oq owe .Hm moo .ooz mmm .oq nmqqomezoo oneowlomm 115 TABLE 5.7 PRO-GOVERNMENT: PRESENT, PAST, NEVER COMPARISONS (MICHIGAN) AGE, EDUCATION, INCOME CONTROLLED SEQUENTIALLY AGE CONTROLLED Lo. Age Med. Age Hi. Age % N’ % N' % N Present 39 _183 36 _123 39 ._§g 474 346 210 Past 38 __89 38 ._65 41 .151 237 173 368 Never 38 ._6§ 4O ._52 38 ._gg 172 148 241 EDUCATION CONTROLLED Lo. Education Hi. Education % N % N Present 40 215 35 173 541 489 Past 41 192 36 113 466 312 Never 42 141 34 75 38 223 INCOME CONTROLLED Lo. Income Hi. Income % N % N Present 39 66 38 322 181 849 Past 39 174 40 131 449 329 Never 40 138 36 78 342 219 Sample N = 804 No. of Items = 4 116 v u mEouH.oo .oz ooo u z onEmm. QHAAOKBZOU HZOOZH PW pm ww e. co an em .0” om .ocH .Hm Ho>oz .OOO pww Law .. m mm mm ow m“ we .ucH .OH Mm- 00H .www :» Ho om om om mo .ocH .Hm Hmmm new Wm HOH HHH Ho mm ow mm mm .ocH .oH mumm eem mmN om mm mm mm OmH ow . .ocH .Hm Hammoum EN -mw mmm oH mm on mm «H mm .oaH .oH OHH mww mm. . pm wa rm om om om NH ,om om mm ”o mm .om .Hm Ho>oz mmww mmm WOW . mm. .mw Ho om 3H we do on am vo ”H mm .om .oH _me .rmw .mw wmw .www H“ mm Ho em on em “N mm -o om .om .Hm pmmm Nww .mmw .wmw .wmw -mw 0: mo HHH 04 -HH me -o em Hm mo .om .oq Wuw Eu .wm. . wHIH. .wfi ,mmH om ow om am we in om HHH om .om .Hm Hammoum OWN. HEM .www .wmw mOH moH mm oe Ho om km uo mm mm mo .om .OH 2 x z x z x z x z x .ocH .Hm .ocH .oq 66¢ .Hm mmm .ooz mmm .oH QmAAOMBZOU mwfl. NAODOflZ¢BADSHm QWAAOMBZOU “WEOUZH «mw< “ZOHfiflobnm «mwfl uHSOUZH HZOHB¢UDQM knwhDBm ZNOHEUHSV mZOmHMmz H8mowlomm m.m quflfi 117 with respect to the way in which changing occupational com- mitments alter (and may alter) support for government farm policies, they should not be extended. In any case, these results may serve to caution those who would generalize as I hypothesized. Change Orientation It was in the change orientation theme that we achieved greatest success in matching theory and data. Lest our success be misleading, let us take a closer look. Table 5.9 reveals the farmers more traditional than the "presents" after age, education and income controls have been applied sequentially. While increasing age also increases traditionality, increasing education and income decreases it. One might ask if the education and income ef- fects are additive or entirely interactive. Table 5.10 reveals that even after the education ef- fects have been removed, increasing income reduces traditionality. The insertion of the age control does not appear to distort the relation between education, income and the de- gree of off—farm contact. Tables 5.11 and 5.12 support our hypothesis that the relation is largely step-wise. Interpretive caution must however be exercised in Table 5.12. Here it must be noted that at medium and high age levels the high education 118 fivm u oEOUcH so» u :oHumosom mucmmoum A meEHmml Ram u 004 Ilmodwumflmcoo EmuH h u meuH Mo .OZ wow M Z mHmEmm* OmOH OmOH NHOH MOOH mnHH OOO 0mm Hnfi Ow th NO NOO Ow HHO NO OHO NO omN Ov OOm mo mHoEHmm OOOH HOm OOm OOOH mmm OOO mHm hmO Nv NNH Ow mOm ow omv OO OON NO Oom vv 5 M NO mucwmoum Z X Z x Z X Z x _ Z x Z X Z & .ocH .Hm .UCH .OH .om .Hm .om .oH om< .Hm mmm .ooz wu< .oH QMQQOZBZOU mEOUZH QMAAOZBZOU ZOHBGUDQW QWQQOMBZOU mo< *NQDBm ZflOHmUHS goo u :oHumosomw mucwmmum A mumfinmhl xso u mm< --mocoumHmcoo souH o u mEmHH mo .02 mmmH w z oHQEmm* HoMH oomm oovH oom omMH ooo Ho NoHH om mm» mm «Ho ow moo mo mumEumm mmm omOH HHo Hvo new pom em Hko mo mom mo mom ow mmm om mucwmoum z x z x Z x z x z x .om .Hm .om .oH owd .Hm mom .ooz oma .OH nmqqomezoo onaaopam omHHomszoo mo< «wnsem amszzoo wqquazmbomm anHomazoo mzoozH n24 onamZ mOm. OOH RE HOH om no mm vs «O .ocH .oH .mhw Omm. mmmm H. mm OO «O HOH HO .ocH .Hm ummm -mrw OMH NOW HOH mo -- so OO OO .ocH .ou _www .wwm mmmw mmH mo mum mo «Hm om .ocH .Hm ucmwmum OOH HNO mm HS mm mo Se mm mv .ocH .OH HHN Omm mm WHO mmm no Oe OHH ow mm Ho oO om OHH ow .om .Hm OO>OZ MOO. -WV. Mm”. WolH. MO. OOH Ho OOH oo m-m mo em mm on ow .om .OH ME“. FOR. Rm. OOH Wm“. H H «v OOH me Or so wv oe OHH Ow .om .Hm ummm mew “mmw HMMW .Mmm MWMO O H ow ”Om Hm mom mo HOH sO Hr ow .om .OH NH El NOIH. Em”. PE. A Omm Om qo OO Hm so «OH HO omm em .om .Hm ucmmwnm hww _WMM mmm Ommw OON mOm ow OOH ov ROH Om HOH ow HOH mo .om .oH Z X Z X Z X Z X Z X .ocH .Hm .ocH .oq mmm .Hm Omm .omz OOO OH quqomszoo OZOOZH quqomezoo mom meOOEZmZ .OOOO .aZmommm "EOHHOZoHaHomma NH . O mqmflfi 122 “nevers" are consistently the least traditional with the "pasts" next and the “presents" Egg; traditional. This re- versal also appears consistently in the high income and age controls. This reversal may be important, in that it apparently catches the nostalgia with which many of those working off- farm view the passing of the "family farm." It may indicate that socialization and the view of the farm as a good place to retire, may exceed the impact of the work setting in ac— counting for the results. Such an interpretation is, of course, little more than speculation--the magnitude of the differences is obviously not great. The pattern is, however, suggestive. Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction To the dissatisfaction theme, we now turn. Table 5.13 indicates that the farmers are consistently more dis- satisfied than the presents after age, education and income controls have been applied sequentially for both the combined and Michigan studies. Age, education and income have clear parallel ef- fects on the two work categories-—increasing age, increased dissatisfaction; while increasing education and income de— creased dissatisfaction. Table 5.14 suggests that the degree to which farmers are more dissatisfied than "presents" may be attributed to 123 XOO u wEoocH XOO n coHumoswm mucomoum A muoshmml XOO u wm< Ilmucmpmecoo EOHH OH H mEmuH mo .OZ OOO M Z OHQEMOS HOOH OHNN OOOH OONN NOOH OOO OOHH OOOH OO NHOH OO Omm OO OOOH OO OOOH OO ONO NO OOO OO mHoEHmm OOON OHO NOOH OOOH OOO HOO ONOH OOOH OO OOO NO OHO OO OOOH mO ONO OO OOO OO OOO OO mpcwmmnm Z X Z X Z X Z X Z X Z X Z X .OOH .Hm .OOH .OH .Om .Hm .Om .oH Omm .Hm Omm .OOZ mmm .OH QWHAOZBZOU mEOUZH QMAHOMBZOU ZOHBfiUDQm QMHHOMEZOU mw< *NQDBm Z<0HMUHS XOO u :oHumusOm mucwmwum A mumEHmml XHO u omfl Inhocoumecoo EmuH O n mEmuH mo .OZ mNNH n Z OHQEMOR OOOH NOON OOOH OOOH HHOH OOOH mO OOON OO ONOH mO OOO OO OOOH OO muoEHmm OHHH OOOH OOO OOO NOHH OOO OO NOO OO OO NO NOO OO ONO NO mucomwum Z X Z X Z X Z X Z X .Om .Hm .Ow .OH mmm .Hm Omm .Omz Omm .OH QMHHOMBZOU ZOHBflUDQm QMHHOMBZOU mom h..ZQDHO QMZHmzoo waquBZmDomm nmqqomaZoo MEOUZH aza ZOHBOUDQm .mwm umZOmHmOZ .E E“- E“- ONO NO OOH OO OOH OO .UCH .OH En- Em. E OON OO OOH OO OON OO .UCH .HO ummm -E- E- E- OOO OO. HOH OO .OOH OO .UGH .OH Omar mmw OOmH OOH OX Omm mo HNO mo .ocH .Hm Ocmmmum E- E E OOH OO OOH OO NO NO .UCH .OH E- EH. E E- OE NOH vo Omm mo O. OO NOH mo NON oo .om .Hm um>mz E”. .E E E- OF OHN NO ONO NO OWO NO OOH OO OO HO .OH .OH E.- .E m..- E.”- EH . OON OO OH- HO OwH OO OHH OO OON OO .OH .HHO “mmm EN Ew- E- B.» E- OOH OO OOO HO OHO OO OHN OO OOH OO .Om .OH OE E.”- EH- E- E- OOO OO ONH OO OOH OO Om” OO HOO OO .Om .Hm 2: Em E.- Eo. EN 2...: HOO NO OON OO HNO OO OOO HO NNH OO .OH .OH Z X Z X Z X Z X Z X .ocH .Hm .OCH .OH OOO .Hm. OO< .Omz Omm .OH QMHHOMBZOU MZOOZH QMHHOMBZOU WOO NHODOMZOBHDSHO QHHHOMBZOU «MSOUZH wafl “ZOHfidobnm .m04 “MSOUZH qZOHBOUDQW NHNQDBO Z4OHEUHSV OZOOHmdmzoo mm>mz aamflm ABzmmmmm “ZOHBOOOOHBHucmmwnm no coon OGH>mn X NOH. mmH m OmN mH HOm mN HH‘umz cHuoz mcHusc mUH>Hom mnmuHHHE mcH>mn X mom. mmH mN mON OO NOm mm AccmH pouno>Hp cam onsummm mopsHuch 00H Cmcu mmmH . mo ommouom Hmuou mcH>m£ X Omo. NmH. HO mmm mo OOm Om mme Ho Hoocum cch .mu» m pmumHmEOU mcH>mn X mmN. NmH Om moN .OO HON ms mmm mo .mnm mm cmsu mmmH X mHH NO NNN om .mus OH NO MN Hm mH .mum-mIO mm Omm. . Om mm Hm o mu» m xuoz Eumm mmm. HmH 00H 0 0 mm OH ocoz Immo mumow Z X _Z X .Z X UHumHuouumnmnu ucmHonwmoo EHmmuwmo ummm CH Euwmnwmo mocmmcHucoo pmxno3 Ho>mZ EHmMIwmo mcquoz mcquo3 aHucwmem ZflmeUHZImem =MM>MZ= QZ< :Bmflm: OH.m mqmfle : n Emm mmm -. m0 MUHBmHMMBUmZ Eumwuwmo OGHxHoz OCHMHOB xHucmmoum COSCHuCOUIIOH.m mHmm3m£umm .m mHmQ "WUWDOO mO. OO. mO. Om. I I I I I I I I manBCOZ NO. mm. OO. mO. I I I I I I I I muHSB HO. Om. MO. OO. I I I I I I I I :mQHD \EHmmCOZIHmusm chHD \EHmmCOZIHmHsm I I I I I I OO. HO. ON. OO. I I I I OuHcacoz I I I I I I OO. OO. OO. HO. I I I I manz I I I I I I OO. OO. OO. OO. I I I I Hmuoa sway: \EummIHmusm OO. Om. Om. OO. OO. OO. Om. mO. OO. Om. Om. mm. OO. Hm. mm. Nm. _O#H£3 I mN.H \wqu3c0Z I OO.H I mm.H I OO.H I OO.H I Om.H .I Nm.H I OO.H OmOH \OOOH HMUOB mOHumm OEOUCH mOHH OOO OOON OOOH MOO OOm OONH mOm OOm HHm OOO OOO mom OOm MONN HOOH OuH£3COZ OOOH ONOH NOOO OHON OHOH OOO Ommm MOHN ONO mmm OONN OOOH HOOH OOHH OHmO NOmN OHHQB NmmH ONNH NmmO MOON NOO OHO OmNm NOON HMO OmO OOON OMMH OmOH ONOH MOHO OmON Hmuoe HOHOHHOO :Hv mCOmeQ-wo mEoocH COHOOS OOOH ommH OOmH ommH OOmH ommH OOmH ommH OOmH ommH OOmH ommH OOmH ommH OOmH OOOH mmusmmmz mHmEmm mHmz mHmEmm mHmE mHmem OHO: . mHmem mHmS OmuUmHmm amp“: I EmmbIcoZ Hmusm EHOMIHmusm Hmuoa |II mafiflam QNBHZD uMOHOU QZG Nam «WUZWQHOHM Mm OOOH @Gm OmOH Ozommmm ha MZOUZH ho OMMDOQNS Omaomqmm N mqm¢9 150 .OOOIH .O .OON mHnme .OOOH .munmo mcHucHHm ucchuw>OO .O.D OH I HHva unommm HmsHm .O.G qcoumcHnmmz NmeEOO .O.D NmUHumH Immuomumnu OOHHmumn OOmH "coHumHsmom mo msmcwu .O.D .msmcmo may no Omwusm .m.D "OUHOOOO 0.0N NOO mquOMH H.MN OOo.H HOO.mHH.H cwEmHom new mnmuonmq Eumm O.HO mOm.H OOm.HHOnN O.HO OHm.m OmO.HOO.N Hmmson .>Hum mcHOOHo wav mnmxuoz m0H>Hmm m.om OOO OOm.OOm.H m.mN OOqu Oqumm OHonmmson mum>Hum O.NOH mHm.N Omm.Ommqm o.mm mmN.O MOH.Omo.m OOHOCHX 6cm mw>HumuwQO O.mNH ONm.N mOm.mON O.MHH OON.m HNo.OOO~O OwHOCHM .cmEmHom acwEmummIHO 0.00 OmO.H mOH.OOO.H m.OOH OOm.O HOHOMquN mumxuoz mmHmm 0.0MH OHo.m OHmNNmo.O m.m0H mO0.0 mHm.HOoqm OOHOGHM 0cm HOUHHOHU 0.00H mmm.m moo.mOO N.OOH OO0.0 mmo.m0OaO Hammm OGHOOHU Ixmv muouwHHmoum .mHmHonmo .muwmmcmz o.Om OmO OOo.mO m.OO mOH.N HquOmH.N mummmcmz, Eumm cam wuwfiumm 0.00H mNO.m OOO.moO.N N.mOH mH0.0 OHm.mO0.0 OmHOCHM.aHmo IchomB .Hmconmmmoum 00H OquN HOO.0OHOON 00H HNOOO mom.omN.OO thumv monom Hsonmq HH>HO OmocmHHmmxm mqom mo HOHOHHOO OHO mqazmm Oqom mo HOHOHHOO OHO OHO: ZOHQOZ ZGHQMZ OOOmH "mmamsm OOBHZD mma mom .Xmm O24 ZOHammDOOO NO .momom.momHw.omozmHmmmxm.mme zH Ozommmm mo OOOH 2H moszmOm m mqmfifi 151 .HIONNH OOO OINHNH .OO .Hx .Omno .N .Ho> .NOOH ..o.o .COHOCHnmmB.qonwmo mcHucHum ucmEcum>ow .O.D ..4.0.D mnu mo wmumum OGOLGOHumZ map How moHumHumum .mmmH .musuHOOHHm¢ Mo msmcwo «msmcwo may mo smmusm .O.D "OUHOOOO m.m MNO.H 0.0H 0OO.NON.mOH m.OO 0Hm.0OO.H manna Hmnuo HH< m.NN Omm.O m.ON ONOOOOquom m.Om Omm.HON.H 000«0HI00m«N O.HN m00.0 H.mH OO0.000«OHN 0.mH O00.mOO 000«0NI000.0H m.mO mmN.mH N.Om OO0.NOH.OHO 0.0 H0quHm 000.0N 00H mN0.0m 00H mm0.00m.mNH.H 00H OOm.OOqu mEHmm Hmuoa a3on X 000.000 GSOQ X mwno< czon X “09552 OHoO HmumHHoOO muosooum manmm mo mmnm Hmuoe mEHmm mo HmnEOZ um HmHsuHsoHnmm mo OwsHm> muosconm msHm> Hmuos maHHHmm wmone *mBZDOZd UHmHummm Ed QWDH¢> OBUDQQmm DZHHHmm .m.D WEB ZH m2moo .O.D .MHuH «meHnoHE mo mmHucsou cam mumpm mnu How moHumHumum .OOmH awusuHsoHHmm mo msmcmo .msmcwu may no Ommusm .O.D "wousomO O.m Omm.Omm.HO m.NN moO.MHH.m m.NO . OOm.mm mfiumm Hwnuo HH< O.HN mHOOOom.OOH O.Nm HmO.NO0.0 O.mm OOH.Hm 000.0HI00maN 0.0N OOH.mmm.mOH O.HN Om0.m0m.N m.OH OqumH 000.0NI000.0H 0.00 NON.OOH.OOm H.MN Om0.0MH.m H.0H OmOam 000.0N 00H OquOmm.OOO 00H Nam.Omm.MH 00H O0m.mm . mEme Hmuoe c309 X w :309 X. mmuod CBOQ X. HOQEHZ OHOO AmHmHHOOv muoscoum manmm wo mmum Hmuoa manmm mo HOQEOZ um HmusuHsoHumm mo OmsHm> muuscoum wsHm> Hmuoa mcHHme Omega hOPHZDOEAN UHmHummm Ed QWDH¢> mBUDnomm UZHHHWO ZflOHmUHZ ZH m2¢4h m mqmds 153 “mOHmmo OCHucHHm ucmficum>ow .O.D qOHuH moHumHumum OOOH .OHOUHOUHHOO mo msmcwo .mm .O .OOOH ..o.o .couOcHOOmz .msmcmo may no smmusm .O.D nCHOCOUOHS mo mmecsoo 0cm mumum mnu How ”mouse OO 0.m 0O0.00H.mm N.OH Hom.OOOqN H.ON O00.0N meumm Hmnuo HHO m.ON OO0.000.0HO m.0O 0mm.HHN.O O.mO mmH.Nm 000.0HI00m.N O.mm Om0.0mO.mmm m.0m HHN.NNN.O O.mN OH0.0N 000.0NI000.0H m.Nm OO0.00H.HOO 0.0H 0Hm.mmN.m . H.O Omm.m 000.0N 00H mm0.0mm.Om0.H 00H NOm.OOm«0N 00H OH0.0HH manna Hmuoe 5.69 X m :38. X mmnom G38 .X .3852 OHoO HOHOHHoOO muoOOoum maumm mo mmufl Hmuoa manmm mo HmQEsZ um HmuOuHsoHHmm mo wsHm> Hmuoa OmsHm> mausooum OOHHHOO mmone II E WBZDOE< UHmHummm EN QNDH<> mBUDnomm UZHHHMO ZHmZOUmH3_ZH m2d¢m O mamma 154 HOCHOOO =q>pmHuom unmsHmm< CO CH .OHHH .O OOHHom HmnsuHsoHHm¢= «OOOH «cmuusm .3 cocnm> "mousom .OOO amuOO nmUHEocoom Enmm mo mm+ HHm+ 0mH+ mO+ OH+ NHI mHI mansumn mo . OuHumm m>mH£Um ou OOHHOU Imu mEoucH umc OwNHHmmH CH mmcmcu mmmucmuumm OmumoHocH NNOqO OOm.O OHNqH Nmm.H OOO , N0OI OmNI HmHmHHOO GOHHHHEV . HOQMH OHHEmm 0cm Houmummo ou mausumu H50: mmm HO.Nw new .mummmm amuoumummo Eumm ou cusumu ucmoummlm m OGHEdmmm «mmm OEOUGH Oanmm moH.OH Omm.H moO OHHON m0m.m ONmOm Hmm.N HOHOHHOO coHHHHEV wEoocH Enmm um: OmNHHmwm O.OOH H.O N.O O.OH O.HN N.NN O.OO Hucmoummv aoHuanuuwHO mmmucmoumm quHmumu ammo 0.00H O.OO O.O 0.0H 0.0H O.O 0.0 Huamoummv coHusQHHumHO ommucmoumm OOm.m OOO.H 0mm. mmm OOm mHm OOH Hmccmmsonuv mEHmm mo umnEdZ OOO.NO OO0.00 OO0.00 OO0.0HO OO0.000 uw>o manna cmzu OH on OH on , mam. HH< mama OOO.NO OO0.00 OO0.0HO OO0.0NO OO0.000 mmHmm nuH3 mEHmh Honasz OOOOH .OOOAU onozoom MO Osman mo OZOHBHOOO OzoozH OOHOOO 92¢ .mzoozH O mqmHuO OOHOOHome muoxuoz m0H>Hmm mam N.O.H Hom Nam mow ham GHOSmmgom mpmkrflhm O.Nm OHHN H.Hm O.HN H.ON 0.0H OOHOCHM 0cm mm>Humemo m.MH 0.0H 0.0H H.mH 0.0H O.mH OmuocHx .cmEmHom «:wEmummHU N.O 0.0 0.0 H.O m.m 0.0 mnoxuoz mmHmm O.HH O.mH O.HH O.mH 0.HH 0.0H OOHOCHM new HOUHHmHO 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.O N.O H.O Hagan OOHOsHoxOO muoumHHmoum aOHMHUHmmO qmummmcmz 0.0 0.NH 0.m m.NH m.m m.NH OmuocHx .HmochomB .Hmconmmmoum udmoumm unwouwm unmouwm Sham swans Eumm COQHD Eumm dunno Hmusm, Hmusm Hmusm. ZHOZOOOHS ZOOHmOHz .<.O.D OOOOH uZHmZOUmHB NZ<0HmUHS N.¢.m.D mom WUZNQHmmm Nm Homom m0mHuO OOHOsHoxOO mumxuoz m0H>me H. H. H. H. N. H. OHoswmsom mum>Hum H.0O N.mN 0.0m OHmN O.HO m.mH OmHOGHM cam mm>Humemo O.HN O.HN 0.0N O.HN 0.NN H.0N OOHOGHM .cmeHom HcmEmummHO O.m 0.0 m.m m.O m.O H.O mumxuoz memm m.O m.O 0.0 0.0 H.m m.O GOHOCHM cam HMOHHOHU O.O O.OH H.O O.O O.O O.NH Hanan OOHOsHoxOO muouwHumoum .mHMHonmO .mnmmmcmz m.m m.HH O O H.NH m.m N.NH OOHOCHx qHOUHGSUPH. «HOCOHmmmmoum ucmoumm uswoumm uswouwm Enmm :mnHD Eumm CmnuD Emma COQHD Hmusm Hmusm Hmusm ZHOZOUOHB Zmmm mk<>_mm mm>_hm ..<. m. a Orb mom «on ugmou zom<4 OO>oqmzm NIH no AcuoaHoxm mzo.pHMHmmImmm3 m UHmC omHm ow CmMOHmEmIMHmm wuwB any “mHoE Ho mummonEw 03¢ nuH3 muwxuo3 mHmHmm no mmmz mm mnon Cm: Amv 023 wCOmHmQ cw>0HmEm: "m30HHom mm mumw mHCu mo mwmomusm How mumoHOCQOn mHmHuHCE mCHmwv Amid .m H.Hv EonumCm3m ©Cm Cmmom .m .AmIC .Q Ha mHQmBV m .02 muuomwm mouom Momma HmHommm Ho qAommH .uuov 3mH>mm Honmq >HCHC0£ =HmmmH HmQEmowQ CH mHmUHOCQOb meHuHsz= HumoHUCmm mnsuuumw .m .AmHm .m Hm mHQva mm .02 puommm munch gonna HmHoQO Ho .AMOOH Omzv 3mH>mO Honmq OHOHcoz =.NOOH Om: cH mHOOHongon mHOHHHsz= .cmeHHHnum noomb .v .Am .m Hm wHQmBV mm .02 uuommm wouom Honmq HmHommm Ho AvomH coumzv 3wH>wm Honmq OHCHcoz =.m©OH Om: CH muwcHonnon mHOHHHsz= .stmm .m Om>umm Cam ammom .< Hmmuuom .m .AHON .m Hm wHQmBV Hm .oz unommm mouom Honma HmHummm no AmomH Cuumzv 3Hw>mm HonmquwnuCoz =H¢omH hm: CH mnmvHOCQOb mHmHuH52= .Cmmom .< pmmnnom @Cm HmEmD .m mm>umm .N .OHH .O Hm wHQmB Eoum UmumHsono .mo .02 uuommm mouom Hogan HmHquw Ho AoomH .Qmmv 3wH>wm Momma NHCHCOS :HmomH mm: CH muooHOCQOb mHmHuH52= HEOComCm3m .m mmEOCB @Cm Cmmom .< ammuuom .H m.mm m.mH mHm H.w mmH mDNHm m.m Hmm HHme mmmmH «.OC ¢.¢H mow v.0 OHN homHm 5.0 Com mqum CmomH m.Om m.mH mmm O.m mmH hmmqm m.m mmm mnHHm mmmmH m.mm 0.0N 0H0 m.m 0mm mmon H.m 00¢ hoon mvomH 0.Hm m.mH mHo m.m mHN moHHm H.m oH¢ mNHHm HmmmH quEDOHmEu wusuHsoHHmm X .noh mumoCm x. mnsuHCUHumm AmeCuo _ IMme wnmva * CH “humEHum Co a mHmEHHQ CH .m.b.2 + .m.b.2v HHm mo quE>0HQEm wusuHCUHumm musuHCUHHmm mo HmQECZ wnsuHCUHHmm OH .OH cH -HHmm :H omOoHOEO cH OOHOHO cH omOoHO quE>OHmEm 90m wumOCN IMHmm mum IEw MHmm IEm Hmnfisz IMme wnmUCN . 0C3 .m.b.2 AmDCmmCOSH CH meQECCV mmDBHDUHmO< ZflUHmmzd CH A.m.b.zv mmmaflommOb mquBHDZ OH mqmdfi 159 .OOHH .O .v mHnma .Hx .Omnu .HH .Ho> .vaH “musuHsUHCOC mo msmCmo .m.D HmsmCmU mCu mo :mwusm .m.D Eoum memu mmuson wme .AmEumm HmEHOCnm mo muoumuwmo mmcsHo Ixmv mmmmm msOHHm> HhH anmB Hm¢IH muumm HH .Ho> HmmmH "musuHsoHHm4 mo mCmaU .m.D HmCmCmU mo Cmmnsm .m.D Eoum UmumHCUHmo meCmHm mmmH .m .mmCo Hm puma HMH .Ho> .wmmH mHsuHCUHHm< mo msmao Amv Amy .m.D .msmCmU may mo smwusm .m.D :HmCHEHmm wEHuluumm= HBouonm .0.D AHV "mmuusom CmmH vomH x0.Hm OmOH AmcoHHHchmm mHanmOeoov xm.ow OmOH gm.mm «mOH A.onOOmV go.om HOOH Xb.mm wme xo.>m vva Xm.HH mNmH Xo.mm mmmH mHOE Ho mmmw OOH EHMMIMMO mmm» whoa Ho mac 0C0 Sunnimmo umwm mCHxHOB muoumuwmo Emmm X mCHxHOB mnoumnmmo Eumm X Aonagzv mmoaow .m.D .CmmHCoHS mo mmHUCsoo ow wumum mCu Mom mUHumHumum vomH HOHQHHCUHhmm mo msmao HmsmaU may mo smwnsm .m.D uw0H50m¥ o.¢m H.mm H.mO H.mm OOH summnzoz . pm qumm mmmc mo quonm OHo.m «m 5mm.m mm mn~.« av mHm.o~ Hm mama OOH Hmn.o ow mom.n Hw omo.o mm mmm.om Ow mama mono mOOH¢H OOH OOOHOH .OOH OOmHOH OOH HONHHO OOH AHOHmHmmo . CmCu HmCuov new Enmmlmmo CuH3 UHonmmson CH mComem Hmo.OH OHO.HH mmm.n mOH.O~ OOHHHoOmH mnoumnmmo Eumm mo HmQECZ Eddmlmmo wszmoz anommmDom zmm© mo pCmouwm wmvHON m.mn mmmHMH N.Om NOmHM 0.0H mOMHHC m.¢¢ mmma OOH OOO m.m OOOHm O.mH OOHHC ¢.mH mmOHHH O.HH mama mmlo www.mm v.0O mm¢qu O.Nm HOmHO H.mm wmvnmm H.Om xuoz annulmmo . mCHunommm wuoumummo Emma OHm.mm OOH OOmHOm OOH OHOHNN OOH vOmHmm OOH mzmow..mJDLHCHmCaomHz mo mmHquou ch mumum map How moHumHumum «OOH HmusuHOUHumm mo msmCmU HmsmCmU mCu mo smwusm .m.D ”mousom* O.OO O.OO 0.00 O.OO noH gummuzoz um qumm mwmo mo pCmouwm OmO.O mm OOO.NH Ow mvv.O Om www.mm 0.00 Oman OOH Omm.v HO OHO.NH mm OHm.OH NO NOO.O~ H.Om mama OOIO OO~.O OOH OHO.¢~ OOH OO0.0H OOH OOH.Hm OOH HoumeOo can» Hmnuov noH sHmHumHo CHHz UHOCmeOC CH mCOmuwm mCHuHommH muoumuomo Eumm mo Hmnfisz omoHO ooonH mwbHHH mmmHmm SMflmlhmO UZHMmOS QAOEMMDOE Sm Ei where Oi = observed number of cases categorized in 1th category Ei expected number of cases in 1th category under Ho directs one to sum over all (k) categories. Source: Sidney Siegel, NOnparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co. Inc., c1956), 43 167 TABLE 6 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM: COMBINED ITEM? ITEM CORRELATIONS C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C1 C2 .11 C3 .13 .30 C4 .04 .21 .18 C5 .06 .16 .14 .09 C6 .16 .22 .23 .08 .14 ITEMS C1 It would be to the farmers' advantage to gain control of one of the large retail food chains. C2 The producers cannot make their bargaining power felt and will always be forced to yield unless they can and do cut off the available supply to the processors. C3 Farmers must get together in bargaining associations to deal with processors and retailers. C4 If you want to solve agriculture's problem it's the pro- duction and marketing system as a whole that needs to be changed not just the practices of the individual farmers. C5 Farmers must reduce the total amount of products going to market if they are going to receive a higher price for those products. C6 Buyers of farm products who sign a contract with a bargaining association should not be allowed to buy farm products from farmers who do not belong to the bargain- ing association. * Added in the final analysis was the item: "Do you think farmers can work together to solve the major farm problem (respondent defined in immediately preceding question) through their own organization?“ (% responding "yes"). 168 TABLE 7 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM: MICHIGAN ITEM- ITEM CORRELATIONS C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Ml C1 C2 .09 C3 .12 .23 C4 .06 .22 .16 C5 .01 .17 .18 .11 C6 .13 .19 .23 .06 .13 M1 .01 .22 .23 .09 .39 .19 ITEMS Cl It would be to the farmers' advantage to gain control over one of the large retail food chains. C2 The producers cannot make their bargaining power felt and will always be forced to yield unless they can and do cut off the available supply to the processor. C3 Farmers must get together in bargaining associations to deal effectively with processors and retailers. C4 If you want to solve agriculture's problems it's the pro- duction and marketing system as a whole that needs to be changed not just the practices of the individual farmers. C5 Farmers must reduce the total amount of products going to market if they are going to receive a higher price for those products. C6 Buyers of farm products who sign a contract with a bar- gaining association should be allowed to buy farm products from farmers who do not belong to the bargaining association. M1 In order to be effective bargaining associations that at- tempt to gain higher prices for farmers must be able to control the output that individual farmers market. 169 OH. OH. OH. OH. OO.: . OO.- OO. OO. mm. OH. OO. OO. Ou OH. OH. OH. OO. OH. OH. OH. OO. OH. OH. OO. O3 OO. OH. OO.: HH.- HH.- OO. Om. OH. Om. OH. O: OO. OH. OH. HO. OH. OO. HO. OH. OH. Oo OO. OO.: OO. OO. «O. OH. HO. OO. Oo OO. HO. OH. HH.- OO.- OH.- HO. O: OO. Om. OO.- OO. OO.: OO. O: OO. OO.- HH. OH. HO. O: HO.. OH. OO. HO.- O: HO. OO. HH. Oo HO. OH. H3 OH. NO Ho O6 O3 O3 O6 O6 O3 O3 m3 «3 mo Hz mo Ho mZOHBHBUMHHOUIZmHH¢DQH>HQZH 170 ITEMS: C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 It would be to the farmers advantage to gain control of one of the large retail food chains. The producers cannot make their bargaining power felt and will always be forced to yield unless they can and do cut off the available supply to the processor. ' Farmers must get together in bargaining associations to deal effectively with processors and retailers. If you want to solve agriculture's problems it's the pro— duction and marketing system as a whole that needs to be changed, not just the practices of the individual farmer. Farmers must reduce the total amount of products going to market if they are going to receive a higher price for those products. Buyers of farm products who sign a contract with a bar- gaining association should not be allowed to buy farm products from farmers who do not belong to the association. In order to be effective bargaining associations that at- tempt to get higher prices for farmers must be able to control the output that individual farmers market. Farming should be an occupation where farmers are com- pletely independent with respect to economic decisions. When farmers try to bargain collectively, they are dis— rupting the market system and preventing it from giving them a fair price. It will never be possible to organize farmers to make collective bargaining successful. Collective bargaining will never be possible in agri- culture because different commodity interests will never agree with each other in order to present a united front to present to the buyers and processors. Farmers have just as much right to price their products and insist on getting that price as anyone else in the economy. If their situation is to improve farmers must gain more control of processing and retailing of farm products. 171 TABLE 9 PRO-GOVERNMENT--ANTI-GOVERNMENT IN AGRICULTURE: COMBINED ITEMFITEM CORRELATIONS C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 .14 C3 .04 -.02 ITEMS C1 Farmers cannot count on government assistance in solving their marketing and price problems. (inverted) C2 Federal marketing orders should be expanded to cover more Michigan products. C3 Government estimates of crop production and of livestock receipts tend to strengthen the position of the buyers and weaken the position of the farmers in farmer market- ing arrangements. (inverted) Note: Added in the final analysis on the Michigan and Com- bined analyses was the item "WOuld you favor state or federal legislation which would authorize and enforce joint efforts to promote products, control quality and restrict level of production marketed?" Yes No D.K. (% Yes) 172 TABLE 10 PRO-GOVERNMENT--ANTI-GOVERNMENT IN AGRICULTURE: MICHIGAN ITEM-ITEM CORRELATIONS C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 -.11 C3 .08 -.01 ITEMS C1 Farmers cannot count on government assistance in solving their marketing and price problems. (inverted) C2 Federal marketing orders should be expanded to cover more Michigan products. C3 Government estimates of crop production and of livestock receipts tend to strengthen the position of the buyers and weaken the position of the farmers in farmer market- ing arrangements. (inverted) 173 TABLE 11 PRO-GOVERNMENT-PANTI-GOVERNMENT IN AGRICULTURE: WISCONSIN ITEMPITEM CORRELATIONS C1 C2 W1 W2 W3 W4 C3 W5 C1 C2 - 016 W1 .31 —.17 W2 ““006 029 -006 W3 - 13 30 -.20 .21 W4 .21 -.16 .48 -.13 -.21 W5 - 20 42 -.21 .37 32 - 12 16 ITEMS C1 Farmers cannot count on government assistance in solving their marketing and price problems. (inverted) C2 Federal marketing orders should be expanded to cover more Wisconsin products. C3 Government estimates of crop production and livestock re- ceipts tend to strengthen the position of the buyer and weaken the position of the farmers in farmer bargaining arrangements. (inverted) W1 Government price programs pose a serious threat to the freedom of the farmer. (inverted) W2 Farmers need price programs but only until a better solution is found. W3 Farmers will always need about the same type of price program as they have now. W4 Government price programs are actually the cause of the present price problems. 174 ITEMS (Con‘t.) W5 Farmers will always need government price programs but a different type than they now have. Note: W4 was removed from the final analysis due to pro- gramming oversight. TABLE 12 CHANGE ORIENTATION: COMBINED ITEMrITEM CORRELATIONS C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C1 C2 .07 C3 -003 -016 C4 - 03 .12 -.12 C5 — O6 015 -01]. .28 ITEMS C1 The replacement of family farms by large-scale farms using hired labor would have undesirable economic and social consequences for the nation. C2 Entry into farming ought to be restricted to young men with farm backgrounds. C3 Farmers should raise all the crops and livestock possible as long as there are hungry people.. C4 Farmers ought to appreciate farming as a good way of life and be less concerned about their cash incomes. C5 Farmers should be primarily concerned with producing farm products and let someone else worry about marketing problems. 175 TABLE 13 CHANGE ORIENTATION: MICHIGAN ITEM-ITEM CORRELATIONS C1 M272. C2I— C3 Ml fiC4 C5 C1 M2 .06 C2 .05 .04 C3 .04 .06 .12 M1 .13 .02 .17 .04 C4 -.01 .02 .17 .12 .05 C5 - O6 09 l7 16 01 28 M C1 The replacement of family farms by large—scale farms C2 C3 C4 C5 M1 M2 using hired labor would have undesirable economic and social consequences for the nation. Entry into farming ought to be restricted to young men with farm backgrounds. Farmers should raise all the crops and livestock possible as long as there are hungry people. Farmers ought to appreciate farming as a good way of life and be less concerned about their cash income. Farmers should be primarily concerned with producing farm products and let someone else worry about marketing problems. A farm organization should have only operating farmers as elected officers. It is more important that farm people earn satisfactory incomes than it is to maintain the family farm system. (inverted) 176 TABLE 14 CHANGE ORIENTATION: WISCONSIN ITEM-ITEM CORRELATIONS Cl W1 W2 C2 C3 W3 C4 C5 C1 W1 .14 W2 .14 .08 C2 .03 .17 .19 C3 "' 002 009 015 .10 W3 .18 .13 .08 .14 .14 C4 “'008 003 010 005 013 -.03 C5 -.10 .06 .04 .12 .02 .04 .30 ITEMS C1 The replacement of family farms by large-scale farms using hired labor would have undesirable economic and social consequences for the nation. C2 Entry into farming ought to be restricted to young men with a farm background. C3 Farmers should raise all the crops and livestock possible as long as there are hungry people. C4 Farmers ought to appreciate farming as a good way of life and be less concerned about their cash income. C5 Farmers should be primarily concerned with producing farm products and let someone else worry about marketing problems. W1 It is more important that farm people earn satisfactory incomes than it is to maintain the family farm system. (inverted) W2 One reason why we hear so much about crime and corruption today is because our nation is becoming so urbanized. W3 A farm organization should have only operating farmers as elected officers. 177 TABLE 15 SATISFACTION;DISSATISFACTION (ALIENATION): COMBINED ITEMrITEM CORRELATIONS _— ‘ C1 C2 C3 C5 C2 .28 C3 .21 .26 C5 .22 .17 .16 C6 .12 .21 .13 .09 ITEMS C1 The situation in farming today is so confusing that it is hard to tell what the future of farming in this country will be. C2 Today farmers can't really do much to determine the way things turn out for them. C3 Farm prices are largely determined by large processors and retailers. C5 If you want to solve agriculture's problems it's the pro- duction and marketing system as a whole that needs changing not just the practices of the individual farmers. C6 We shouldn‘t waste our time on discussions of the farm problem which don't offer clear solutions. Note: Added in the final analysis was the item; "If you quit farming this year, do you think you could make more, about the same, or less from non—farm work than you cleared from all sources last year?" (Those re- sponding LESS) 178 TABLE 16 SATISFACTION‘DISSATISFACTION (ALIENATION): MICHIGAN ITEMFITEM CORRELATIONS C1 C2 C3 C5 C6 M1 M2 M3 C1 C2 .22 C3 .22 .23 C5 .25 .13 .12 C6 .12 .21 .12 .07 M1 .18 .14 .27 .10 .00 M2 -.07 -.12 -.05 -.07 .06 -.09 M3 .07 .08 .06 .04 .ll .12 .01 ITEMS C1 The situation in farming today is so confusing that it is hard to tell what the future of farming in this country will be. C2 Today farmers can't really do much to determine the way things turn out for them. C3 Farm prices are largely determined by large processors and retailers. C5 If you want to solve agriculture's problems, it's the production and marketing system as a whole that needs to be changed not just the practices of the individual farmer. C6 We shouldn't waste our time on discussions of the farm problem which don't offer clear solutions. Ml Large supermarket chains tend to use their buying power to hold down farm prices. M2 On the average, farmers are faring as well as city workers in terms of income at the present time. M3 179 Consumers ought to pay enough for food to enable farmers to have an income equal to non—farm workers. Note: Added in the final analysis were the items: (1) "If you quit farming this year, do you think you could make more, about the same, or less from non-farm work than you gained from all sources last year?" (Those respond- ing LESS) and; (2) "Do you feel that you had a satis— factory income from farming last year, taking into ac- count your 1abor and investment; (1) Yes (2) No. (Those responding NO). TABLE 17 SATISFACTION;DISSATISFACTION (ALIENATION): WISCONSIN ITEMrITEM CORRELATIONS C1 C2 W1 C3 C5 W2 C6 C1 C2 .38 W1 .22 .16 C3 .24 .30 .23 C5 .17 .25 .14 .24 W2 .16 .30 .10 .ll .13 C6 .12 .21 .08 .15 .12 .18 _I_'I‘;E_na_s C1 The situation in farming today is so confusing that it is hard to say what the future of farming in this country will be. C2 Today farmers can't really do much to determine the way things turn out for them. C3 Farm prices are largely determined by large processors and retailers. C5 C6 W1 W2 180 If you want to solve agriculture's problems, it's the production and marketing system as a whole that needs to be changed, not just the practices of the individual farmer. We shouldn't waste our time on discussions of the farm problem which don't offer clear solutions. Large supermarket chains tend to use their buying power to hold down farm prices. One reason why we hear so much about crime and corruption today is that our nation is becoming so urbanized. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Beijer, G. Rural Migrants in Urban Setting. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. 1963. Beegle, J. Allan, "POpulation Changes and Their Relationship to Changes in Social Structure,” Sociologia Ruralis, 14:3-40 (1964), 238-252. Bell, Daniel. The End of Ideology. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1960. Bendix, Reinhard and Lipset, Seymour Martin eds. Class, Status and Power. 2nd ed. New York: The Free Press, c1966. Bishop, C. E. Farm Labor in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, c1967. Blau, Peter M. and Duncan, Otis Dudley. The American Occu- pational Structure. New York: John Wiley and Sons, c1967. Bogue, Donald J. "Internal Migration," The Study of Popu- lation. Edited by Philip M. Hauser and Otis Dudley Duncan. Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press, c1959. The Structure of the Metropolitan Community: A Study of Dominance and Subdominance. Ann Arbor: Rackham School of Graduate Studies, University of Michigan, 1950. Bonnen, James T. "Rural Poverty: Programs and Problems," Journal of Farm Economics, XLVIII:2 (May, 1966), 452- 465. Boyne, David H. "Changes in the Income Distribution in Agriculture," Journal of Farm Economics, XLVII:5 (1965), 1213-1224. Durkheim, Emile. TheADivision of Labor in Society. Trans- lated by George Simpson, New York: The Free Press, c1933. 181 182 Eisenstadt, S. N. The Absorption of Immigrants. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1954. Faunce, William A. and Smucker, Joseph M. "Industrialization and Community Status Structure," American Sociologi- cal Review, XXXI:3 (June, 1966), 390-399. Form, W. H. and Geschwender, James. "Social Reference Basis of Job Satisfaction: The Case of Manual WOrkers," American Sociological Review, XXVII:2 (April, 1962), 228-237. Galbraith, John Kenneth. The New Industrial State. Boston, Mass.: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1967. Gans, Herbert. The Urban Villagers. New York: The Free Press, 1962. Geertz, Clifford, ed. Old Societies and New States. New York: Free Press, c1963. Gluckman, Max. Order and Rebellion in Tribal Africa. New York: Glencoe Free Press, c1963. Haller, Archibald 0. "Urban Economic Growth and Changes in Rural Stratification: Rio De Janeiro," Paper pre- sented at the Annual Meetings of the American Socio- logical Association, Miami, Florida, 1966. and Sewell, William H. "Farm Residence and Levels of Educational and Occupational Aspiration," Ameri- can Journal of Sociology, XLII (January, 1957), 407- 411. Harrington, Michael. The Other America. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, 1962. Hathaway, Dale E. Government and Agriculture. New York: MacMillan Company, 1963. , et al. Michigan Farmers in the Mid-Sixties. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, Agri- cultural Experiment Station, 1966. Research Report 54. , Beegle, J. Allan, and Bryant, Keith. Rural America. 1960 Census Mbnograph, forthcoming. 183 and Waldo, Arley D. Multiple Jobholding by Farm Operators. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station and the Department of Agricultural Economics, 1964. Re- search Bulletin 5. Hoselitz, Bert F. "Interaction Between Industrial and Pre- Industrial Stratification Systems," Social Structure and Mobility in Economic Development. Edited by Neil J. Smelser and Symour M. Lipset. Chicago, Ill.: Aldine, c1966. Hyman, Herbert. Survenyesign and Analysis. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1965. Inkeles, Alex. "Industrial Man," American Journal of Socib ology, 66:4 (July, 1960), 1-31. Johnson, Donald E. and Warner, W. Keith. Wisconsin Farm Organizations and Cooperatives: Membership and Patronage. wMadison, Wisconsin: Agricultural Experi— ment Station, College of Agriculture, University of Wisconsin, 1966. Bulletin 581. Kerr, Clark et al. Industrialism and_;ndustrial Man. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959. Lave, Lester B. Technological Change: Its Conception and Measurement. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice— Hall, c1966. Legett, John C. "Economic Insecurity and WOrking Class Con- sciousness," American Sociological Review. XXIX "Uprootedness and WOrking Class Consciousness," American Journal of Sociology, LXVIII:6 (May, 1963), 682-692. Lenski, Gerhard. Power and Privilege. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1966. Lerner, Daniel. The Passing of Traditional Society. Glen— coe, 111.: Free Press, 1958. Lewis, Oscar. "The Folk—Urban Ideal Types," The Study of Urbanization. Edited by Philip M. Hauser and Leo F. Schnore. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965. Lipset, Seymour Martin. Agrarian Socialism. Berkeley California: University of California Press, 1950. 184 . Political Man. New York: Doubleday & Co. Inc., c1960. "Social Mobility and Urbanization," Rural Soci- ology. XX:3-4 (Sept.-Dec., 1955), 220-228. and Bendix, Reinhard. Social Mobility in Industrial Society. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: Uni— versity of California Press, c1959. McPhee, Shirley Evelyn. "Social Organization and Economic Change in a Fishing Community." Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of New Brunswick, 1965. Mitrany, David. Marx Against the Peasant. New York: Collier Books, c1961. Moore, Wilbert E. and Feldman, Arnold, eds. Labor Commitment and Social Change in Developing Areas. New York: Social Science Research Council, c1960. Industrialization and Labor. Ithaca and New York: Cornell University Press, c1951. Morrison, Denton E. and Steeves, Allan D. "Deprivation, Dis- content and Social Movement Participation: Evidence on a Contemporary Farmers' Movement; the N.F.O," Rural Sociology (forthcoming). Nash, Manning. Primitive and Peasant Economic Systems. San Francisco, California: Chandler Publishing Co., c1966. Petras, James and Zeitlin, Maurice, "Miners and Agrarian Radicalism," American Sociological Review, XXXII:4 (August, 1967), 578—586. Perkins, Brian B. and Hathaway, Dale E. Movement of Labor Between Farm and Non-farm Jobs. East Lansing, Michi- gan: Michigan State University Agricultural Experi- ment Station and the Department of Agricultural Eco- nomics, 1964. Research Bulletin 13. Reiss, Albert J., Jr., ed. Occupation and Social Status. New York: The Free Press, c1961. Ruttan, Vernon W. "Agricultural Policy in an Affluent So- ciety," Journal of Farm Economics, 48:5 (Dec., 1966), 1100-1120. 185 Sewell, William H. and Orenstein, Alan M. ”Community of Residence and Occupational Choice," American Journal of Sociology, LXX (March, 1965), 551-563. Smelser, Neil J. Social Change in the Industrial Revolution. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1959. Slocum, Walter L. "The Influence of Reference Group Values on Educational Aspirations of Rural High School Stu- dents," Rural Sociology, XXXII:3 (September, 1967), 269-277. Smith, David and Inkeles, Alex. "The O.M. Scale: A Compara- tive Socio-Psychological Measure of Individual Modernity," Sociometry, 29:4 (Dec., 1955), 353-377. Steeves, Allan D. "A Study of Internal Migration with Spe- cific Reference to the Flow of People from the Atlantic Provinces to Guelph, Ontario." Unpublished M.S.A. thesis, University of Toronto, 1964. Stein, Maurice R. The Eclipse of Community. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1960. Tilly, Charles. Migration to an American City. Agricultural Experiment Station and Division of Urban Affairs, University of Delaware in Cooperation with Farm Popu- lation Branch, Economic Research Service, U.S.D.A. April, 1965. Toennies, Ferdinand. Community and Association. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1955. Waldo, Arley D. "The Impact of Outmigration and Multiple Jobholding Upon Income Distribution in Agriculture," Journal of Farm Economics, XLVII:5 (December, 1965), 1235-1244. Whyte, William H., Jr. The Organization Man. New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1956. Wilensky, Harold L. and Edwards, Hugh. "The Skidder: Ideo- logical Adjustments of Downward Mobile WOrkers,” American Sociological Review, XXIV:2 (April, 1959), 215-231. Wirth, Louis. "Urbanism As A Way of Life,"American Journal of Sociology, 44 (July, 1938), 1-18. Worsely, Peter. The Third World. Chicago, Ill.: The Uni- versity of Chicago Press, c1964.