Who Will Represent Societal Interests as the U.S. Government Steps Back from Agricultural Advise? Evidence from Michigan's Public and Private Sectors

Abstract

Public agencies, such as agricultural extension have traditionally played a crucial role in

transferring and diffusing information on Best Management Practices (BMPs) from research

universities and experiment stations to farmers. They have also been instrumental in targeting

incentives to facilitate farmers’ adoption of BMPs, which is critical to mitigate and prevent

environmental pollution driven by agriculture. However, a reduction in these public organizations’

budgets and personnel has increasingly challenged their ability of to provide conservation advice.

Meanwhile increasing commercialization of farming and farmers’ requirements for individually- tailored advice have cleared way for private sector advisors to fill this gap in service delivery. In

this context, it is not clear who would represent broader societal interests (e.g. environmental

conservation and water quality) as the U.S. government steps back from agricultural advice. This

is especially true regarding the provision of conservation advice. Using a mix of qualitative and

quantitative methods, this study examines the drivers and constraints to the provision of

conservation advice in the state of Michigan. It focuses on the role of different types of knowledge

intermediaries across the public-private divide to understand how shifting resources and roles

shapes the dissemination of BMPs. It finds that overall private advisors will likely be able to fill

the vacuum in service delivery of BMPs caused by a retrenchment in public sector’s activities.

However, their ability to do so is critically dependent on three main factors: a) private advisors’

personal motivations to supply advice on BMPs, b) sustained government support for voluntary

compliance programs and c) the development of a market for BMPs.