The social goals of agriculture

An analysis of social goals for agriculture presupposes an account of systematic interactions among economic, political, and ecological forces that influence the performance of agriculture in a given society. This account must identify functional performance criteria that lend themselves to interpretation as normative or ethical goals. Individuals who act within the system pursue personal goals. Although individual acts and decisions help satisfy functional performance criteria, individuals may never conceptualize or understand these criteria, and, hence, social goals for agriculture may not be intentionally sought or desired by any human being. The statement of social goals is not, therefore, reducible to statements about individual desires and preferences, and the validity of social goals does not depend upon deriving a social welfare function, nor upon measuring interpersonal utility. The paper examines a series of strategies for defining social goals for agriculture, beginning with the statement of goals offered by William Aiken in 1983. Aiken's view stresses individually based constraints upon action, but social goals cannot be adequately defined on this view. Successively more adequate approaches to the problem of social goals are examined with respect to production and efficiency, Jeffersonian democracy, and ecosystem goals of community and self-reliance. The role of family farms, and the change in farm structure is evaluated in light of this analysis for social goals.     

The goals and values of local economic development strategies in rural America

The goals and values of economic development strategies vary according to the individual communities that employ them. While economic development strategies are aimed at increasing jobs, income, and community wealth, the issue of who gains and who loses from economic change is often overlooked. The industrial development strategies of the 1960s and 1970s are giving way to local initiatives based on services. Although local efforts may mean greater local control, the globalization of the economy has exposed formerly remote areas to international competition. The challenge to communities will be to achieve a moderate, steady, and manageable pace of good growth. Each community will ultimately need to develop a strategy for economic growth that matches community desires with community resources.Thomas L. Daniels is Director of the Agricultural Preserve Board of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. He is co-author ofRural Planning and Development in the United States, and has written several articles on rural ecconomic development.     

The safety goals of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

In August 1986, after 6 years of effort, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission adopted a Policy Statement on safety goals for nuclear power reactors. The commission's qualitative goals state that individual members of the public should be provided a level of protection from the consequences of nuclear power plant operation such that they bear no significant additional risk to life and health, and societal risks to life and health from nuclear power should be comparable to or less than the risks of generating electricity by viable competing technologies and should not be a significant addition to other societal risks. The commission's safety goal Policy Statement also includes quantitative design objectives.