Agricultural economics and development economics does the former needs the latter?

Development economics has undergone a profound transformation over the past two decades. Once a niche field focused on understanding how market failures constrained economic development, it has now evolved into a broad domain encompassing nearly any topic, as long as it employs causal inference methods and uses data from low or middle income countries (LMICs). This shift raises a pertinent question: Is there still a place for development economics in agricultural economics departments, especially considering how the discipline of development economics has changed?

This discussion has implications not only for agricultural economics but also for broader debates about the role and evolution of academic disciplines.

Agricultural Economics: A Discipline Rooted in Public Service

Agricultural economics is unique in that it is both a field of economics and a distinct academic discipline. Its distinctiveness stems from its historical development, particularly in the United States, where a series of federal acts beginning with the Morrill Act of 1862 established land-grant universities. These institutions were tasked with conducting research of direct public benefit, much of it focused on agriculture, food systems, and rural development. Agricultural economics departments have traditionally operated within this framework, addressing issues critical to agricultural stakeholders, including food security, resource management, and rural livelihoods.

This dual identity as a field of economics and as a discipline anchored in public service—shapes the opportunities and challenges faced by agricultural economics departments, particularly when considering whether development economics should remain central to their mission.

The Evolution of Development Economics

Early Marginalization

Historically, development economics occupied a peripheral position within the broader economics profession. In the 1970s and 1980s, development economists often borrowed ideas from anthropology, sociology, and political science, which were viewed as “soft” disciplines by the mainstream economics community. This interdisciplinary approach, while innovative, contributed to development economics being seen as less rigorous compared to other fields.

Rising Prominence

The 1990s and early 2000s marked a turning point. Seminal theoretical contributions, such as Akerlof’s (1976) work on caste systems and Stiglitz’s (1974) analysis of sharecropping, legitimized the field. Empirical work gained momentum as economists began accessing new data sources, including surveys conducted by the World Bank and other international organizations. Agricultural economics departments, with their longstanding focus on development issues, played a pivotal role during this period. Programs like PL-480 (the Food for Peace program) had historically tied agricultural economics to development research, especially in LMICs.

The Credibility Revolution

By the mid-2000s, development economics had embraced the “Credibility Revolution” in economics, driven by rigorous causal inference methods, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The early “randomistas” demonstrated how these methods could yield actionable insights into development challenges, from microfinance to education and health. The work of Miguel and Kremer (2004) exemplified this shift, demonstrating how development research could intersect with other fields like public and health economics. This methodological rigor, coupled with high-profile successes like the 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics, elevated the field’s status.

Today, development economists are ubiquitous, with positions in economics departments, business schools, policy schools, and agricultural economics departments.

Should Agricultural Economics Departments Continue to Prioritize Development Economics?

This brings us to the central question: Should agricultural economics departments continue to hire and train scholars specializing in development economics?

A Changing Field

Development economics has become increasingly diffuse, often defined more by its methods than by its subject matter. This has led to the emergence of “development-and-X” economists, where X could be any number of fields (e.g., labor, health, or environmental economics). Consequently, development economics as a standalone field may be less useful as a conceptual framework for agricultural economics departments.

Comparative Advantage

Agricultural economics departments have historically excelled in areas directly relevant to agriculture and rural development, including food systems, natural resource management, and agricultural policy. In a crowded job market, focusing on these areas could provide a clearer comparative advantage. Hiring faculty who specialize in these themes but possess the flexibility to apply their expertise to LMIC contexts when appropriate could better align with the mission of agricultural colleges.

Policy and Funding Realities

The broader context also matters. International development policy has experienced “mission creep,” expanding far beyond its original focus on agricultural development. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) alone encompass 169 targets across 17 goals, many of which extend well beyond traditional development priorities. This shift makes it increasingly difficult for agricultural economics to differentiate itself within the broader field of development.

Moreover, fluctuating political priorities and potential cuts to foreign aid budgets threaten the sustainability of funding for development research. Agricultural economics departments may find it more prudent to focus on areas with stable funding streams and direct relevance to their stakeholders.

Graduate Student Training

For graduate students, the implications are clear. While students should feel free to explore their intellectual interests, those aspiring to academic positions in agricultural economics should consider aligning their research with the core priorities of the discipline. Departments located within colleges of agriculture often serve as the primary job market for agricultural economics graduates. Specializing in areas like food security, environmental economics, or agricultural policy while maintaining the ability to work in LMIC contexts may offer better career prospects than pursuing development economics in isolation.

A Path Forward

Agricultural economics departments face a choice: They can continue competing with economics departments by hiring in development economics, or they can double down on their unique strengths. By focusing on areas that address the needs of agricultural stakeholders while integrating the tools and insights of development economics when relevant, agricultural economics departments can carve out a distinct and valuable niche.

Rather than attempting to emulate economics departments, agricultural economics should embrace its dual identity as a field and a discipline rooted in public service. This approach will ensure its continued relevance and impact in an ever-changing academic and policy landscape.

source :

Agricultural Economics and Development Economics: Does the Former Needs the Latter?