The price of determinate solutions: A call for methodological pluralism in agricultural economics∗

This article was commissioned by the editors of Development Southern Africa. The author acknowledges the valuable comments of Glenn Johnson, Alan Schmid and Warren Samuels of Michigan State University and the editors on an earlier draft. Although the article draws heavily on the work and views of the Michigan economists, the opinions expressed here are solely the responsibility of the author.

This article considers the price which agricultural economics pays for its overriding emphasis on producing conclusive determinate solutions to economic questions. The quest for determinate solutions too often results in the manipulation and contrivance of assumptions which is often aggravated by a desire for ideologically agreeable results. This fundamentally ignores and excludes the processes at work in the real world. The article does not exclude the practice of reaching determinate solutions, but calls for an enlargement and enrichment of agricultural economics by supplementing standard practice with analysis that does not necessarily require determinate solutions. This article is thus a further call for methodological pluralism, substantive diversity and eclecticism in agricultural economics.

Notes

University of Pretoria A draft of the article was prepared while the author was visiting professor at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

This article was commissioned by the editors of Development Southern Africa. The author acknowledges the valuable comments of Glenn Johnson, Alan Schmid and Warren Samuels of Michigan State University and the editors on an earlier draft. Although the article draws heavily on the work and views of the Michigan economists, the opinions expressed here are solely the responsibility of the author.