Economic and Marketing Information                                                                                                                                                                                      FOR INDIANA  FARMERS
Prepared by the Agricultural Staff of Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana
October 31,   1958
Integration and The Farmer's Freedom
by R. L. KOHLS, Department of Agricultural Economics
MOVING ACROSS THE AGRICULTURAL
scene like a good stiff autumn wind are the
developments—or rumors of developments—of integration (contract farming). Almost every community has at least the hearsay evidence that "company A has a hog contract out" or "company B has
entered into a contract with egg producers."
When farmers and their leaders get together, after
comparing notes on the most recent contract developments, discussion often swings around to what
these developments will mean to the freedom of the
farm operator. Will such integration turn out to be
a nail in the farmer's coffin rather than another step
along the road of desired progress?
this slippery thing called freedom
Change inevitably re-arranges customary patterns. Contract farming changes the package of labor, capital, management and risk which traditionally has been associated with farmers and farming.
Usually the integration of farm and off-farm operations loses some managerial freedom for the farm
operator. In return he gets help in capital investment and some relief from extreme uncertainties of
markets and income. But the mere fact of change
does not in and of itself answer whether or not vital
freedoms are lost.
Freedom can be looked at as composed of several
areas of decreasing size.* (Figure 1.) The ultimate
boundary of the largest freedom area is laid down
by what is technically and mentally possible. No
Hoosier farmer would consider a law prohibiting
the growing of cotton in northern Indiana very restrictive on his freedom.
Inside of this large area is a somewhat smaller
area of freedom which is determined by what is
legally and socially permissive. Both the laws of
the land and of Christian society prevent one from
forceably taking the property of another. Such restrictions normally are not considered to seriously curtail our freedom.
Finally, the freedom of an individual is circumscribed by what is possible in light of available income and financial resources. A very poor farmer
might have both physical and mental ability to leave
the farm and go to the city. Legally there are no
restrictions, and society would generally encourage
such a move. But suppose the farmer does not have
Freedom
Technically and
Mentally Possible
Freedom
Economically
and Financially
Possible
Freedom 1
Legally and
Socially Possible
The  source  of this  idea   can  be  found   in  Principles  of  Economic
Poli<y, by  Kenneth  Boulding  (Prentice-Hall,   1958).
Figure 1. The effective area of real freedom usually
is restricted by an individual's economic resources.
The effect of a change on freedom is often answered by knowing how this would change the size
of the economic area.
the necessary financial means to make the move.
Under these circumstances, how big is the effective
freedom area of this farmer?
income and financial strength
curtailers of freedom
Freedom is a relative thing like beauty—not absolute like concrete. Freedom, realistically considered, consists of those things a person could do
if he wanted. For a great many farm people the
greatest restrictor of realistic freedom is low income.
Viewed this way, the impact of integration on freedom can be considered in a different light.
Many observers have looked upon the southern
broiler   development   with   great   concern.    "Why,