Farm Labor and the Structural Analysis of Agriculture

receipts from farming. The caption read: A disproportionately large share of total cash receipts from farming goes to the larger [22, p. 143]. But since farm size is defined in terms of cash receipts, the question arises, disproportionate to what? Can anything be out of proportion with itself? Whatever the answer, it is clear that the Census Bureau's economic classification of farms is not in proportion to the needs of the times. Relevant analysis of the changing structure of agriculture is impossible; and, as a consequence, sound policy as regards a desirable structure is also lacking. This is a serious matter in times like the present, when change is so rapid. Such policy as exists is schizophrenic in character. On the one hand, it is marked by an unjustified glorification of large farms, as epitomized in Edward Higbee's Junior Elite, and Blue Ribbon farms [14, pp. 49-50]. But, on the other hand, it also supports the much smaller, socalled family-size farms. It supports them so strongly, in fact, that it refuses to define them precisely, thereby leaving the door open for inclusion, as family size, of farms as large or as small as current expediency might dictate. The purpose of this paper is to elaborate these points and then to propose a remedy in the form of a better system of farm classification. This has been derived in some measure from the British system based on standard labor requirements. But it also departs from and goes beyond that system, notably in the breakdown of full-time farms into individual class-