Part 4 (1/2)
1. The influence of cooperative methods (_a_) on the productive and distributive efficiency of rural communities, and (_b_) on the development of a social country life.
2. The systems of rural education, both general and technical, in different countries, and the administrative and financial basis of each system.
3. The relation between agricultural economy and the cost of food.
4. The changes (_a_) in the standard and cost of living, and (_b_) in the economy, solvency and stability of rural communities.
5. The economic interdependence of the agricultural producer and the urban consumer, and the extent and incidence of middle profits in the distribution of agricultural produce.
6. The action taken by different Governments to a.s.sist the development and secure the stability of the agricultural cla.s.ses, and the possibilities and the dangers of such action, with special reference to the delimitation of the respective spheres of State aid and voluntary effort.
7. How far agricultural and rural employment can relieve the problems of city unemployment, and a.s.sist the work of social reclamation.
Some may think that I am a.s.signing to two bodies work which could be as well done by one. While all proposals for multiplying organisations in the field of social service should be critically examined, there are strong reasons in this case for the course I suggest. The two bodies, while working to a common end, will differ essentially in their scope and method. The propagandist agency will be executive and administrative, and while its operations would have suggestive value to the country social worker everywhere, it would be concerned directly only with the United States. Furthermore, it need not necessarily have any lengthened existence as a national propagandist agency. It would be founded mainly to introduce that method into American agricultural economy which I have tried to show lies at the root of rural progress.
As soon as the soundness of the general scheme had been demonstrated in any State, the central body would promote an organisation to take over the work within that State. The State organisation would, in its turn, soon be able to devolve its propagandist work upon a federation of the business a.s.sociations which it had been the means of establis.h.i.+ng. That is the contemplated evolution of my first proposal--the early delegation of the functions of the national to the State propagandist agency, which would further devolve the work upon bodies of farmers organised primarily for economic purposes, but with the ulterior aim of social advancement.
The Country Life Inst.i.tute would be on a wholly different footing. Its researches, if only to subserve the Country Life movement in the United States, would have to range over the civilised world, and to be historical as well as contemporary. It should be regarded as a contribution to the welfare of the English-speaking peoples, one aspect of whose civilisation--if there be truth in what I have written--needs to be reconsidered in the light which the Inst.i.tute is designed to afford. Its task will be of no ephemeral character. Its success will not, as in the case of the active propagandist body, lessen the need for its services, but will rather stimulate the demand for them.
These differences will have to be taken into account in considering the important question of ways and means. Both bodies will, I hope, appeal successfully to public-spirited philanthropists. The temporary body will need only temporary support; perhaps provision for a five-years'