Friedrich Gottlob Schulze, a german professor of agricultural science of Jena University in the first half of 19. century, wrote first in the history a critic review to the methodology of farm management, which was dominated by the so-called Albrecht D. Thaer-dynasty in this discipline regarding as“Profitslehre.”It is a classic and traditional problem for farm management, whether it is a mere teleological art discipline or causal and independent science. He critisized the teleological approach by Thaer-school and established a standpoint of methodology of this science based on political economics. This approach was later developed further by J. Pohl, K. Birnbaum, J. Fühling, H. Settegast and so on.

　His second contribution to the development of farm management stands in the educational field of agricultural science. He critisized the institutional system of the so-called“Landwirtschaftliche Hochschule”established by Albrecht D. Thaer and claimed a new institution organized in a university. This claim based upon his thought, that higher agricultural education should be paralleled by theoretical research. Because of this reason he opposed to the Hochschule-system, which was based on the idea of unification of study and practice. The reformation of higher education system of agricultural science in university was later developed in another way by Justus von Liebig.

　The third contribution stands on his deep insight into the future development of farm management as science. He thought, that farm management should be based upon by nature economics, but it is very interesting, that he recognized the failure of market mechanism and insisted on ethically the humanization of farm management. This problem of“humanomics”becomes to a focal point of modern economics in the present age. At the same time he had an insight into the development of sociology on the one hand and labor science on the other hand as interdisciplinary fields of farm management.

　The major purpose of this paper is to clarify the factors accelerating the recent development of Japanese agriculture. For this purpose, Chenery's (1980) method for the decomposition of output growth is applied to the Japanese input-output tables for 1965, 1970, 1975, and 1981: The increase in output of agricultural sector is expressed as the sum of four factors:

(ⅰ) the expansion of domestic final demand in all sectors

(ⅱ) the expansion of export in all sectors

(ⅲ) the import substitution in all sectors

(ⅳ) the technological change in all sectors

Furthermore, each factor is decomposed into its origins using a new method derived from the modification of Chenery's method. The major findings derived from the analysis using Chenery's method are as follows:

　　(1) Factor (ⅰ) is the most influential factor to accelerate the agricultural growth of the period concerned.

　　(2) Factor (ⅱ) is not an influential factor.

　　(3) Factor (ⅲ) is not an influential factor.

　　(4) Factor (ⅳ) is the another influential factor. However, in contrast with the case of Factor (ⅰ), this factor does not necessarily accelerate the agricultural growth. That is, for the subsectors such as “Livestock and sericulture” and “Agricultural products,” this factor obstructed their growth.

The major findings obtained from the application of the new method are as follows:

　　(1) As the major origins of Factor (ⅰ), the agro-based industries such as “Food products” and “Drinking and eating places” have gradually become more influential for the inducement of agricultural output.

　　(2) However, as the major origins of Factor (ⅳ), these industries have also become more influential for the reduction of agricultural output.