Explanations for the decline vary. From a market perspective, the simplest explanation is substitution by fossil fuels, which proved cheaper for industrial production of many materials. Beyond this, misaligned incentives and cultural aspects of the industry may have restrained investor enthusiasm and adoption by farmers. From an investment perspective, chemurgical projects often failed to move from pilot products to full-scale production. This leads some analysts to suggest that chemurgy disappointed too many investors in particular projects over time. Indeed, a related problem was in the industry's leadership and funding: a small number of private investors supplied the majority of the industry, and many decisions in it were guided by leadership personality conflicts in the small cadre of corporate-technocratic scientists in industry. This emphasis in the industry on the technological side may have dampened enthusiasm among farmers. The leaders of the industry promoted rapid technological shifts in agricultural production, which was opposed by the more conservative uptake of new technologies in agriculture. Finally, public programs aligned incentives against the industry. The New Deal provided immediate subsidies to farmers, whereas chemurgy as an industry required a longer-term program.