and launching a new journal was by no means
unanimous. Several people argued rather per-
suasively that such a move might not prove to
be in the best interests of economists in the
southern Region and actually could prove to be
counterproductive overall.
One such argument was that the formation
of a new regional association was simply a way
of avoiding facing the real issues, namely that
some of the departments’ programs were not
strong and their professional output less
rigorous than at other schools. They further
argued that a new association and journal
risked institutionalizing mediocrity, and,
perhaps even worse, would make the South
even more insular and alienated from the
mainstream of the profession than it was.
Another concern was the adverse conse-
quences for the national association of forma-
tion of another, possibly competing, regional
association. Those with this view feared that
the new association could siphon off resources,
talent, and energies from the AAEA and
undermine its effectiveness at the national
level.
The objectives and expectations of the
founders appear to be fairly clear. They had
some overall purposes in mind and more
specific expectations relating to the annual
meetings and the journal. Article II of the
Association states:
The purpose and objective of the
SAEA shall be to: foster the study
and understanding of agricultural
economics and its implications to
problems in the southern United
States; promote unity and effec-
tiveness of effort among all con-
cerned with those problems; pro-
mote improvement in the profes-
sional competence and standards of
members; cooperate with other
organizations and institutions
engaged in similar or related ac-
tivities; and increase the contribu-
tion of agricultural economics to
human welfare.
These purposes and objectives were to be met
primarily through the annual meetings pro-
vided for in Article V and the publication of a
journal (Article VI).
The journal appears to have been the
centerpiece of the expectations for the new
association. Yet, after two decades, the
recollections are somewhat different about
2Personal conversation with J. Rod Martin, Texas A&M University.
57
precisely what the journal was to be.
However, it is clear that it was not to be
duplicative of the American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, but was to appeal to
a much broader proportion of the total
membership. The first editor recalls that it
was to avoid becoming a “mim-AJAE” and
was to communicate with the profession on a
broad range of issues needing attention, while
the “leading edge” articles were to be left to
the national journal.2 It also is clear that it
was to be regionally oriented and to focus on
reporting applied research results. Apparently,
there was widespread appreciation of the
AJAE “proceedings” which offered both
ideas and discussion, suggestions for fruitful
research, and interesting applications. The
new journal was intended to be more in that
vein, but with refereed articles to ensure high
quality.
The first journal was dated December 1969
but actually was issued well into 1970. It was
financed from membership dues which were
purposefully kept quite low in an attempt to
attract broad participation. Increasing print-
ing costs posed problems right from the start,
but the generosity of the Farm Foundation
enabled the first journal to appear (this sup-
port was acknowledged in a unanimous resolu-
tion of the Association and appears in the first
issue—page 173). One of the early officers
recalled that the journal could not have ap-
peared without this support and that without
the journal the Aedgling SAEA would have
folded. The financial problems did not end
there. It also was reported to me that another
of the subsequent early issues appeared only
after the editor defrayed some of the costs
with his own money.
THE PERFORMANCE: STATUS AFTER
20 YEARS
Let me say at the outset that this discussion
of SAEA performance and how well it may or
may not have fulfilled expectations at the time
of its inauguration is based on perceptions, my
own and those of others gathered in the
course of preparing this paper. I have not
surveyed the membership nor attempted any
systematic analysis of journal content over
the years.
One of the obvious indications of organiza-
tional health is its membership trend. On this
basis, the SAEA appears to be a resounding