success. From the charter membership of 519,
the total has grown to more than 1,100, a nearly
115 percent increase. Moreover, the recent
trend is upward, with individual membership
growing since 1980. And, the annual dues
have been held to modest levels; the amount
($15) for 1988 reflects a real increase of just
over 50 percent from the inaugural level.
I believe any objective assessment of the
SAEA after 20 years would conclude that the
fears expressed at the beginning were not
realized. The southern region has become
much less, not more, insular. The programs
have become much stronger in most schools.
Southern professionals are more active in the
mainstream of the profession and in the
AAEA. Rather than a drain on the AAEA,
the SAEA appears to have had a synergistic
effect. Many of the same people instrumental
in SAEA achieving some measure of success
also have been leaders in the AAEA.
It is difficult to sort out exactly why this
may have happened as it did. While the SAEA
played a role in these changes, the greater in-
tegration of the South into the mainstream of
the agricultural economics profession likely
resulted from many factors. It can be at-
tributed partly to the fact that the world has
become smaller in the last 20 years. Travel
and communications advances have removed
many impediments to closer professional in-
teraction. Also, there appears to have been an
increase in professional mobility. Several
southern schools (e.g., Texas A&M, Florida,
and Georgia) greatly increased their funding
for agricultural economics at times during the
period, were able to become much more com-
petitive, and attracted some of the best pro-
fessionals from all parts of the country.
The SAEA also gets high marks for meeting
most of the purposes and objectives originally
set out for it. It has provided opportunities for
its members through the annual meetings, the
newsletter, and the Southern Journal of
Agricultural Economics (SJAE) for greater
professional interaction. The programs for the
annual meetings would suggest that the
Association has focused on concerns, prob-
lems, and issues important to the South, thus
meeting its mandate to maintain a regional
focus.
There also is a perception that the Associa-
tion has worked hard to draw out diverse
opinions and to open opportunities for airing
controversial views at the annual meetings.
Also, the papers included in the sessions
generally are perceived as treating broad and
sometimes controversial topics.
The SJAE also gets generally high, but
somewhat mixed, marks for meeting expecta-
tions originally held for it. It has become a
credible, broadly respected journal across the
profession. Johnson suggests the Western
Journal of Agricultural Economics now to be
a national journal, first among the regional
journals, and the second most prestigious
journal of our profession. I expect that one
could find many who would challenge that and
argue that the SJAE could appropriately
make those claims as well.
Most observers agree that the journal has
held to its regional orientation, still containing
many articles with a subject focus of strong in-
terest to the South (perhaps sometimes to the
point of being trivial). Also, the SJAE gener-
ally is perceived as having an applications
focus, rather than a theoretical or strictly
methodological orientation. Also, the SJAE
has been innovative, beginning about five
years ago to include articles on microcom-
puter software in response to the widespread
use of computers by the membership. Both
the applied nature of the articles and the soft-
ware articles are viewed favorably by teachers
and prove useful for course instruction.
While my overall assessment of SAEA and
SJAE is very positive, I do detect some
dissatisfaction and can find members who
think the Association has not come as close to
meeting the original objectives and expecta-
tions as others believe. These observers sug-
gest that the Association and Journal perhaps
are becoming victims of their own success,
that the SAEA has become somewhat elitist
and clubby and largely inaccessible to many in
the membership. They argue that it has come
to resemble somewhat the type of organiza-
tion which its formation was a response to 20
years before.
Even while most members are justifiably
proud of the SJAE, some also suggest some
strong dissatisfaction. One early editor sug-
gested that it has now come to emulate the
AJAE, contrary to the original expectations.
Others have the perception that both the
regional and applications focus have faded
somewhat in recent years and given away to
more “leading edge” methodological articles
and that it has become progressively less ac-
cessible to the broad membership and become
less useful as a result. These critics also sug-
gest a continuing serious need for an outlet to
communicate ideas, to help form and develop
ideas, and to develop a synergy among profes-
58