AJAE Editors
Giancarlo Moschini, Kathleen Segerson, Richard J. Sexton, Spiro E. Stefanou, Editors

The multi-university, collaborative editing process we introduced with Volume 80 has continued without difficulties this past year. This editorial administration is described in the AJAE Editors' Report appearing in the AJAE Vol. 80, No.5, pp: 1224-1228. The Journal operations have proceeded on course this year. We received 284 submissions this past year and the quality of the submissions received remains high. We have received 846 manuscripts between 1 November 1996 and 30 June 1999, implying an annual rate of 317 submissions over the 32-month period. This submission rate over the term of our editorial administration is nearly identical to the submission rate the previous editor reports over a similar period.

Table 1 presents the total manuscript handling time for the period 1 November 1996 through 30 June 1999 and summarizes the days elapsed from the time a manuscript is received at the Penn State editorial office until a response is mailed to the corresponding author. This time includes the handling time of approximately 10-14 days for the manuscripts coordinated by the Editors at other locations. The average response time over this period was 88 days on a first submission, 77 days on a second submission and 24 days on a third submission. Four manuscripts were passed to a fourth round of submissions, which received a response in an average of 5 days.

Table 2 presents the disposition of all manuscripts received. A final decision has been made for 587 manuscripts with 259 still being processed. As a percentage of the manuscripts for which we have reached a final decision, 144 have been accepted and 443 have been rejected implying an acceptance rate of 24.5%. Of the 259 submissions currently under consideration, 91 manuscripts are under the first review and 168 manuscripts have either been resubmitted for further publication review or are in the hands of the authors awaiting their decision to pursue a revision.

Table 3 presents the number of days a manuscript is in review under an Editor's management until a final decision (acceptance or final rejection) is communicated to the authors. The average and median time to acceptance is 160. The average time to a final rejection is 89 days with a median of 84. Similar to last year's report, 91% of the final rejection decisions are made in the first round of review.

The 1999 volume of the AJAE will contain 58 articles. In addition, we are publishing 4 comments, 3 replies to comments, and (at least) 18 book reviews. The August 1999 issue contains 24 principal papers and discussions that were presented at the ASSA meetings in January 1999.

Arne Hallam, the Book Review Editor received 62 books, 19 monographs, 21 reports, 6 publisher's catalogs, 6 book flyers, 7 copies of academic journals, 1 newsletter and 7 working papers during the period 1 July 1998 - 30 June 1999. A large percentage of the materials related to environmental and resource issues. There were also significant numbers of books and monographs on international and development issues. The majority of the books were concerned with issues outside North America and many of the books were edited volumes. A very small number of textbooks were received. Twenty two books were sent out for review during this period and reviews on twelve of those have been returned. Ten reviews from books sent out in the previous year were also returned for publication.

In response to a Board initiative, the AJAE Editors were directed to define a process that clearly identifies non-refereed papers published in the Journal. Commencing with the 1999 volurne each principal and invited paper a footnote will appear at the bottom of the first page of each article indicating that that the paper was not subject to the Journal's standard referee review procedures.

We are pleased to report that the backlog in distributing the Journal that had grown to nearly six months in the summer of 1997 is completely eliminated. The Journal distribution has been on time since the distribution of the August 1998 issue. The funding allocation by the AAEA Board in 1998 to eliminate the backlog and along with adjustments to the Journal production work schedule has led to the Journal being distributed on time.

The final arrangements are nearly in place to contract Basil Blackwell Publishers to produce, market and distribute the AJAE starting with Volume 82. Basil Blackwell is the leading publisher of scholarly journals in economics and related areas and presents a number of interesting opportunities for the worldwide marketing and electronic distribution of the Journal. The Editors are looking forward to working with Basil Blackwell as we expand the distribution and readership of the AJAE.

Sandra Clarke, the AJAE Technical Editor, continues to provide outstanding and professional service to the AJAE. We appreciate the important input of the Associate Editors and we wish to acknowledge their excellent and important service to the Journal. We are most grateful to them: Jay Akridge, James Blaylock, John Beghin, Michael Carter, Jean Paul Chavas, Ariel Dinar, Marcel Fafchamps, Barry Goodwin, Thomas Johnson, Harry Kaiser, Larry Karp, Subal Kumbhakar, Jeffrey LaFrance, Harvey Lapan, Erik Lichtenberg, Rigoberto Lopez, Anya McGuirk, Mario Miranda, Catherine Morrison Paul, Robert Myers, James Opaluch, Ian Sheldon, Jason Shogren, Dale Squires, and Alfons Weersink. In addition, the Journal could not thrive without the generous assistance of many referees. As always, the published version of this report contains the list of referees who have volunteered their services.

The editorial administration assistance of Deb Haggerty (Richard Sexton's office), Jane Mease (Spiro Stefanou's office), Ryan Petitte (Kathleen Segerson's office), and Sue Streeter (Giancarlo Moschini's office) is greatly appreciated, and we wish to further acknowledge our respective departments for their support of our editorial activities.

Choices
Harry Ayer, Editor

All issues were mailed on time. Both the 3rd quarter and special 4th quarter millennium issue are on schedule.

Submissions, Solicitations, Acceptances, Rejections
Submissions continue at a good level, and the quality of accepted manuscripts remains high. From January 1 to July 19 we received 43 submissions. This compares with 35 in 1997 and 35 in 1998 for the same time period. Of the 43 submissions, 22 have been accepted for publication, 9 rejected, 2 returned for major revision and reevaluation, and 11 are still under review. The acceptance rate is higher than usual because articles for the special 4th quarter millennium issue were pre-screened by a committee evaluation of abstracts.

Visit to USDA Supporting Agencies
In late July incoming editor Paul Barkley and I visited administrators of several USDA agencies - ERS, FAS, NRCS, NASS, and AMS. These agencies have provided $25,000 - $40,000 annually for subscriptions, advertisements, or general magazine support. These are substantial additions to Choices revenues. Past editor Schertz and I have worked to maintain a good relationship with the agencies, both through quarterly notes to agency representatives (with a comp copy of the magazine), and, more importantly, annual visits. Our recent discussions proved successful. Agencies like Choices. Although we do not ask for signatures on the dotted line, in comparison to previous year's visits, each agency gave equal or stronger indication that they will continue with past levels of support, or more. ERS indicated that it intends to increase its contribution from the current $1,500 to $15,000. In total, I anticipate that USDA agencies will make contributions of $43,000 in the year 2,000.

First Choices Award
The AAEA Board approved a new award for the Outstanding Choices article. The first award, to be selected from 1998 issues, will be made at the Nashville meetings. With the help of the Advisory Board, I developed a set of guidelines for the competition process. President Shumway and the Chair of the Awards Committee approved the guidelines. The Choices Advisory Board evaluated all articles published in 1998, and through two rounds of voting selected a winning and one honorable-mention articles.

New Millennium Issue
The special millennium issue is well underway, and, as indicated above, on schedule. Article topics include:

• Nutraceuticals
• The Future of Milk Marketing
• Food Safety and Trade
• Transgenic Crops
• The Farm Safety Net Over Time
• Conservation at the Crossroads
• Food and Nutrition in an Urbanizing World
• Food in the 21st Century
• Ag Marketing over the Century
• Agriculture, Sustainable Resource Use, and Food Security in the 21st Century
• The World's Water in the Next Century
• Meet and Milk in the 21st Century
• Ag and Resource Cartoons

I think the articles represent a good mix of topics, and the authors bring many helpful insights into both our past and future as we mark this important date. Sandy is taking extra efforts to assure special visual qualities for the millennium issue, and that it is published in a timely way.

The millennium project required a very substantial added effort for the Choices operation. The project began in 1997 with considerable planning by the editor, managing editor, and advisory board. A call for abstracts went out in the 4th quarter 1997 issue of the magazine, and the Newsletter. We received 54 abstracts. Four advisory board teams evaluated the abstracts. Authors of top abstracts were asked to submit complete articles, and these were again sent out for review. Based on the reviews, we selected 13 articles for the millennium issue. The AAEA Board approved an added $3,500 to increase the number of magazine pages, and improve visual quality through added color and graphical treatment.

Euro Choices
At last summer's meeting in Salt Lake City, John Davis, Honorable Secretary of the British Agricultural Economics Society, visited with President Armbruster, Rueben Buse, and myself. The BAES wanted to explore the possibility of creating a European version of Choices. These initial and subsequent discussions resulted in financial commitments by both the AAEA and BAES to explore the feasibility of a new magazine, taking into consideration the possibility of cooperation between the two associations. This cooperation recognizes the common food, farm and resource interests of government and business decision makers on both sides of the Atlantic - interests often brought together by the ever more global world in which we live. Cooperation also recognizes the possibility of economies of working jointly on publication. If found financially feasible, the BAES hopes to publish the first issue of the magazine, tentatively called Euro Choices, in March 2001 to help celebrate the Society's 75th anniversary. The BAES will bear financial responsibility for the magazine.

During his sabbatical year beginning about July 2000, the current Choices editor will serve as a consultant to the AAEA and BAES to help assess the feasibility of Euro Choices and, if encouraging, assist the development of the magazine. The BAES has asked the current editor to serve as cofounding editor of Euro Choices. Reading University has graciously offered to host the editor's stay in the UK.

As indicated above, Euro Choices is a cooperative effort of the AAEA and BAES. Executive Director Dunn and I have discussed our communication/information needs for the project. Donna will help provide information on the services available for Euro Choices, and their costs, if it is published through the same channels used to publish Choices.

Managing Editor Position Ends
In late July, the AAEA terminated the position of Managing Editor in the AAEA Office. The termination allows the current managing editor to remain in position until December 31, 1999. The 3rd quarter 1999 issue of the magazine is very nearly completed, and according to Executive Director Dunn, timely publication should pose no difficulty should the managing editor leave before publication. The Executive Director also indicates that quality and timely treatment of the special 4th quarter millennium issue should pose no difficult problems if the managing editor leaves before the end of December. As approved by the AAEA Board, the millennium issue will receive special treatment to enhance visual quality. Timely printing and distribution of the magazine (by mid December) is imperative to appropriately mark the millennium date.

Editor's Term Ends, Transition Begins
My term as editor ends December 31, 1999. The seven years that I will have served as editor have been the most professionally rewarding of my career. I have immensely enjoyed the assignment, and sincerely thank the members of this and past boards for supporting Choices and my editorial activities.

The AAEA Board selected Paul Barkley as the new editor. Paul has been closely associated with Choices for many years, including more than one term on the advisory board. During my tenure, I called on Paul not only for usual review of articles, but also special help with editing, writing a guest editorial, and advice on several unusual and difficult decision I faced as editor. Paul brings broad interests in food, farm and resource issues, superb writing and editing skills, and a wealth of knowledge about the AAEA and its members. I am delighted, indeed, that Paul will be the third editor of the magazine. Paul will be responsible for the 1st quarter 2000 issue. He and I have begun transition activities. We have communicated extensively about the publication process, and evaluated the status of articles in the publication pipeline. In late July Paul and I visited USDA agencies that have, historically, financially supported Choices. Paul plans to visit Tucson this fall to "learn the ropes."

Thanks
I am indebted to a many people who made my Choices experience professionally and personally rewarding, rewarding even beyond expectations. A good number of AAEA Boards have come and gone over my seven-year tenure, and each of them gave strong support to the magazine and my editorial activities. Various evaluations of the magazine suggest that this support should continue. The AAEA business office has proven essential to the operation of Choices. Mailing activities are complex and extensive. So, too, with subscription maintenance, fund solicitation and collection, and financial record keeping. I know a number of people have worked on these activities, and I am appreciative of each of them, but Lona Christoffers has taken the lead. I shall always be grateful to her for her prompt and helpful attention to special tasks, and always with respect and that twinkle in her eye or voice that lets you know you're working with a friend. As the AAEA Board considers outsourcing the magazine, I hope it realizes that many of these business office activities can not be outsourced, or outsourced only at a cost in quality or dollars. I appreciate the work of Advisory Board members. The amount and quality of their review and special advisory activities is really quite remarkable. No doubt, the quality of the magazine has benefited significantly from their work. People in my own institution made my work as editor possible. Without the support of my dean, director of extension, head of department, and department faculty, I simply could not have edited Choices. Editing the magazine is a major task, and not one to be done "on the side." Much of my work on the magazine substituted directly for work that I would have done otherwise. My administrators and colleagues supported my editorship because they knew and appreciated Choices, and believed that my work as editor was one of the most important activities a faculty member could do. Their attitude implicitly complements the AAEA for its support of the magazine, and founding editor Lyle Schertz whose efforts fostered the magazine's reputation. Finally, I want to thank the managing editor, or I should say managing editors. I was blessed with two absolutely superb managing editors, Sue Ballentine and Sandy Clarke. When Sue turned in her resignation to head for greener pastures, I was necessarily greatly worried. Sue was the consummate professional, and a delightful person with whom to interact. But luck was with AAEA. Sandy knows her trade. She provided excellent management and communication with outside layout and publishing contractors, brought fine editing skills to the magazine, and worked superbly with authors. In all cases she performed at the highest level of professional competence, and always with uncommon cheerfulness. The quality of her work is reflected in the magazine's appearance and error-free text and graphics, 100 percent on-time publication, and the high marks that the magazine consistently receives in both anecdotal form and formal surveys of reader satisfaction. Her excellent work has been a huge asset to the AAEA and a valuable benefit to Choices readers. Thank you, Sandy -- I am grateful.

RAE Editor
Gail Cramer, Editor

The Review of Agricultural Economics has grown as a forum for creative and scholarly research in agricultural economics. The editorial team has encouraged submissions of problem solving and issue focused research of an applied nature. The RAE is publishing articles from extension, research, teaching, government, and business professionals. There has been an increase in submissions from extension, government, and business economists.

The editorial activities were transferred from Kentucky to Arkansas in July, 1998. The transition was very smooth, due to the support, advice, and assistance of David Debertin and Angelos Pagoulatos. We are grateful for all of their help. This last year we received 110 manuscripts and accepted 43 for publication for a publication rate of 39.1 percent. As the RAE becomes better known, we expect the submission numbers to increase and the number of issues to increase from two to four per year.

The Editorial Council continues to provide outstanding leadership as have co-editors William Amponsah, Bill Kost, Sally Thompson, and Tom Wahl. The reviewers (listed in the appendix) have provided editorial assistance for all manuscripts . Administrative Assistant, Lisa Meeks, has accepted an academic position in Missouri and has been replaced by Susan Porter.

The RAE has given me an opportunity to work more closely with members of our profession. They are dedicated to improving our knowledge of agricultural economics and agribusiness. It is an enjoyable experience.

I would like to thank the AAEA Board for this opportunity to serve the profession as editor of the RAE.

Committee on Women in Agricultural Economics (CWAE)
Janet Perry, Chair

This annual report consists of two sections: ( 1 ) the current status of women in the agricultural economics profession and (2) the accomplishments of the Committee on Women in Agricultural Economics (CWAE) over the past year. Both sections show an active participation of women in the profession, but the participation of women in the agricultural economics discipline still lags women's participation in other life science disciplines-- in the number of degrees awarded, employment positions occupied, and amount of professional publications. The Committee on The Status of Women in Economics Professions (CSWEP) reports that the number of women with economics training is the same or slightly lower than in previous years. The data that CSWEP has collected indicates that women may have hit a glass ceiling in academia. Their information suggests that while the pipeline of graduate students is flowing at about a 25-27 percent rate, the flow of women into the research positions at top Ph.D.-granting institutions is diminishing and that the flow into small state and private liberal arts colleges and universities is increasing. While a greater percentage of young female economists are going into public and private careers outside of academia, there is no reason to suspect that they are being any more successful. The agricultural economics profession faces particular recruitment challenges because the nature of the work requires advanced research and analytical skills within a very small and historically homogeneous sub-discipline of economics. And, the agricultural economics profession has not done a particularly good job in marketing itself to potential students of the subject, partly due to the perception of "agriculture" as "farming" and the contracting nature of the farming sector. Therefore, it is difficult for academic departments and government agencies to increase their hiring of women when the pool from which they select new employees is shrinking.

1. The Status of Women in the Agricultural Economics Profession

Academia: While women continue to enter the profession, agricultural economics still remains a research area dominated by men. In FY 1998, 197 doctorate degrees in agricultural economics were awarded, with 35 (18 percent) of them going to women (AJAE, Vol. 81). That percentage is slightly higher than for the economics discipline, where women are receiving 24-26 percent of the doctorate degrees awarded and approaching the overall rate of 40 percent of all doctoral degree awards accruing to women. Life Sciences (of which agricultural economics is a part) continues to expand Ph.D. awards to women in 1981, 27 percent of the doctoral degrees went to women, while in 1996, about 40 percent of recently awarded Ph.D.s were to women. While progress is being made in employment recruiting of women to agricultural economics departments, retention remains a problem. And, even though more women are participating in the profession, many departments have no women, or only 1 or 2 women, on staff in tenured positions.

Government: USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) is the government agency which employs the greatest number of agricultural economics, but economists are also found throughout the Department as evidenced by the establishment and growth of the USDA Economists Group. Approximately one-quarter of that organization's membership is female, reflecting the female economists' employment statistics. Currently women fill four of seven senior management positions at ERS, and the Agency is directed by Dr. Susan Offutt who took office in 1996. In FY 1998, women held one-quarter percent of the economist positions. Four women have been promoted under the new Employee Position Classification System that evaluates the person in the job. (Approximately 120 economists have been evaluated, with the primary result of remain in grade.)

Several women agricultural economists have senior positions elsewhere in government. Margot Anderson heads the USDA Global Change Program Office. Stephanie Mercier is senior economist for the Senate Agriculture Committee and Shannon Hamm serves as agricultural advisor with Senator Dorgan. Elise Golan served at the agriculture position at the Council of Economic Advisors in 1999.

Agribusiness and other institutions: Little is know about women who choose to take career routes beyond academics or government. Many women with MS degrees are employed outside of these two venues, and they rarely remain as members of the AAEA. The Kellogg Foundation in its report Visions for Agricultural Economists found that less than 30 percent of graduate students continue their membership after the degree. The Foundation suggests that the AAEA broaden its view of who the membership could be and expand the leadership of the board to include directors from agribusiness and other non-traditional places of employment. Clearly, this issue is important to the profession and is beginning to be addressed by the current membership.

Publications: A scanning of the symposia, selected papers and selected posters presented at the 1998 AAEA meetings show that women were either authors or discussants for 9 of the 38 principal papers presented at the meetings in Salt Lake City. A total of 277 women were represented in 455 symposium sessions, selected papers, and posters. The number is inflated because many women were on the program more than once, as co-authors, presenters, or organizers. Women tended to be second or third authors in written reports and selected papers, and appeared to be represented as sole authors more in the poster sessions. One organized symposium was organized and presented by women only.

• In 1998- l 999(vol. 2) American Journal of Agricultural Economics (AJAE) published 95 articles, of which 19, or 20 percent, had one or more female authors, up from 12 percent in 1995, but slightly lower than the 23 percent in 1997. Two of the articles were by sole women and in six of these articles, women were listed as first author. Seven more comments or book reviews had female authors. 13 percent of the reviewers for the AJAE from August 1996-July 1997 were women. Kathleen Segerson (U of Conn) is serving as co-editor for the AJAE. Many AJAE authors are international, thus it is difficult to determine gender by examining name only. To more clearly identify women and minorities, CWAE again suggests that gender and ethnicity be part of the tracking system for authors.
• In 1998-9, Review of Agricultural Economics (Vol. 20) published the work of 47 authors (21 articles) of which 15 authors (32%) were female. While several of the articles were by groups with women as secondary authors, 3 articles were by sole women or groups substantially peopled by women authors.
• Choices featured 8 women of 64 authors (12.5%) in their articles and editorials in 1998-9. On the CHOICES editorial board, 8 of 27 of those on the Advisory Board are female.

Competitive Grants: The USDA National Research Initiative (NRI) Competitive Grants Program is one of the primary sources of competitive funding for academic agricultural economists. Almost 2 million dollars was allocated through the NRI' s Markets and Trade research program in 1999, with $550,000 (27%) going to projects where women were the principal investigators (PI or co-PI). (Source: Mary Marchant, Markets & Trade Panel Manager, USDA-NRICGP)

Awards. In 1998, Jennifer Tkac (McGill) had an award-winning undergraduate paper and Camille Tribble (Georgia) received the second place award. Nicole Elmer (Texas A&M) and Ibrahima Hathie (U of Conn) received honorable mention for outstanding masters thesis. Liz Robinson (Stanford) received honorable mention for Outstanding Ph.D. Dissertation. Rosalyn Bell was a co-author for the Waugh Lecture. Melinda Smale received honorable mention for Outstanding AAEA Journal. In the Western Agricultural Economics Assn., Cynda Clary (NMSU) received an award for outstanding under-graduate instructor of less than 10 years; outstanding published research was awarded to Cathy Kling (Iowa State) with honorable mention awarded to Frances Homans (U Minnesota). Frances also received the AAEA Quality of Research Discovery Award. Jackie Smith was a member of a group that received the AAEA Distinguished Extension Program Award.

We were very pleased that Dr. Uma Lele of the World Bank will be inducted as an AAEA Fellow in 1999, joining Dr. Irma Adelman (U of Calif-Berkeley) who was inducted last year, and Dr. Sylvia Lane (U of Calif-Berkeley) and Dr. Sandra Batie (Michigan) on the list of Fellows. Dori Comer (U of Florida) prepared the nomination assisted by Christie Gladwin (U of Florida) and Mary Marchant (U of Kentucky) which was sponsored by CWAE. CWAE also lent its support to nominations for Dr. Kitty Smith (ERS) and Dr. Jean Kinsey (U of Minnesota).

AAEA membership and participation: Gender was collected on the AAEA membership application form in 1998, but that practice was not continued. Extrapolating from 1998 records, only about 11 percent of AAEA's membership is female (477 of 2,966, down from 13% in 1998). Another 16 percent (332 persons) specified no gender in 1998, or joined in 1999 when gender was not collected. In addition to collecting gender of applicant on the membership form, CWAE also recommends that the AAEA ask for gender of authors on acceptance of articles for the association's publications. Collecting these very basic demographic statistics is essential for an inclusive organization to keep track of its progress.

Women are actively involved in the leadership of AAEA, with 2 women (Claudia Parliament and Jane Luzar) serving on the ten member board, and several served on committees and as invited speakers. Participation by women in the hierarchy of the regional agricultural economics associations is much more prevalent. Mary Marchant (U of Kentucky) is president and Kim Jensen (Tennessee) is vice-president of Southern Agricultural Economics Assn. Dawn Thilmany (Colo State) serves as vice president of the Westem Agricultural Economics Association. Shida Henneberry (Okla. St) and Rhonda Skaggs (NMSU) are on the WAEA board. One of 15 members on the Western Journal editorial staff (Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics) is female. At last year's WAEA meetings, 4 of 9 award categories were won by a woman, or a team of which at least one was female. Linda Lee (U of Conn.) and Lois Schertz Willet (Cornell) serve on the Northeast Agricultural Economics Assn. executive committee. Linda Lee is the NAEA's journal editor.

2. Accomplishments of the Committee on Women in Agricultural Economics

Serving our membership and making our work visible are goals of this chairperson. To that end, I've encouraged CWAE member in several activities: electronic communication, a progress report on the tracking survey, sponsoring activities at the AAEA meetings, and the Lane Fellowship.

The CWAE homepage has moved to be housed under the AAEA homepage. According to Dawn Thilmany, we are still averaging 250-300 hits per month. The page includes an introduction to CWAE, the committee's working rules, officer and board member contact points, and electronic versions of the CWAE newsletter. Ann Vandeman (ERS) continues to be our CWAENET list chair. CWAENET remains on the ERS listserv and has approximately 180 members. Posts range from job announcements and research topics, to career concerns and awards. Margot Rudstrom (U of Minnesota) and Cheryl DeVuyst (U of Illinois) are co-editors for the CWAE newsletter after Shannon Hamm left ERS to work in the Senate. Since last report, CWAE published 2 newsletters for mail-out to our membership. With the spring/summer newsletter CWAE has gone "electronic". Newsletters are posted to the CWAE homepage for electronic reference and members are mailed a notice when the next newsletter is available.

Electronic communication continues to facilitate CWAE's operations and I have conducted all the board's business through e-mail or phone this year. We have had quick response from board members and had early resolution to planning for AAEA Foundation proposals and for sponsorship of activities at the meetings. E-mail works because all board members have access and it allows us to consider information at convenient times, without travel or conference calls.

The CWAE Tracking Survey, in cooperation with the AAEA Employment Services and Membership committees and the Committee on the Status and Opportunities of Black Agricultural Economists, and conducted by Laura Martin (Michigan State), was mailed May 1998. The mailing went out to approximately 1,000 members of the AAEA. A second mailing went out to non-respondents in June 1998. This project is funded by the AAEA Foundation Board. Dawn Thilmany (Colo State) has done some preliminary analysis of the responses, with the following results: There were almost 500 respondents, 155 (31 percent) of which were women. Here are some basic demographics:

• average age of male respondents: 50 (this year) females: 42
• 93% of men are married, while only 76% of the women are married
• 88% of the men have children, while only 52% of the women have children.

Women appear to be paid about $ 10,000 less than males. However, some of this "pay gap" may be attributable to women, on average having 5 less years of experience (which is less than the 8 years difference in age). More specifically, Assistant Professors have equal pay, regardless of gender. Male Assoc. Professors earn about $6000 more on average, and pay is equal for both genders at the Full Professor level, however there are very few female full professors. Salary was most highly correlated with number of years of experience (no difference between men and women). However, the number of refereed journal publications in the past five years was far more correlated with women's salary than men's. The opposite is true if you look at all publications/presentations. Moreover, the level of teaching load had a far more adverse effect on publishing for women than for men. It appears that women who have stayed in the profession are fairing better than 10 years ago, but there are still significant barriers to keeping women in these jobs as evidenced by the relatively small number moving into the higher ranks.

CWAE has a visible presence on the 1999 AAEA annual meeting schedule. In addition, Meredith Soule (ERS) prepared a proposal and CWAE was awarded funds to provide travel grants for international female graduate students to attend the AAEA meetings in Nashville. The recipients will be our special guests at the CWAE reception and luncheon. The regular CWAE welcome reception will be held on Sunday, other activities include:

• "Women You Should Know," symposium organized by Jean Buzby (ERS)
• "Gender Matters: Roles in the Profession and on the Farm" symposium organized by Janet Perry and Penni Korb (ERS)
• "Agricultural Economists and Gender in the International Workplace" symposium organized by Meredith Soule (ERS)
• CWAE continues to sponsor a luncheon for members and friends at the AAEA meetings, this year featuring Dr. Uma Lele from the World Bank. Uma Lele is currently Adviser in the World Bank and is responsible for the Operations Evaluation Department (OED) Review of the World Bank's 1991 Forest Policy and its Implementation. Dr. Lele will focus on the interface of agriculture and sustainability of global forests, as it relates to the issues of food from the producer to the consumer.
• A breakfast meeting for students at 7:30 am on Wednesday, August 11, 1999, at the annual meetings in Nashville. The theme for the breakfast is "Making the Connection" and CWAE hopes that undergraduates may come and meet professionals, ask questions about career or academic choices, and develop personal relationships in an informal individual setting. There is no charge for students to attend, but reservations for the breakfast are requested.

The Sylvia Lane Fellowship (special purpose) Fund continues to receive donations. Jean Kinsey, chair of the fellowship sub-committee, presented a successful proposal to the AAEA Foundation for additional funding for the Lane Fellowship and we hope to be able to announce the next mentorship in August at the Nashville meetings.

Elections were held at the luncheon at the 1998 AAEA meetings where we elected 2 members for the board. Having elections at the luncheon has considerably increased participation in the electoral process and we had 128 voting at the luncheon. We included an absentee ballot in the newsletter that proceeds the meetings and 20 voted absentee. Mylene Kherallah (IFPRl) put together a slate of nominees and Dori Comer (U of Florida), Mary Marchant (U of Kentucky) and Dawn Thilmany (Colo. State) assisted in the elections at the luncheon. Shannon Hamm (ERS) and Laura Martin (U of Michigan) became our newest board members, joining Janet Perry (chair-ERS), Dawn Thilmany (vice-chair-ColoState), Mary Marchant (past-chair-Kentucky), Jean Buzby (board member-ERS), and Christine Ranney (board member-Cornell). Jean and Christine will be rotating off the board in 1999, and a new chair and vice chair will also be elected. Janet will stay on the board as past-chair.

I'm pleased to be able to tell you that CWAE 's Budget is operating at just replacement level. Total funds brought forward from 1998 were a positive, albeit tiny, balance of $128. Thanks to our member's support, our income from dues was $1844 so we have close to $2000 for operating income. From this we deduct expenses for maintaining the homepage and other AAEA office expenses, and for printing and postage on one issue of the newsletter. The electronic version of the newsletter is much less costly for us to produce, which will help solve one of CWAE's most pressing problems. Then we have expenses for the AAEA meetings- reception, business meeting, and luncheon. We'll probably spend every dime. But, at least we are still in the black for another year!

THANKS to ERS for it's administrative support of CWAE activities and for providing the poster listing our activities that we display at the AAEA meetings. ERS hosts the CWAENET discussion group as well. Thanks to Colorado State for its support of the Web page and newsletter, and thanks to Susan Hine and Jennifer Grannis for producing the initial results of the Tracking survey. Thanks to University of Minnesota, and University of Illinois for their administrative support of the newsletter and other CWAE activities.

Employment Services
Michele Marra, Chair

The Employment Services Committee accomplished three things in the past year.

First, the committee members reviewed employment brochures and other materials produced by AAEA. The members made many helpful comments that, I think, improved the materials.

Second, the committee took part in organizing an orientation session prior to the opening of the Employment Center at the Salt Lake City meetings. Feedback from this effort is quite positive, and the committee plans to continue this service in support of AAEA staff, who will take the lead in organizing and conducting the session.

Finally, the committee met electronically to plan for the two major activities that will take place this year; the triennial employment survey and the biennial organized symposium at the national meeting. The employment survey will be conducted this fall and planning for it is underway. The organized symposium is set to take place on Tuesday afternoon during the meetings and will concentrate on private sector employment issues. I will moderate the session, and two committee members (Neil Conklin and Tom Zacharias) will give presentations, along with two additional presenters from the private sector (Mark Lange and Joe Coffey).

The committee will meet in Nashville to continue planning for upcoming activities.

Economic Statistics and Information Resources Committee (ESIRC)
David Lambert, Chair

The AAEA Economic Statistics and Information Resources Committee is comprised of academic researchers and policy analysts drawn from a variety of both domestic and foreign governmental agencies responsible for the collection and analysis of economic data. The composition of the Committee has facilitated close collaboration among the academic community and government analysts in shaping governmental policies addressing data collection and use.

Major accomplishrnents during 1998-99 include:

1. Rural Policv: Issues, Data Needs, and Data Access

This conference will be offered twice. The first offering will be August 7th, 1999 as a pre-conference for the AAEA meetings in Nashville. The conference will be repeated this fall in Washington D.C. The conference will provide a multi-disciplinary focus on key policy issues and the data needed for the analysis of those issues. The ESIRC Task Force on Rural Data has organized the conference with much appreciated support from the AAEA, the Farm Foundation, and both Canadian and U.S. federal agencies involved in data issues. Dr. David Zilberman (UC Berkeley) and Dr. Vince Smith (Montana State) are the principal organizers of the event.

2. Access and Availabilitv of Ag Census and Other USDA Data in the Electronic AsJe

This AAEA symposium will be held at the Nashville meetings. Organizers are Douglas Young (Washington State) and Richard Allen (USDA-NASS) working together with the ESIRC Data Access Task Force Committee. The symposium will include discussions of protocols and experiences in accessing and using USDA economic data. Use of the 1997 Ag Census data will be the major focus of the discussion.

3. The evolving role of public agencies in providing agricultural data.

A major concern at last summer's ESIRC meeting was the possibility of declining federal resources devoted to providing traditional agricultural data products. Specific concerns surrounded ERS's proposal to reduce the number of Situation and Outlook Reports released during the year. Vince Smith was very active in liaising among the AAEA, the federal agencies involved, and Congress. Commodity group efforts eventually led to continuation of the current schedule of releasing S&O Reports. A future role for ESIRC may include investigating alternative mechanisms and institutions for delivering timely information currently provided by federal agencies.

4. Miscellaneous activities

ESIRC was asked to co-sponsor a May conference organized by the USDA Economists Group: Data to Decisions: New Age Information, Private Strategies, Public Policy. Other co-sponsors were C-FARE and The Farm Foundation. This conference addressed the provision of economic information in an increasingly difficult policy environment, perspectives on problems and possibilities in producing information for policy making, and using data and information for tactical and strategic decision making.

AgEcon Search, supported in part by the AAEA and represented on ESIRC by Brent Mai of Purdue, continues to grow as an internet site for access to research in agricultural and applied economics.

Jerry Fletcher (WVU and member of ESIRC) serves as current president of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics (COPAFS). AAEA has been a contributing organization to COPAFS since its inception in the early 1980s. Close association with COPAFS allows the AAEA to maintain influence with federal statistics agencies having a broader scope than traditional agricultural information agencies. This role is becoming increasingly important as AAEA members address a growing range of issues more expansive than our traditional agricultural and natural resource base.

International Committee
Christopher B. Barrett, Chair

The AAEA International Committee is responsible for the International Banquet at the association annual meetings, for planning pre or post conferences on international themes, for encouraging submission of principal and selected paper and poster and organized symposium and free session proposals on international themes, and for other activities deemed to promote international activities in the association. This year the Committee selected Dr. Robert Thompson of the World Bank as our banquet speaker. Bob is a fellow of the AAEA and currently directs the Bank's efforts in rural industrialization and development, an especially appropriate topic given the overall theme of the Nashville meetings.

The Committee sponsored a pre-conference in 1998 at Salt Lake City on "Agricultural Intensification, Economic Development and the Environment." David Lee of Cornell University spearheaded that effort. Reviews of the preconference were uniformly positive, attendance was higher than projected (approximately 140) and the papers are to be published in a volume edited by David and myself next year, most likely by CAB International (we're choosing among press offers right now).

The Committee is sponsoring another pre-conference this year, in an apparently unprecedented collaboration with the AAEA's Industry Committee, on "Agroindustrialization, Globalization, and Economic Development." We are indebted to Tom Reardon of Michigan State University for chairing the steering committee organizing the conference. The conference adds an important international dimension to the overall theme for the Nashville meetings. The organizers have arranged for the preconference papers to be published as special issues or sections of three different journals, reflecting the preconference's multiple audiences: Agricultural Economics, Environment and Development Economics, and the International Food and Agribusiness Management Review. Thanks to generous funding from several institutions, the preconference is making available studentships to finance the travel and participation of up to seven outstanding agricultural economics undergraduate or graduate students wishing to consider issues of international agroindustrialization for prospective thesis topics and to gain networking opportunities. For the first time, the Committee has a World Wide Web site to promote this preconference (http://www.cals.cornell.edu/dept/arme/staff/cbb2/preconf.html).

The Committee actively encouraged submission of all types of proposals for the annual meetings in Nashville and is pleased to see that the final program will include the usual substantial range of sessions, symposia, papers, and posters on international topics.

The Committee has engaged in some discussion of the possibility of reorganizing as a section. As yet, there does not appear widespread support for the idea. Discussions on this topic are ongoing.

National Association of Agricultural Economics Administrators (NAAEA)
William G. Boggess, President

1998 AAEA Organized Symposium and Free Session: The NAAEA sponsored a half-day organized symposium/free session on Dealing With Controversy in Natural Resource Issues at the 1998 AAEA meetings in Salt Lake City. Presenters Paul Thompson, Donna Minnis, and Leon Danielson provided varying disciplinary (i.e. philosophy, wildlife biology and economics) perspectives on philosophical, ethical, and professional issues underlying scientists' roles as advocates or honest brokers. John Miranowski and Paul Barkley presented individual case studies as background for audience discussion of how to deal effectively with controversial issues such as hog farms, endangered species, wetlands management, field burning and others.

NAAEA Bylaws and Section Status: An ad-hoc bylaws committee consisting of John Lee, Larry Hamm and Bill Boggess drafted formal bylaws for the NAAEA to replace the existing "Operating Guidelines". The draft bylaws have been approved by the NAAEA Board and will be presented to the NAAEA membership for formal approval at the 1999 AAEA meetings in Nashville. A formal proposal requesting AAEA Section status for the NAAEA will also be presented to the NAAEA membership at that time.

1999 Survey of Agricultural Economics Departments: In August 1999, the NAAEA will conduct the third biennial national survey of faculty and salaries. The purpose is to provide department heads/chairs and other administrators with a summary of information comparing universities nationwide in terms of compensation of faculty and graduate students, benefits, teaching loads, and indirect cost policies.

November 1999 Workshop: The 5th Biennial NAAEA Workshop is scheduled for November 11-13 in Kansas City. Vice-President Vernon Eidman is coordinating planning for the workshop. Proposed workshop sessions will address two major themes: 1) structure, content, and role of graduate and undergraduate agribusiness programs; and 2) measures of program quality for departmental research, teaching and extension programs.

Other Items: Nathaniel Brown, Vernon Eidman, and Lester Myers were elected to the NAAEA Board replacing Dewitt Jones, Stan Thompson, and John Lee. Bill Boggess was elected President, Vernon Eidman was elected Vice President and Steven Kraft was elected Secretary/Treasurer. John Miranowski was appointed to a three-year term representing the NAAEA on the C-FARE Board replacing Gene Nelson.

The NAAEA would like to express its appreciation to the AAEA business office for its help with collecting dues, managing the NAAEA accounts, holding elections and workshop logistics. The NAAEA clearly could not function without the assistance of these professionals. It is our hope that the AAEA Board will endorse continued support of the NAAEA by the AAEA business office.

Professional Activities Committee
Robert King, Chair

The Professional Activities Committee devoted its efforts in 1998-99 to organizing and conducting "learning workshops" and "frontier sessions" at the AAEA annual meeting. Both are intended to present recent developments in economic theory and quantitative methods to participants. The committee has organized learning workshops since 1990. Frontier sessions have been included in the AAEA annual meeting program since 1995. In addition, the committee organized a Fellows' Retrospective session that will be part of the annual meeting in 1999 and in years to come. Philip Raup will be honored in this first session. Finally, the committee has been discussing another new initiative ­ "Master Classes" that would be offered at times and locations other than the annual meeting.

Patricia Norris, from Michigan State University, chaired the planning committee for the post-conference learning workshop on "Property Rights" at the 1998 annual meeting in Salt Lake City, which was attended by thirty-one participants. Of these, twenty-six were professionals and thirteen were students. This was a lower level of attendance than in past years. Possible reasons include the fact that pre-conference sessions were heavily attended, that there was another competing post-conference workshop, and that there was an error in the workshop fee printed on the conference registration form. Despite lower than expected attendance, participant evaluations were very favorable. Bruce Weber, from Oregon State University, is chairing the planning committee for this year's post-conference learning workshop on "New Growth Theory." Steve Polasky, from Oregon State University, has agreed to chair the planning committee for the 2000 learning workshop on "Game Theory."

Two frontier sessions were scheduled at the 1998 annual meeting in Toronto. Topics and presenters for these sessions were: "Applied Nonparametric Production and Consumption Analysis" (Tom Cox, University of Wisconsin) and "Integrating Ecology and Biology with Economics" (Steve Polasky, Oregon State University). Due to a scheduling conflict, the Tom Cox session had to be canceled. He has agreed to present this session at the 1999 annual meeting. Committee members Paul Fackler and Scott Irwin were responsible for organizing two frontier sessions for the 1999 annual meeting. Topics and presenters will be: "Applied Nonparametric Production and Consumption Analysis" (Tom Cox, University of Wisconsin) and "Simultaneous-Equations Panel Data Econometric Methods" (Steve Vickner and Steve Davies).

Paul Barkley, from Washington State University, took the lead in developing a proposal for institution of an annual Fellows' Retrospective. Many of the Fellows have made enormous contributions to the discipline. In some cases, those contributions have occurred in over half a century and are so ingrained into the mainstream of the profession that most younger members do not recognize their origins. The annual session will honor one Fellow whose professional life is nearing its end, but who is still active and making contributions to the field. Paul Barkley is also organizer of this year's session.

The idea for "Master Classes" originated with Paul Fackler and was discussed at the committee's 1998 meeting. The committee continues to discuss this idea on a list serve established by the AAEA office. Key questions in that discussion include:

1. What audience are we trying to reach? (e.g., industry, government agencies, university faculty, graduate students)
   
2. What kinds of topics are appropriate for master classes? (e.g., quantitative techniques, computer software, policy analysis, etc.)
   
3. Are there preferred locations for the master classes? (e.g., university campus, USDA or some other D.C. location, resort/vacation destination, etc.)

To date we have not been able to reach consensus answers to these questions.

The Professional Activities Committee will meet on Sunday, August 8th, in Nashville. At this time, the exact time and location for the meeting have not been finalized. During this meeting, the committee will (1) identify a list of potential topics for the 2001 learning workshop, (2) identify potential topics for the 2000 frontier sessions, (3) determine procedures for selecting an individual to be honored in the 2000 Fellows' Retrospective, (4) continue to discuss ideas for AAEA sponsorship of "Master Classes,"and (5) discuss other projects the committee may pursue during the coming year.

Committee on Professional Relations with Economies in Transition
William H. Meyers, Chair

A major focus this year was given to support of graduate students from Central and East European countries (broadly defined to include countries of the NIS). The AAEA Foundation supported this effort with a grant of $4000, more than twice the amount granted last year. Preference for travel grant awards will be based upon presentation at the meeting such as paper author or symposium participant and priority will be given to those with matching funds from their institution. H. L. Goodwin organized the advertising and chaired the selection panel for these grants.

The second area of emphasis was on organizing sessions on themes related to transition economies. Two organized symposiums were approved. One was on the topic "Restructuring of Livestock Sectors in the Transition Economies", organized by committee member Nancy Cochrane of ERS and examining the current stage in the restructuring of the livestock sectors in selected transition economies. Presenters will identify institutional obstacles to full restructuring, discuss some empirical measures of market integration, and summarize preliminary results of a simulation model which measures the impact of alternative reform scenarios. The second was on the topic "Reforming Agriculture in Transition Economies: Trying to Fit a Square Peg into a Round Hole". This was organized by William Meyers and Wojciech Florkowski; and speakers from Poland, Hungary, and Russia have been invited to open the discussion with their assessments of transition difficulties in their own countries. These participants will receive minimal support toward the expenses of participation.

The third area of activity was to identify worthy recipients of donated professional materials. The set of journals donated by Hildreth was sent to Chelabinsk University, an important and worthy institution in Russia but one that has not received as much support and attention as others. We are now trying to find a home another donated collection.

The chair has advised the AAEA President that he is taking a leave from ISU to accept a position in FAO/Rome. Therefore, he as asked that a new chair be appointed before the Nashville meetings, so that continuity can be preserved.

Committee on Professional Relations with China
Scott Rozelle, Chair

The 1998-99 year has been a busy one for the Committee on Professional Relations with China. As a group and in collaboration with other organizations, we have been involved with three main activities. First, we co-hosted with WCC #101, our annual workshop on Food Trade and Marketing with China. Our meeting was held February 4 through 5 in San Diego. Nearly 50 people attended the meeting. Besides our own presentations (there were more than 25 papers given), we invited Barry Naughton (professor) and Peter Timmer (dean) of the University of California's Graduate School of Pacific Rim Studies to give keynote addresses. We are publishing a WCC #101 proceedings based on the papers given in this conference.

The February conference also served as a stepping stone to an even bigger event that we are cosponsoring: the 1999 IATRC's annual conference on Agricultural Trade with China. This event is being held in San Francisco and is a part of the IATRC's regular semi-annual meeting series. There are more than 150 people who are planning on attending the meeting, including 15 from China. The AAEA Committee on Relations with China is sponsoring a workshop for 10 young economists from China who will be giving papers at the meetingss. Our colleagues from China will be given lectures on US Agricultural, Marketing, and Trade Policy and will be preparing to give their presentations at the conference. The UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and UC Agricultural Issues Center will cosponsor two trips to see California agriculture. After the meeting the US Grains Council and ERS' China branch will host the group for a trip through the mid-west and Washington DC.

Finally, our committee, jointly with ERS' China branch has organized a symposium at the Nashville meetings. The topic, "Agricultural Policy in China: New Trends and Future Prospects" is bringing together some of the top experts in the field who are activiely doing research in China to provide an update on new development in China's agricultural land, productions, marketing, trade, and other rural policies. Colleagues from the World Bank, China's Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy, ERS, the IMPACT center and a number of US Land Grant universities will be participating.

We have been busy. And, as the issues of food and agricultural between the US and China have become more complex and more inter-tied, the importance of keeping Committee active and growing becomes ever more important.

Selected Papers
Cheryl Doss and Joe Moffitt, Co-Chairs

I. Background

This was the first year that the selected papers were coordinated through the AAEA office. Although we expect that this system will be a good improvement and will make things much easier on the selected papers committee, this year much of our time and energy was spent trying to figure out how to handle the coordination efforts.

We did not make many other changes from last year. The format of submission of a two-page abstract was continued. Last year 722 abstracts were submitted and we expected a similar number. Twenty subject codes were listed in the submission information. These were slightly different from last year's codes and had been determined by the time we were recruited as co-chairs. We recruited 20 topic leaders, representing each of the subject codes. These topic leaders recruited a total of 174 reviewers, based on the numbers of papers submitted in different categories last year. We received 651 submissions. Of these, we accepted 384 and organized them into 98 sessions. Forty abstracts were sent to be considered for poster sessions.

II. Innovations in 1999 and Lessons Learned

The main innovations this year, were due to the fact that the AAEA office coordinated the selected papers this year and handled much of the paperwork. In addition, this year, most of the work was done electronically, rather than with paper copies of abstracts and reviews. Thus, there were two sets of issues this year that were new. One was coordination between the co-chairs and Nancy Herselius and the second was the management of all of the information electronically.

As co-chairs of the committee, we did much less of the handling of paper than had been done in the past by the co-chairs. Our primary responsibilities were to recruit the topic leaders, make decisions on the which abstracts to accept, based on the reviewer's comments, and coordinate with the AAEA office.

The two-page abstracts were submitted electronically to the AAEA office. Nancy Herselius in the AAEA office received the abstracts, sent them out to reviewers, and notified people whether their abstracts had been accepted or not.

We continued to require that a 12 page paper be submitted by May 15 and 93% of the authors (357) did submit their papers by this date. Last year's co-chairs recommended that the requirements be for a 12-18 page paper. We would suggest that we move to this new limit on paper length. This year, a decision was made by the board that discussants would not be used, however, the moderators will receive the papers and will be expected to read them in order to facilitate the discussion and questions. Thus, it is important that the papers be of reasonable length. A 12-18 page paper is all that can be presented within the time limits of the presentations. Regardless of how the page limit is set, it is difficult to enforce the limit.

We had a number of minor administrative problems this year, especially related to coordinating the reviews. In the past, some effort was made to match individual reviewers with papers in their particular area. This year, Nancy allocated the papers to reviewers in each subject code, without taking into account individual areas of expertise and preference. Given the large number of submissions received, this seems to be an adequate solution. Most people should be able to provide adequate reviews of papers in their general fields of expertise.

Initially, the reviewers each received copies of all of the abstracts in their subject area. There was some confusion about which ones they were to review. In addition, some of the names of the authors were listed in the email information, thus, the reviews would not have been blind. Several reviewers also received their own papers to review. Nancy was able to correct these problems, but it took additional time. In addition, some reviewers were unable to read the email attachments. In the future, the AAEA office should be prepared to quickly fax the information to reviewers who cannot read the attachments. One reviewer complained that he felt that it was too much work to expect reviewers to print out email attachments and said that he wanted to receive hard copies. However, most reviewers seemed satisfied with the process. When initially contacting the reviewers, the co-chairs should make it clear that the abstracts will be sent by email as attachments and many of the problems may be anticipated. Using email will allow the topic leaders to recruit reviewers who are AAEA members but who may be based outside of the US. One other option would be to put all the abstracts on a database or web page which reviewers could log in to rather than sending the reviews by e-mail.

Several reviewers did not turn in their reviews. In part, this may be due to some of the delays caused by the problems discussed above. Two reviewers mentioned that they would have been able to review the abstracts on the original schedule, but they couldn't do so at the later times.

We received a couple of complaints about the quality of the reviewers from disgruntled authors. One did not like the tone of the comments that he received and the other felt that his paper should not have been rejected. However, most of the reviewers were quite conscientious and took the job very seriously. They are asked to do a substantial amount of work in a limited time. Although not all of them write comments for the authors, a number of them do. They are obviously not as detailed as journal reviews, but they do provide the authors with some information.

Several reviewers complained that the use of two page abstracts rather than full papers made it impossible for them to provide adequate reviews. Also, some reviewers felt that more clarification was needed about what should go into an abstract and how reviewers should evaluate them. As one reviewer put it "It does not seem to be clear to authors and reviewers as to whether the selected paper abstracts should contain some results. In other words, are these abstracts for proposed studies or nearly completed studies? Maybe the Board needs to address this issue and make the decision." One coordination problem was that the AAEA office kept the data base on all of the papers that were submitted. As co-chairs, we did not always have all of the information, so it was difficult for us to answer questions. In particular, this year we did not have the names of the authors of papers until after the letters were sent stating whether the papers had been accepted or rejected. It would be useful to figure out a way that the co-chairs could access the data base.

We also faced a bit of a challenge due to the fact that the co-chairs were located at different institutions. We divided tasks by subject code and each took full responsibility for all of the tasks for the abstracts in our subject codes. This worked well at many stages, however, at the stage of making final decisions and sending the abstracts to the topic leaders to group into sessions, there were a few complications. Some papers clearly had the wrong subject code and others seemed as though they would fit better into a session in another subject code. We didn't move papers across co-chairs, but only within them. In several cases, we would have had a better fit if we had coordinated better across co-chairs. This was particularly an issue for the subject codes with few papers, where they needed to be combined with papers in other subject codes.

Last year, papers were accepted as back-up papers, to be included if authors whose papers were accepted did not get their papers in on time. This year, we did not accept papers as back up for three reasons. First, it provides immense coordination problems since there is not reason to expect that the back-up papers would fit neatly into the sessions that had openings. Second, we were uncomfortable asking people to commit to coming to the meetings and present their papers, but only if there was room. Finally, we did not feel that we had missed a number of good papers due to space constraints. Instead, we felt that most of the good papers had been accepted.

A timing challenge is that the final program needs to be completed before the deadline for receiving the final selected papers. Thus, we have a situation where it is difficult to enforce the deadline without potentially leaving big holes in the program. It might be worthwhile to reconsider the May 15 deadline. Either it could be a couple of weeks earlier, so that the papers were received before the program was completed, or we could not require that final papers be submitted. (This is the policy of many associations.) Authors could submit their papers to AgEcon Search and send them to the moderators of the session. Many authors indicated that they were continuing to work on their papers beyond the deadline and had new "final versions" at the time of the summer meetings.

The submission information asks whether authors would be willing to present a poster if their paper did not fit into a session. However, the papers that we sent to the poster session were those that we not chosen as selected papers but that looked interesting and looked as though they would do well as a poster.

Several subject codes had very few submissions. In the future, we may want to reconsider including these as separate subject codes. The number of abstracts submitted, by subject code, is included below.

Topic Leaders - 1999

Laurian Unnevehr, Dept. of Ag & Consumer Economics Consumer Economics

Katherine Ralston, USDA/ERS Demand and Price Analysis

Leah Greden Mathews, University of North Carolina
General Economics and Education

Paul McNamara, Cornell University
Human Resource Economics

Munisamy Gopinath, Oregon State University
International Agricultural Trade

Paul Heisey, USDA/ERS
Production Economics

Jeff Gillespie, Louisiana State University
Risk and Uncertainty

Barry Goodwin, North Carolina State University
Policy Analysis

George Frisvold, University of Arizona
Professional Affairs and Research Agenda/Funding

Wes Harrison, Louisiana State University
Agribusiness Economics & Management

Bruce Ahrendsen, University of Arkansas
Agricultural Finance

Frederic Zimmerman, Stanford University
International Agricultural Development

Kellie Raper, Michigan State University
Agricultural Marketing

Martin Shields, Pennsylvania State University
Community Resource Economics

Stephen Hamilton, Kansas State University
Environmental Economics

Robin Brumfield, Rutgers University
Extension Methods/Issues

Mike Duffy, Iowa State University
Farm Management

Linda Lee, University of Connecticut
Natural Resource Economics

Anya McGuirk, Virginia Tech
Research Methods/Econometrics/Statistics

Lois Willette, Cornell University
Resident Instruction Methods/Issues

Number of abstracts submitted, by subject code

1. Agribusiness Economics and Management 30
2. Agricultural Finance 12
3. Agricultural Marketing 47
4. Consumer Economics 31
5. Community Resource Economics 17
6. Demand and Price Analysis 44
7. Environmental Economics 70
8. Extension Methods/Issues 4
9. Farm Management 26
10. General Economics and Education 3
11. Human Resource Economics 8
12. International Agricultural Trade 56
13. International Agricultural Development 47
14. Natural Resource Economics 74
15. Policy Analysis 52
16. Production Economics 48
17. Professional Affairs and Research Agenda/Funding 6
18. Research Methods/Econometrics/Statistics 28
19. Resident Instruction Methods/Issues 5
20. Risk and Uncertainty 34

Tellers Committee
Roger G. Ginder and Marvin Hayenga, Co-Chairs

1999 Election for AAEA Officials

The results for the 1999 election of AAEA Officials were as follows:

Numerous write-in nominations were received for President Elect, AAEA Executive Board of Directors and Governing Board of the AAEA Foundation.

Ballot Exceptions/Disqualifications
(Prior to Scan)

1. One ballot was disqualified because the member had cast both an electronic and a mail ballot. The mail ballot was disqualified and the electronic ballot was counted.

2. Two ballots were disqualified due to the use of a non-official envelope without the serial ID#.

3. Two ballots were disqualified because they were received in one officially numbered envelope despite clear instructions not to do so on the ballot itself.

4. One ballot was disqualified due to the fact that the member had marked more cells than the indicated maximum number. In this case, the member had voted for too many candidates in all races on the ballot.

5. One ballot had no cells marked except for the "other" cell for write-in candidates in the presidents race. There was no name written in.

6. One ballot was received in the official numbered envelope but was totally blank.

7. Six ballot envelopes were returned to sender (AAEA) because the addressee could not be located. (Staff will follow-up address changes)

8. Numerous ballots were marked in ink and were submitted to computer evaluation after darkening with a #2 pencil.

9. Two ballots had been opened by staff to recover green extension section ballots enclosed in the official AAEA envelope with serial ID. These ballots were not disqualified and were submitted for scanning.

   A total of six spoiled ballots were disqualified and the two incomplete ballots could not be counted. These eight ballots were not submitted for scanning.

Electronic Balloting Procedures

The use of electronic ballots (new this year) holds great promise for the future. Slightly more than 12% (153) of the total ballots cast in the 1999 AAEA election were cast electronically. The electronic ballots were verified by generating a paper report to AAEA staff indicating that the member had voted. This report listed the name and membership number of the electronic voter and the time the ballot was submitted. These verification slips were provided to the tellers by the AAEA staff. Results were tabulated by an outside firm: Internet Services for Associations, 924 Stratford, Deerfield, IL 60015.

Results from electronic balloting were reported to the Tellers Committee Chair and the AAEA staff via e-mail on May 18, 1999 from Donald Rome of Internet Services. The process went very well with no problems identified. The integrity of the electronic system was checked when one member deliberately attempted to cast a second vote electronically. The test member was denied access after the original ballot was cast. A cross check between electronic and paper ballots was manually conducted by AAEA staff to ensure that no member cast both an electronic ballot and a paper ballot. Only one such attempt was identified (see exceptions/disqualifications).

Evaluation and Recommendations

The electronic voting system has numerous advantages:

1. First and most obvious, there is a reduced volume of paper ballots to handle and process.
2. All votes are tabulated and presented in an easy to interpret format
3. There is no need to manually type write-ins and nominations from paper ballots
4. Ballots marked in pen or poorly marked are not a problem
5. Overseas members do not have to deal with the mails and potential delays
6. For members with ready access to the internet, the process is simpler and more convenient.

For these reasons, the committee recommends that the electronic balloting be continued and actively promoted among the membership as the preferred method for voting. These advantages increase as the proportion of electronic votes increases. However, the committee does not recommend adoption of electronic voting as the exclusive means of voting in the near future. We hesitate to eliminate the paper ballot alternative entirely for several reasons.

1. Assuming that it is desirable to get the broadest possible participation among AAEA membership (especially in electing the leadership), anything that could be viewed as an impediment to voting or voter participation should be minimized. Not all members currently have ready access to internet or use it routinely. This may be particularly true of some segments of the universe of AAEA voters.
2. The 1999 result in one of the races was different for the 153 electronic ballots than the result for the total universe of ballots cast. This points up the fact that those currently voting electronically are not completely representative of the total universe of voters. This can be expected to change as the percentage of members voting electronically increases. However, the point where it becomes representative has not yet been identified or reached.
3. The 1999 result in another of the races exhibited differences in ordering of the four candidates between the electronic and total results. The two winning candidates were identified properly but the ordering reversed. While results were consistent this year, the possibility for problems exists when the number 2 and number 3 candidates are reversed. The problem will be most serious in close races.

Before adopting electronic voting as the exclusive means, it should be more clear that those who vote electronically are truly representative of the whole than current conditions indicate. We would urge monitoring of future elections for consistency between electronic and total results before paper ballots are eliminated entirely. The board should reconsider the issue when the electronic voting proportions reaches 50-75% or consistent results are obtained between election results and total results including paper ballots.

Other Suggestions to Increase Electronic Voting Participation

The Committee would make several suggestions to promote an increased number of electronic voters in future AAEA elections.

1. Some AAEA members do not carry their membership card and thus do not know their membership number. This creates an impediment to accessing the system. Providing the member number with the paper ballot mailing would perhaps help.
2. Some members were not aware of the electronic voting option despite the fact that there was material describing it in the mailing. Methods to make this information more prominent in the mailing may help.
3. A blanket e-mail to members reminding them first of all to vote and also including instructions for electronic voting may help to increase not only total participation in the election but also increase the level of electronic voting.
4. A "check the box" item on membership forms could be used to identify those members who would prefer to use electronic and those who cannot (or prefer not to) use electronic voting. This will help to remind members that the option exists and will help to identify those who cannot/will not use it.

Ad Hoc Strategic Plan Audit Committee
Mark Drabenstott, Char

This report provides an independent assessment of AAEA board actions to implement the 1997-98 AAEA Strategic Plan. An ad hoc committee appointed by past president Walt Armbruster and current president Richard Shumway prepared the report.

Overall, while steps clearly have been made, some serious questions remain among AAEA members about the overall thrust of the plan. Changes in the annual meeting have been welcomed, as have innovations in continuing education, the employment service, and the formation of sections in the association. In some sense, however, these efforts seem to be overshadowed by some lingering questions about the "big picture" for the association. More specifically, there are serious concerns about the vision of the association, especially when membership continues to dwindle and the association seems to have only limited success attracting new, nontraditional members. There is a sense that AAEA is still playing to a membership that no longer reflects the breadth and diversity of 21st century agricultural economics concerns that are especially evident in the direction of the AJAE and in how the association recognizes its members through awards. These findings would suggest that the Board give serious attention to a 21st century vision for the association. Until a shared vision can be successfully achieved, other strategic efforts may be somewhat hamstrung.

An assessment of progress in the 12 recommended steps in the AAEA Strategic Plan is provided below. The committee identified several areas where progress can still be made, and some suggestions for further progress are discussed for each step.

Assessment of the 12 Steps in the Strategic Plan

1. Determine a Shared Vision

In 1996 a member survey on products, services and governance was conducted. A summary of survey results is on the AAEA Web Page. Additionally, the Executive Secretary made an extensive report in a Special Issue of the AAEA Newsletter in 1997 that touched on the Business Office Activities that were initiated as part of the Strategic Plan. The need to be sensitive to the demographics and AAEA's potential market was emphasized.

While these accomplishments may partially respond to the follow-on recommendation for this objective, they do not answer the bigger question, namely a "Shared Vision--Comprised of Mission, Vision, and Values" as stated in the Kellogg report. The essence of Shared Vision appears to have been lost in focusing on what products and services to provide the membership.

The Board has articulated a Mission and acknowledged basic Core Values for AAEA. However, they have not developed a Shared Vision. The Kellogg report adequately characterized a Vision as: "challenging, inspiring, energizing; more than individual self-interest; an integral part of the culture; and uncomplicated, concise, easy to understand and simple to communicate." No where in any of the documents that this committee reviewed is there any sense of a vision or where the AAEA desires to be in a number of years. AAEA has a Mission, a "how to get there", but it does not know where it is going.

The current Strategic Plan needs to be revisited with a renewed focus on vision. The Mission statement is clear, concise, and well stated. The Principle, Core Value, and Philosophic Underpinnings of the association are a little verbose, but seem well conceived. An analysis of strengths and weaknesses has been conducted. However, the Strategic Plan still lacks a vision statement. Moreover, many of the Board's current Strategic Issues appear to be more tactical in nature. Strategic issues need to be identified and prioritized in the order in which they will contribute to achieving a vision. Once this has been done, strategies need to be developed. Then, all of the standing committees, business of fice, AAEA Board and Officers and members can take ownership of strategic issues in order to achieve the "Shared Vision."

2. Market the Association

This goal had 4 parts: membership, annual meeting promotion, continuing education, and publicity. The loss in membership may be slowing among current agricultural economists, but the pool of new agricultural economists is still contracting. Unless the association is seen as relevant to a broader new group, the association will continue its decline in membership. To be relevant, the association must provide value through networking with members and opportunities to increase knowledge in the discipline. A once-a-year meeting is not enough to accomplish these goals, even though many fine activities are planned at the annual meeting. The association's past concentration on topics that academics might be interested in has been detrimental to keeping the interest of economists concentrating on agribusiness, the food industry, economic development, rural labor, rural community, natural resource, and other applied topics. Several had hopes that the "topical" annual meetings would draw a broader range of interests into discussion, but many members' expectations have not been met. The topic of the meetings was not known at the beginning (or until the beginning) of the year, and insufficient notice was given to allow papers or posters to be planned that would address the topic. Although it is the responsibility of the members to get information, the available information about the meetings also must be timely. Many members think timeliness is an issue. One member of the audit committee spoke with several members about this matter and no one had seen an advertisement of the meetings except in the newsletter and the registration mailed out to members in late spring. Moreover, no one knew what types of membership promotions, if any, were on going. No promotional materials were noted about the value that the association provides to current members.

Pre-conference and on-going conference learning sessions could be one way to provide value to members, in addition to "certification" workshops and work-in-progress sponsored by (but not necessarily funded by) the association.

3. Facilitate communication

In addition to marketing, or making known the benefits of the association, as stated above, the association must be perceived as providing value. The homepage for the AAEA is one vehicle to provide members with value through networking and members generally view the homepage as "coming together." In particular, members cite the committee listings and the Foundation section of the homepage listings. They think the newsletter format and electronic transmittal has improved. However, the communication with members on "late-breaking" news could be improved through e mail (not just passive posting on the homepage), earlier notification of meeting topics, and web places to post working papers or discussion papers for comment. Some members suggest providing forums at the annual meeting to discuss research in progress rather than completed research. Additional topical meetings other than the annual meeting (perhaps on the Internet) would facilitate communication among constituency groups. The minutes of the board should be more transparent by posting them on the Internet in a timely way. Pre-meeting topics for the board meetings should be posted in advance so that members could comment on any of the topics. Committee reports should be posted as well.

4. Get Ahead of the Curve

There is general consensus that AAEA is not pro-active enough in anticipati