Agricultural policy in the U.S. is examined in a metaphorical context. It is likened to securing a place at a large family dinner table. Until the early 1970s effective and relatively comprehensive agricultural policy shifts could be largely effected through the “USDA dinner table,” (and its affiliates). Today, meaningful agricultural policy is crafted and implemented at a number of other big policy tables, e.g., energy and the environment, education, health and human services.

How relatively painless it was to agree 18 months ago to be nominated for the position of President-Elect of the Southern Agricultural Economics Association (SAEA). Preparing for this address, the most daunting task faced by holders of this office, has been anything but painless. At the same time I can say unequivocally that it has been a productive exercise for me. I hope that something I say will make your time spent listening worthwhile as well.

Whether the next farm bill is a slightly modified extension of the 1996 Farm Bill or is significantly different from the current bill will hinge on how the 1996 Farm Bill is perceived to have performed. With no supply management provisions in the 1996 Farm Bill, the crop markets have not shown a capacity to self-correct by reducing the quantity supplied and increasing the quantity demanded in response to relatively large declines in crop prices.

Three farm programs to increase support by $6 billion per year are analyzed. Higher marketing loan (ML), higher AMTA payments, and Modified Supplemental Income (SIP) program are evaluated at the sector and farm levels. At the sector level impacts on supply, demand, and price are modest with acreage shifts of less than two million acres. At the farm level SIP was preferred by cotton farms and higher ML was preferred by farms producing soybeans. Higher AMTA payments were preferred by 3 of 11 farms. Overall, SIP was ranked first or second by 10 of 11 representative farms.

The amount of land in urban and other special uses increased more than 50 percent since the 1960s in the South. Rural land converted to urban uses is directly related to increases in population in the South. Urban land-use coefficients were estimated to provide a measure of the amount of land converted to urban uses per person added to the population base. These coefficients indicate that from 1974 to 1987 two-thirds to three fourths of an acre of land was converted to urban uses for each person added to the population base. At this rate, about 12.6 million acres are expected to be converted to urban use in the South during the next two decades.

Several developments in recent years related to the use, valuation, and management of natural resources provide the motivation for this paper. First, increased urbanization during the economic boom times of the 1990s has led to acceleration of the conversion of natural and undeveloped areas to unnatural and built-up areas in many regions of the nation. As a result people concerned about the loss of nature and various associated benefits in their communities are pushing for public action to protect remaining natural and undeveloped areas. The push for these protective actions sets the stage for conflicts with other people who support continued allocation of natural and undeveloped areas to various types of urban-related development. Insight into the resolution of such conflicts can be gained through a better understanding of how natural capital contributes to quality of life in different regions.

Conflicts among competing resource users have become more frequent in the Southeast. Political and legal processes and economic values will play major roles in negotiations to resolve competing resource uses. Resource economists can contribute to resource conflict resolution in several ways, such as facilitating negotiation, asserting importance of institutional mechanisms, analyzing incentives, and evaluating resources.

While it probably is not possible to cover comprehensively all the major resources issues in the South as we more into the 21st century, these three papers, taken together, give us a fairly good glimpse at some of the resource issues likely to dominate discussion in the next decade.

These three papers together characterize trends in land use, resource issues, and research responses that are being observed in all regions of the country. However, southern states are the locus of the most recent and rapid changes in land use. The latest National Resources Inventory data shows that the increase in acreage of land in developed uses from 1992 through 1997 was most pronounced in the southern states. Figure 1 compares, for all states but Alaska, the average annual rate of land development (this is land moved into the urban and built-up category and the rural transportation land category) between 1992 and 1997. Eight of the top 13 states are in the southern region, and Louisiana, the southern state with the lowest rate of land development, is ranked at 29th out of 49.

The paper discusses the linkages between the “globalization” of agricultural markets over recent decades and the decisions being made by individual farmers and ranchers in the United States. It is noted that technological advances lead to globalization of agricultural commodity markets and profit pressures. The continuing profit squeeze in agricultural production is having a significant effect on the cropping choices of America's farmers. When possible, acreage is being shifted out of low-revenue-generating crops and into higher-revenue-generating crops. This shift makes crop portfolios more risky over time, thus encouraging farmers to consider diversifying out of agriculture.