One of the factors contributing to the substantial increases in crop yields experienced during the last fifty years was the development and use of synthetic chemical pesticides. In the past decade, however, increasing evidence has shown that use of these materials poses significant negative external effects on human health, wildlife, and the environment. Hall has stated the economic trade-off problem as follows:

In the northeast, communities have been faced with a variety of waste management problems brought about by population concentrations and higher consumption levels. One waste that has been receiving increased attention is sewage sludge generated by municipal waste treatment plants. Although alternative sludge treatment technologies are available, a number of municipalities have been ocean dumping. For example, in New Jersey it has been estimated that of the 230,000 dry tons of sludge produced annually, nearly two-thirds is being ocean dumped (Bolan et al.). Although ocean dumping is a relatively inexpensive method from the viewpoint of the municipality, it has become costly in terms of ocean and coastal resources (Colacicco et al., U.S. Department of Commerce). As a result of contaminated beaches, algae blooms, and fish kills (1976 and 1977) legislation was passed in 1977 to stop the ocean dumping of sludge by December 31, 1981 (U.S. Congress, 1977).

Economic development in rural areas of the Northeast has received much recent attention. This paper presents an evaluation of the impact of possible development policies for one such rural area, Sussex County, Delaware. The evaluation is based on measures derived from a regional, primary data, input-output model. The paper is divided into three parts: (I) a description of the input-output model with special emphasis on the design of this model, a design which enables the in-depth study of several industries which are important to the Sussex County economy; (II) estimated measures for evaluating the relative significance of each sector to the region's economy; and (III) illustrations as to how the findings might be used to facilitate policy decisions currently facing or likely to face regional planners and representatives.

Agricultural policy makers are aided in the decision making process by analytical models. This implies that national agricultural policy is dependent on the correctness of the model's structure and specification. Traditionally, econometric models of the crop sector have been estimated in a price equilibrium framework. Heien (1977) summarizes this as a system where supply and demand interacts to determine price. This conceptualization places a heavy burden on the stock equation; ending commercial stock equations often perform very poorly, and therefore, reduced form estimates, particularly for price, tend to reflect this corresponding error.

U.S. agricultural policy has been implemented by various means including price supports, production or acreage controls, trade agreements, commodity reserves, food aid, and other programs (Brandow, 1976). These have been advanced to respond to various public policy objectives. Most of these policies have been directed toward food and feed grains, resulting in varying impacts on producers and consumers of these grains.

Empirical research on single equation, competitive demand models has employed either price dependent or quantity dependent forms. The price dependent models assume that total output is predetermined in the short-run due to the role of past prices and to production cycles as the case of the livestock industry (Heien). On the other hand, quantity dependency can be described as a supply response system.

Soil and water conservation programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are under increasing scrutiny. Congress, interest groups, and departmental budget people are requesting systematic documentation of the impacts of these programs. Their basic concern is economic performance – the “payoff” for public dollars invested in conservation. This paper examines two aspects of the increasing application of economics to soil and water conservation policy. Both are discussed in the context of current efforts within USDA to implement the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977. This new law provides a policy setting within which questions of economic performance are addressed. Examined first is use of formal analytical models in identifying economic consequences of alternative conservation strategies. Second, issues concerning economics of public choice are addressed. The first implies search for greater efficiency of resource use; the latter concerns the distribution of policy impacts in the political economy. Both are important. The paper concludes by identifying research needs. This is a policy paper, not a report of research results.

Strand introduced the symposium with a general discussion of how the hedonic approach is being used to value natural resources. At issue was how one could identify both supply and demand functions for natural resources (e.g. sport fish or waterfowl) from expenditure data collected in cross-sectional interviews of recreationalists. The critical element is that the derivative of the hedonic equation with respect to an output is dependent on another variable within the system.

In order to empirically investigate the economic development process in rural areas, factors that are associated with the level and changes in employment must be conceptualized, operationalized and measured accurately. This symposium was organized to discuss the conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of these factors.

Alter, the first speaker, briefly reviewed the basic characteristics of the property tax, including some of its shortcomings which have provided support for those demanding reforms, He then discussed a number of suggested reforms and property tax alternatives. Concentrating on a flat rate income tax, he pointed out its implications in terms of burden, equity, and inefficiency.

In the summer and fall of 1977 a survey team carried out a study of environmental issues and problems as perceived by high-school-ago youth, selected adult key informants, and relevant organizational leaders. The study was completed in the spring of 1978 as part of a larger series of Level B studies sponsored by the New England River Basins Commission.

The annual business meeting of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council was called to order at 8:30 A.M. on June 20, 1979 at the University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, by President Johannes Delphandahl.

The name of the organization shall be: “Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council.”