Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T04:06:38.402Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conflicting Rights to Rural Resources: A Research Strategy for Improved Public Choice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Lawrence W. Libby
Lawrence W. Libby*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access

Extract

There are two basic underlying premises for this paper. The first one is that economics is still a useful discipline. That is, an understanding of economic concepts can contribute to a diagnostic analysis of socio-economic change in the Northeast (among other things), identification of policy options, and even choice. Economic paradigms are versatile and mobile. They help people decide how to deal with all difficult social problems. This assertion is certainly not a foregone conclusion and has in fact been contested rather vigorously. In some circles, clearly those less informed, economics as a discipline has been labeled the villain, the cause for social ills from poor roads to dirty air and water. I would not suggest that all economic advice is good, but that is the fault of the practitioner, not the discipline. Economics, like any other social science, can generate apparent scientific objectivity to support just about any motive of the user. There are virtually no sterile concepts in the discipline. When used to guide choice, all economic principles acquire a normative flavor, inevitably benefiting some interests more than others. Scarcity, the beginning of economics, means interdependence and choice based normative judgments. The challenge for economists as social scientists and particularly as policy analysts is to employ the robustness for the discipline for useful purpose, to provide insights helpful to policy and avoid being intimidated by our own discipline. This leads me to my second premise, that judgments, prescriptions and analyses by economists are probably as good as or better than those offered by anyone else. We owe it to ourselves to be involved.

Type
Land Use
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , October 1978 , pp. 63 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Critical comments and important substantive additions to this paper by Mr. George Johnston, graduate student at Michigan State University, are gratefully acknowledged.

References

Alt, K.F., Miranowski, J., Heady, E. “Social Costs and Effectiveness of Alternative Non-Point Pollution Control Policies.” Paper at the 10th Annual Cornell Water Conference, April 1978. To be published in proceedings.Google Scholar
Bartlett, Randall. Economic Foundations of Political Power. New York: The Free Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Clawson, Marion. Suburban Land Conversion in the United States. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Ervin, David, Fitch, J., Godwin, K., Shepard, B., Strevenu, H. Land Use. Control: Evaluating Economic and Political Effects. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1977.Google Scholar
Gardner, Delworth. “The Economics of Agricultural Land Preservation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59(1977): 1027–1036.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Alfred, and Libby, L. “The Policy Relevance of Alternative Institutional Approaches to 208 Planning.” Paper presented at the 10th Annual Cornell Water Conference, April 1978. To be published in proceedings. A more complete analysis is contained in the unpublished Masters thesis by Hamilton, completed July 1978.Google Scholar
Johnston, George. “Analysis of the Impact of Local Government Policies on Land Use and Land Value Appreciation.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Kasal, James. Tradeoffs Between Farm Income and Selected Environmental Indicators. A Case Study of Soil Loss, Fertilizer and Land Use Considerations. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin No. 1550, August 1976.Google Scholar
Kelso, Maurice. “Natural Resource Economics: The Upsetting Discipline.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59(1977): 818.Google Scholar
Public Law 92–500. 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 208. “Areawide Waste Treatment Management.”Google Scholar
Schmid, Allan. Converting Land from Rural to Urban Uses. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1968.Google Scholar
Seitz, Wesley, and Osteen, C. “Economic Impacts of Policies to Central Erosion and Sedimentation in Illinois and Other Corn Belt States.” Paper presented at 10th Annual Cornell Water Conference, April 1978. To be published in proceedings.Google Scholar
Tabors, Richard. Land Use and the Pipe. Lexington, Massachusetts, D.C. Heath and Company, 1976.Google Scholar
Vanes, J.D. and Keasler, L.C. “Non-Point Source Pollution: Some Sociological Considerations for Implementing Policy.” Paper presented at the 10th Annual Cornell Water Conference, April 1978. To be published in proceedings.Google Scholar
Wade, James and Heady, E. “Controlling Non-Point Sediment Sources: A National Economic Assessment.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59(1977): 13–24.Google Scholar
White, G.B. and Partenheimer, E.J. “The Economic Implications of Erosion and Sedimentation in Illinois and Other Corn Belt States.” Paper presented at 10th Annual Cornell Water Conference, April 1978. To be published in proceedings.Google Scholar