Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T17:22:26.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Forces as a Substitute for the Land Market*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

E. C. Pasour Jr
E. C. Pasour Jr*
Affiliation:
N.C. State University
Get access

Extract

The paper by Long, Infanger and Danielson [5] (hereafter referred to as LID) does a good job of presenting conventional rationale for an approach to land use planning. Survey results presented in the LID paper clearly identify the topics currently concentrated upon in land use research and educational programs. Identification of the specific nature of current educational programs in land use is a necessary first step in assessing the effectiveness of these programs. The primary objective of this paper is not to further review current research and extension activities but to take a fresh look at issues involved in land use planning, and point out areas where both rationale and approach of conventional research and extension land use efforts should be subjected to further scrutiny. Comments are not restricted to the LID paper only, but relate also to described land use research and educational programs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , July 1977 , pp. 51 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1977

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

*

Discussion presented at meeting of the Southern Agricultural Economics Association, February 9, 1977, Atlanta, Georgia

References

[1]Demsetz, H. “Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint,” Journal of Law and Economics, Volume XLL (1) 1969, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
[2]Hayek, F. A. “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” American Economic Review, Volume XXXV, No. 4, September 1945, pp. 519–530, Reprinted as Chapter 4 in Individualism and Economic Order, University of Chicago Press, 1948.Google Scholar
[3]Institute for Contemporary Studies. The California Coastal Plan: A Critique, San Francisco, California, 1976.Google Scholar
[4]Knight, Frank H. “What is Truth in Economics?” Journal of Political Economy, Volume XLVIII, No. 11, February 1940, Reprinted as PR 151-178 in Frank H. Knight on the History and Method of Economics, University of Chicago Press, 1956.Google Scholar
[5]Long, Burl F., Infanger, Craig L. and Danielson, L. E.. “Research and Educational Programs for Land Use Planning and Policy in the South,” Paper presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Meetings, February 9,1976, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
[6]Land, N. C.Policy Council. A Land Resources Program for North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1976.Google Scholar
[7]Pasour, E. C. Jr. “Information Aspects of Alternative Economic Systems,” The Alternative, Volume 6, No. 4, January 1973, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar
[8]Pasour, E. C. Jr. “Land Use Planning—The Market Approach,” Paper presented in Workshop on Land Use Planning in Rural Areas, sponsored by N. C. Cooperative Extension Service and Center for Rural Resource Development, N. C. State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, November 17, 1976.Google Scholar
[9]Philbrook, Clarence. “Capitalism and the Rule of Love,” Southern Economic Journal, April 1953, Volume XIX, No. 4, pp. 458–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Philbrook, Clarence. “‘Realism’ in Policy Espousal,” American Economic Review, December 1953, Volume XLIII, No. 5, pp. 846–859.Google Scholar
[11]Robertson, Sir Dennis H. “What Does the Economist Economize?” pp. 147–154, in Economic Commentaries, London, Staples Press, 1956.Google Scholar
[12]Seigan, Bernard H. “Non-Zoning in Houston,” Journal of Law and Economics, Volume XIII (1), April 1970, pp. 71–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Stigler, George J. “The Theory of Economic Regulation,” The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, Volume 2, No. 1, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar