Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T21:33:03.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policy Science in the Land-Grant Complex: A Perspective on Natural Resource Economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Alan Randall
Alan Randall*
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Natural resource economics has long been identified as a policy science. Its chief concerns—problems attributable to “market failures” of various kinds (e.g., Castle 1965) and the special difficulties that arise in intertemporal and intergenerational resource allocation (e.g., Solow)—inherently require some kind of public solution, whether it be by reaffirmation or redefinition of property rights, regulation, taxation policy, or public enterprise.

In a time of some general disenchantment with government and selective retrenchment of public sector activity, resource economists (and many other social and economic scientists) are receiving mixed signals. Mostly we tend to work in or for the public sector, the political stock of which is not exactly booming.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , July 1982 , pp. 85 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1982

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.)

References

Arrow, K.Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1951.Google Scholar
Becker, G.S. “A Theory of the Allocation of Time.” Econ. J. 75(1965):493–517.Google Scholar
Becker, G. S.A Positive Theory of the Redistribution of Income and Political Behavior. Mimeo, Uni. of Chicago, 1980.Google Scholar
Blaug, M.The Methodology of Economics, or How Economists Explain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Bluestone, H. “Economic Growth of the South versus Other Regions: Past Trends and Future Prospects.” S. J. Agr. Econ. (this issue).Google Scholar
Braybrooke, D. and Lindblom, C.. A Strategy of Decision. New York: Free Press, 1963.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J.Freedom in Constitutional Contract. Texas A&M University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. and Tullock, G.. The Calculus of Consent. Ann Arbor, Uni. of Michigan Press, 1952.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J., Tollison, R., and Tullock, G.. Toward a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society. Texas A&M University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Castle, E. “The Market Mechanism, Externalities, and Land Economics.” J. Farm Econ. 47(1965):542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, E. “The University in Contemporary Society.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 53(1971):551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, E.Agricultural Education and Research: Academic Crown Jewel or Country Cousin? Washington: Resources for The Future, Inc., 1981.Google Scholar
Council on Environmental Quality. Public Opinion on Environmental Issues, Results of a National Public Opinion Survey. Washington, 1980.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, Harper and Row Publisher, 1957.Google Scholar
Hausman, Jr. “Exact Consumer's Surplus and Deadweight Loss.” Amer. Econ. Rev. 71(1981):662.Google Scholar
Kelly, J.Arrow Impossibility Theorems. New York: Academic Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Krueger, Anne O. “The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society.” Amer. Econ. Rev. 64(1974):291–303.Google Scholar
Lancaster, K.Consumer Demand: A New Approach. New York, Columbia Uni. Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Office of the President. “Executive Order 12,291.” Federal Register 46(33): 13193, February 19, 1981.Google Scholar
Peltzman, S. “Toward a More General Theory of Regulation.” J. of Law and Econ. 19( 1976):211–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, M. and Dalrymple, D.. “US Food and Agricultural Research Assessment: Implications for Agricultural Economists.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 63(1981):990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. “Philosophy of Science: A Personal Report,” in British Philosophy in Mid-Country, Mace, C. (ed.). London: Allen and Unwin, 1957.Google Scholar
Poser, R. A. “Theories of Economic Regulation.” Bell J. of Econ. 5(1974):213–36.Google Scholar
Rausser, G., Lichtenberg, E., and Lattimore, R.. “Developments in Theory and Empirical Application of Endogenous Governmental Behavior,” in New Directions in Econometric Modeling and Forecasting in U.S. Agriculture, Rausser, G. (ed.). Amsterdam: North Holland, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Rawls, J.A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resources for the Future, Inc. “National Environmental Survey Results.” Resources 66(1981): 13.Google Scholar
Robbins, L.An Essay of the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan, 1935.Google Scholar
Robbins, L. “Economics and Political Economy.” Amer. Econ. Rev., Pap. and Proc. 71(1981): 1.Google Scholar
Shumway, C. R. “Subjectivity in Ex Ante Research Evaluation.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 63(1981): 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, K. and Rosen, H.. “Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models.” Econometrica 49(1981): 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solow, R. “The Economics of Resources or the Resources of Economics.” Amer. Econ. Rev., Pap. and Proc. 64(1974): 1.Google Scholar
Stanton, B. and Farrell, K.. “Funding for Agricultural Economics: Needs and Strategies for the 1980's.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 63(1981):796.Google Scholar
Stigler, G.J. “Theory of Economic Regulation.” Bell J. of Econ. 2(1971):3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, D.C., 1965, 69, 74 and 79.Google Scholar