1 / 22

FOR 451 ( FOREST RESOURCE ECONOMICS & QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS)

FOR 451 ( FOREST RESOURCE ECONOMICS & QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS). FORESTRY AND THE FREE MARKET Chapter 3 (Klemperer, 1996). Forestry and the Free Market. US forestry economy: Mixed ownership private forests often under public regulations public forest use dictated by private citizens

Télécharger la présentation

FOR 451 ( FOREST RESOURCE ECONOMICS & QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. FOR 451 ( FOREST RESOURCE ECONOMICS & QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS) FORESTRY AND THE FREE MARKETChapter 3 (Klemperer, 1996)

  2. Forestry and the Free Market • US forestry economy: Mixed ownership • private forests often under public regulations • public forest use dictated by private citizens • Big Q: How much government intervention in private forestry is needed in market economy? • If government intervenes (to improve social welfare): what kind of intervention, how much, when and where?

  3. Forestry and the Free Market • Social objective (in using resources): to achieve a welfare maximum. • Welfare maximum - elusive resource allocation, such that no reallocation could yield net gain • If no change can bring net gains – at welfare maximum!

  4. Forestry and the Free Market (continued) Other theories on maximization of welfare: • Pareto Optimum -- no resource allocation could make anyone better off without making someone else worse off (1848-1923) • More restrictive, narrow view • Compensation principle -- allow resource reallocation, only when gains > losses, i.e., gainers could overcompensate losers (Kaldor, 1939)

  5. Required conditions for free market to maximize welfare 1. Property rights to resources enforced -- clear definition of land and resource ownership 2. Firms & consumers are maximizers – they are rational 3. Perfect competition -- firms are price takers 4. Free entry of firms -- no barriers to entry to industry 5. Perfect information 6. Mobility of labor and capital 7. No unpriced negative side effects -- producers should pay for all costs 8. Priced inputs and outputs - all resources/outputs have a price 9. Satisfactory income distribution -- current/future income distrib. is ok

  6. Results when welfare is maximized 1. Consumers' needs are met 2. Consumers maximize their satisfaction (apply equimarginal principle) 3. Efficient capital allocation -- best alternative rate of return to capital 4. Efficient allocation of labor & other resources -- move to highest returns 5. Producers have efficient levels of output -- optimal output level (max NR at MC=MR=P) 6. Efficient allocation of land -- most desirable use of land 7. No redistribution of income could yield any net benefit -- if redistributed, losses > benefits.

  7. Market Failures & Government Actions 1. Property rights not enforced - fish & game laws, licenses, fees, other forms of “rationing” 2. Imperfect competition (monopoly/monopsony, oligopoly/oligopsony) - Sherman Act of 1890, Clayton Act of 1914, 3. Imperfect information - Truth in Advertising Act 4. Immobility of labor and capital - retraining programs, unemployment insurance, relocation assistance 5. Unpriced negative side effects (“negative” externalities, or “external diseconomies”) - ex: with pollution  Social Optimum < Private Optimum - emission standards, tax incentives, direct payments for control measures, public funded programs

  8. Social Marginal Cost Private Marginal Cost Pollution cost/ton of paper $/ton Marginal Revenue = price/ton 0 Qp Qs Tons of paper produced per year Social Optimum Private Optimum Fig. 3-3. Divergence between the private and social optimum with water pollution.

  9. Market Failures & Government Actions 6. Outputs not easily priced - Public goods vs Private goods vs Mixed goods - “Positive” externalities (unmarketed positive by-products)  Social MR > Private MR  Social Optimum > Private Optimum - Option demand, Existence demand, Bequest value - Actions: tax incentives/subsidies for providing unpriced goods (public goods), education programs about conservation practices, taxes/fines to discourage certain types of environmental damage, regulation of private forests, government ownership

  10. Private MC/acre Open space benefits, $/ac $/acre Social MR/acre Private MR/acre 0 Qp Qs Acres forested near the city Private Optimum Social Optimum Fig. 3-4. Private and social optimum with unpriced positive side effects.

  11. Market Failures & Government Actions 7. Economic instability - programs for price stabilization and support (subsidies) - monetary & fiscal policies (stimulate investment, stabilize interest rates, dampen/stimulate demand) 8. Unsatisfactory income distribution - progressive income taxation, programs like food stamps, welfare, free public services, assistance to low income students, low-income housing subsidies, social security 9. Other market failures? - list provided not all-inclusive - market failure is major justification for government intervention - need to document market failure before government action

  12. Optimal levels of environmental damage Non-Market, Environmental Econ: 2 Approaches or Damage Liability Rules: 1. Victim liability 2. Damager liability Damagers -- those causing damage Victims -- those harmed by damage Optimal level of environmental damage?

  13. Optimal levels of environmental damage 1. Victim liability -- with damage allowed, place liability on victims for damage reduction; determine their WTP cost of damage reductions - Stresses private property rights (individual's right to do what they wish with their property) 2. Damager liability -- no uncompensated damage allowed, place liability on damager to compensate victims. - Compensation will be minimum $ payment that victims require to willingly endure damage. With compensated damage, victims would just be as satisfied as they were before damage occurred. • - Stresses amenity rights or public's right to enjoy amenities (clean air/water, peace & quiet)

  14. Optimal Solutions with Monetary Damages (Coase Theorem) • Use of bargaining framework to reach “optimal” environmental damage levels • Payments need not actually be made; need to only show that if payments were made, gains > costs • Assumption: theonly damage is reduced income to victims

  15. Optimal Solutions with Monetary Damages • Use of bargaining framework to reach “optimal” environmental damage levels • Figure 3-5a. Environmental damage costs and firm’s profit

  16. Optimal Solutions with Monetary Damages A. Victim Liability –Bargaining framework -- see Figure 3-5b

  17. Optimal Solutions with Monetary Damages B. Damager Liability –Bargaining framework -- see Figure 3-6

  18. Optimal Solutions with Monetary Damages Optimal Solutions with Nonmonetary Damages – see Figure 3-7

  19. Optimal Solutions with Monetary Damages Use of the Declining Marginal Utility of Money - Most rich folks  added amount of $ today brings less satisfaction than same amount did when their income was much lower (empirical studies) WTS > WTP : - People’s required compensation (WTS) when losing a nonmarket amenity exceeds their WTP to attain it or save it from damage (studies) - Other factors influence this situation, e.g., people hate to give up what they already have!

  20. Optimal Solutions … • Damage Fines • Transactions Costs • Income Effects • Placing Liability for Damage Reduction on • On Victims • On Damagers • Changing Attitudes • Avoiding Polarization

  21. Applications in Forestry – p.92 Forestry Applications Table 3-1. Examples of forestry-caused environmental damage Figure 3-9. Optimum damage from logging.

More Related