Suchergebnisse

It's one thing to be passionate about protecting the environment. It's another to be successful at it. In the second edition of this popular title, Richard Stroup explains why many of our environmental laws have failed us and how we might go about doing a better job protecting the environment

Using command‐and‐control regulation of land use to produce a public good (as opposed to preventing physical off‐property harms) without compensating the landowner can be expected to produce two unintended consequences: (i) management actions by landowners to reduce the land's attractiveness for production of the public good being sought and (ii) regulatory decisions made as though more costly regulation were costless. Higher costs imposed by the second consequence feed back to worsen the first. Examples from enforcement of current Endangered Species Act regulations provide illustrations. The paper uses a graphical framework to emphasize the qualitative difference between regulatory control without compensation on one hand and the rental or purchase of results on the other. Some low‐cost, highly successful habitat preservation programs utilizing voluntary action would be more difficult to sustain if the habitat were for listed species under the current ESA.

The political 'horse‐trading' which David Stockman encountered in American politics is a feature of 'representative democracy' throughout the world, and is as readily susceptible to economic analysis as is trading in conventional markets. Professor Richard Stroup of Montana State University examines the pressures on buyers and sellers in the political market.

The federal government owns one‐third of the nation's land, a small fraction of which is being selected and prepared for sale. Even this small amount, however, will comprise several million acres and will yield several billion dollars in revenue for the U.S. Treasury. But the President's Asset Management Program will do more than raise revenue: It will increase the efficiency with which the lands me used and will distribute those increased benefits more broadly among all citizens, resulting in net gains in efficiency and equity. As its title suggests, the program is aimed at improving the management of the nation's real property assets1"Privatization" is the word most frequently used to describe the program, and a key component of the program does involve selling large amounts of land (a carefully selected proportion of the federal holdings) to the private sector. Several commentators have objected strongly to the very notion of privatization, and much of the criticism is based on caricatures of what private ownership means and its expected results. This paper will provide an explanation of the rationale of the Asset Management Program and a discussion of the most frequently heard criticisms

How can governments solve the problem of 'Not In My Back Yard' in finding dumps for nuclear waste? Richard Stroup (left) and Donald R Leal, of the Political Economy Research Center in Montana, claim that there are market solutions which have worked in the United States.

Effect of special interest power users in the Northwest and federal bureaucracy.