Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:37:06.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conservation Policy and Capital Theory*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

Anthony Scott
Anthony Scott*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Get access

Extract

Conservation is a word which occurs more and more frequently in politics. The “conservation of natural resources” appears both in the government accounts and in election speeches as a phrase which covers public spending on forests, waters, minerals, and fisheries, regardless of the ultimate purpose of that expenditure. Payments to American farmers, which enable them to achieve higher output and receive larger incomes, are blithely described as “conservation” without reference to whether or not the transaction has increased the nation's stock of natural resources.

Conservation is a field of study for many of the sciences. Originally, I think I may say, the child of the forestry profession (indeed in the United States the profession of forestry might almost be described as the child of the conservation movement), it has received increasing attention from many other fields. In the 1920's, conservation of oil resources became the slogan of the petroleum companies, swamped by new discoveries. They lost interest when demand increased relative to the newly controlled supply. In the 1930's, low demand for farm output, grave drought conditions, and allegedly increasing soil erosion made “conservation” a good cry for those who would give aid to agriculture. During the last war, farm specialists pushing soil conservation continued to hold the stage, but since then the public has heard increasingly from scientists and business men connected with fisheries, petroleum, water power, forestry, and even minerals. The current approach is to discuss the interrelation of the use of all the natural resources and to stress the necessity of conserving such resources simultaneously.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques et science politique , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , November 1954 , pp. 504 - 513
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1954

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

*

This paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association in Winnipeg, June 3, 1954.

References

1 Bunce, A. C., Economics of Soil Conservation (Ames, Iowa), 1945 Google Scholar; Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. v., Resource Conservation (Berkeley, Calif., 1952)Google Scholar, and many earlier articles; Innis, H. A., “The Economics of Conservation,” Geographical Review, XXVIII, 137–9.Google Scholar

2 I have discussed this concept at length in “Notes on User Cost,” Economic Journal, LXIII, 1953.Google Scholar

3 Though perhaps in another region. See below.

4 That is, to increase the potential future rates of use above what they would be in the absence of conservation. Professor Ciriacy-Wantrup has provided a rigid definition in “Private Enterprise and Conservation,” Journal of Farm Economics, XXIV, 1942, 75–96 Google Scholar; and in Resource Conservation, 379–81.

5 Costs borne by society or by third parties but not by the individual responsible for them.

6 For a good example, see Coventry, A. F., “Soil and Water,” in Ashley, C. A., ed., Re-construction in Canada (Toronto, 1943), 53–4.Google Scholar

7 See Ely, R. T., ed., The Foundations of National Prosperity (New York, 1917), 13, 73, 113.Google Scholar

8 The regional argument for conservation is a complex one. Briefly, the argument for reinvestment of liquidated funds can be stated thus: If the region is part of a larger nation, so that emigration follows resource depletion, the gain to the larger economy from the re-allocation of production in the most prolific locations and in the most profitable industries must be balanced against the social cost borne by the stranded inhabitants of the deserted region. See Keirstead, B. S., The Theory of Economic Change (Toronto, 1948), chap. XII.Google Scholar Even if migration is impossible, the mobility of investible funds abroad constitutes a threat to the local standard of living. The case for conservation also requires further evidence to show that investment of funds in natural resources provides a better regional source of livelihood than investment in other types of project (see below). I hope to discuss these points in a later publication.

9 “The Economics of Conservation,” 139.

10 Reflections on the Revolution in France, Everyman, ed. (London, 1910), 93.Google Scholar

11 Depending upon whether or not the increase in investment at the expense of consumption necessitates a greater or smaller use of natural products. There is a priori no reason to expect any particular change over all, though certain resources may be greatly affected. Full employment is of course assumed. If there was underemployment of labour, the reduction in the rate of interest would probably eventually lead to an increased demand for natural products. A completely unemployed economy fulfils most conditions for a conservationist state. See below.