Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T14:43:54.258Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On The Facilitative Role of the Economist in Economic Development—Case Study of a Georgia Shrimp Harbor Investment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

B. R. Miller
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics Department
A. Ersoz
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics Department
R. M. North
Affiliation:
Institute of Natural Resources, University of Georgia

Extract

The major premise of this paper is rather simple, but hopefully provocative to those economists concerned with real world problems and willing to enter controversial situations. Economic development, as typically encountered, is often controversial. Seldom in the modern economy do we find a Pareto optimum development that makes some people better off while leaving no one worse off. Even when this ideal is realized in the long-run, lack of instantaneous adjustment to new parameters of development means that new investment or organizational change is threatening to someone. Furthermore, both those threatened by development and those who stand to gain may have recognized relative merits of a particular development long before it comes to an economist's attention. This speaks well of the free enterprise system, but may be disconcerting to the ivory tower economist whose hope is that “my results” will be used by other economists or decision-makers who will, in turn, produce development efforts. Although the domino theory may be valid, all too frequently the dominoes fail to fall because of the scarcity of practicing economists in active development efforts.

Type
Research Article
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.)

References

[1[ Baritelle, J. L. and Holland, D. W.. “Optimum Plant Size and Location: A Case for Separable Programming,” Agricultural Economics Research, Volume 27, pp. 7384, 1975.Google Scholar
[2[ Below, Eckhardt, et. al.Design for a Model Commercial Shrimping Facility: Brunswick, Georgia,” School of Environmental Design, University of Georgia, Athens, June 1975.Google Scholar
[3[ Carley, D. H.Economic Analysis of the Commercial Fishery of Georgia,” Research Bulletin, #37, University of Georgia College of Agricultural Experiment Stations, June 1968.Google Scholar
[4[ Ersoz, Abdullah. “The Feasibility of Establishing a Fishing Harbor for the Georgia Shrimp Industry,” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 1977.Google Scholar
[5[ Holland, D. W. and Baritelle, J. L.. “School Consolidation in Sparsely Populated Rural Areas: A Separable Programming Approach,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 57, pp. 567575, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6[ Institute of Natural Resources. Marine Resources Utilization in Georgia, Project Proposal to the Office of Sea Grant, NOAA, 2 Volumes, University of Georgia, 1975.Google Scholar
[7[ Kloth, D. W. and Blakley, Leo V.. “Optimum Dairy Plan Location with Economies of Size and Market-Share Restrictions,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 52, pp. 461466, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8[ Miller, Bill R. and King, R. A.. “Location Models in the Context of a Regional Economic System,” Southern Economic Journal, Volume 37, Number 1, pp. 5967, July 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9[ North, Ronald M.Pro Forma Economic and Financial Analysis for a Commercial Shrimping Dock and Associated Facilities,” Institute of Natural Resources, The University of Georgia, Athens, January 1977.Google Scholar
[10[ Stollsteimer, John F.A Working Model for Plant Numbers and Locations,” Journal of Farm Economics, Volume 45, pp. 631645, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar