Ulysses Revisited - A Closer Look At The Safe Minimum Standard Rule
AbstractThe Safe Minimum Standard (SMS) Rule has been developed as a decision rule involving environmental assets, particularly species, that face some risk of extinction. The SMS rule has been presented by Bishop (1978) (1979) and Randall (1991) as a better decision process than the use of cost benefit analysis (CBA). This paper explores the relationship between the SMS rule and CBA. It shows that there is a tandem effect in operation because the use of both rules rely on the same underlying preferences in society. There is potential for the two rules to achieve the same results, and doubt over whether the SMS rule is an independent control over CBA. Instead, the SMS rule may simply operate as a nagging mechanism for issues of particular interest. Its use can be seen as a signal to switch to a more intensive examination of costs and benefits, and justified in this format because the benefits of more accurate decisions outweigh the costs of operating the SMS rule. The application of the SMS rule will vary according to the justification for its use.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society in its journal Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics.
Volume (Year): 39 (1995)
Issue (Month): 01 (April)
Contact details of provider:
Postal: AARES Central Office Manager, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Canberra ACT 0200
Phone: 0409 032 338
Web page: http://www.aares.info/
More information through EDIRC
Environmental Economics and Policy;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
- Costanza, Robert, 1989. "What is ecological economics?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 1-7, February.
- Hoehn, John P & Randall, Alan, 1989. "Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 544-51, June.
- Norton, Bryan G., 1989. "Intergenerational equity and environmental decisions: A model using Rawls' veil of ignorance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 137-159, May.
- Tacconi, Luca & Bennett, Jeff, 1995. "Economic implications of intergenerational equity for biodiversity conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 209-223, March.
- Tisdell, Clem, 1990. "Economics and the debate about preservation of species, crop varieties and genetic diversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 77-90, April.
- Berrens, Robert P. & McKee, Michael & Farmer, Michael C., 1999. "Incorporating distributional considerations in the safe minimum standard approach: endangered species and local impacts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 461-474, September.
- Donaghy, Peter & Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2004. "Quasi-option values for enhanced information regarding genetically modified foods," 2004 Conference (48th), February 11-13, 2004, Melbourne, Australia 58403, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
- Crowards, Tom M., 1998. "Safe Minimum Standards: costs and opportunities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 303-314, June.
- Bhattarai, Madhusudan & Hammig, Michael D., 1998. "Environmental Policy Analysis And Instruments For Biodiversity Conservation: A Review Of Recent Economic Literature," Working Papers 18810, Clemson University, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
- Irmi Seidl & Clem Tisdell, 2001.
"Neglected Features of the Safe Minimum Standard: Socio-economic and Institutional Dimensions,"
Review of Social Economy,
Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(4), pages 417-442.
- Seidl, Irmi & Tisdell, Clement A., 2000. "Neglected Features of the Safe Minimum Standard: Socio-economics and Institutional Dimensions," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48000, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.