Neglected Features of the Safe Minimum Standard: Socio-economics and Institutional Dimensions
AbstractImportant features of the safe minimum standard (SMS) rule as outlined by Ciriacy-Wantrup are ignored in the recent literature, e.g., the critical zone, institutional and normative dimensions, and the relationship between economic and biological irreversibility. Also, seeing SMS as an adjunct to social cost-benefit analysis is inconsistent with the original concept. Since SMS is usually applied to collective commodities, consideration of normative and institutional factors is inescapable. Hence, 'unacceptably large' social costs cannot be made operational by traditional social cost-benefit analysis. Close relatives of SMS such as discontinuous objective functions, the precautionary principle and reversal of proof are also discussed, as well as the determination of SMS by social discourse
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 InfoPaper provided by University of Queensland, School of Economics in its series Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers with number 48000.
Date of creation: Mar 2000
Date of revision:
Safe Minimum Standards; discontinuous objective functions; reversal of proof; the precautionary principle; Institutional and Behavioral Economics;
Other versions of this item:
- 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.
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.:
- Tisdell, Clem, 1970. " Implications of Learning for Economic Planning," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 177-92.
- Rolfe, John, 1995. "Ulysses Revisited - A Closer Look At The Safe Minimum Standard Rule," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(01), April.
- Palmini, Dennis, 1999. "Uncertainty, risk aversion, and the game theoretic foundations of the safe minimum standard: a reassessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 463-472, June.
- O'Hara, Sabine U., 1996. "Discursive ethics in ecosystems valuation and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 95-107, February.
- Michael C. Farmer & Alan Randall, 1998. "The Rationality of a Safe Minimum Standard," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(3), pages 287-302.
- Bryan G. Norton & Michael A. Toman, 1997. "Sustainability: Ecological and Economic Perspectives," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(4), pages 553-568.
- Charles Perrings & David Pearce, 1994. "Threshold effects and incentives for the conservation of biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 13-28, February.
- Crowards, Tom M., 1998. "Safe Minimum Standards: costs and opportunities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 303-314, June.
- Timothy O'Riordan & Andrew Jordan, 1995. "The Precautionary Principle in Contemporary Environmental Politics," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 4(3), pages 191-212, August.
- Sagoff, M., 1998. "Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 213-230, February.
- 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.
- Robert P. Berrens & David S. Brookshire & Michael McKee & Christian Schmidt, 1998. "Implementing the Safe Minimum Standard Approach: Two Case Studies from the U.S. Endangered Species Act," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 147-161.
- Daly, Herman E., 1992. "Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that is efficient, just, and sustainable," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 185-193, December.
- Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clement A., 2003. "Willingness to pay for different degrees of Abundance of Elephants," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48966, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
- Tisdell, Clem, 2003.
"Socioeconomic causes of loss of animal genetic diversity: analysis and assessment,"
Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 365-376, July.
- Tisdell, Clement A., 2002. "Socioeconomic Causes of Loss of Animal Genetic Diversity: Analysis and Assessment," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48741, 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.