Information, Wildlife Valuation, Conservation: Experiments and Policy

The authors use experimental surveys to investigate the association between individuals' knowledge of particular wildlife species and their stated willingness to allocate funds to conserve each. The nature of variations in these allocations between species (e.g., their dispersion) as participants' knowledge increases is examined. Factors influencing these changes are suggested. Willingness-to-pay allocations are found not to measure the economic value of species, but are shown to be policy relevant. The results indicate that poorly known species, e.g., in remote areas, may obtain relatively less conservation support than they deserve. (JEL Q51, Q57, Q58)

Association of public support for survival of wildlife species with their likeability

We surveyed 204 individuals from the general public in Brisbane, Australia, to ascertain the extent to which they liked or disliked 24 species of wildlife (belonging to three classes: mammals, birds and reptiles) present in tropical Australia. We calculated likeability indices for each species. We also asked respondents if they favored the survival of each of these species, and were able to calculate the percentage of respondents favoring survival of each. Using linear regression analysis, we could relate the percentage of respondents favoring survival of each of the species to their indices of likeability. In addition, we compared the mean likeability of species in the three classes (mammals, birds and reptiles) with the respondents' allocation of funds (hypothetical 1,000 Australian dollars) between conservation of species and a human charity. From this, we were able to assess how important stated likeability is for preferences to conserve species by animal class, and reconsidered the hypothesis in the literature that there is likely to be more public support for the survival of mammals than for birds, and more support for the survival of birds than for reptiles.

Running on empty

After nine years spent in opposition, it's still hard to know what Federal Labor intends by way of an economic policy platform. Kim Beazley still seems to believe that the prime purpose of opposition is to oppose. John Quiggin disagrees. Without a coherent and well-understood economic direction, he argues, Labor's sniping will continue to look like unfocussed opportunism.

Does living in a disadvantaged area mean fewer opportunities to purchase fresh fruit and vegetables in the area? Findings from the Brisbane food study

Understanding the particularly low intake of fruits and vegetables among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups is an important issue for public health. This study investigated whether access to retail outlets is similar across areas of varying socioeconomic disadvantage in an Australian urban setting, in terms of distance, the numbers of local shops, and their opening hours. This ecological cross-sectional study used 50 randomly sampled census collection districts and their nearby shopping environment (i.e. within 2.5 km), and generally found minimal or no socioeconomic differences in shopping infrastructure. Important methodological and social/economic issues may explain this contrast with overseas findings.

On labour market dualism in the Lewis model: A comment

In a special issue of this journal commemorating the 50th anniversary of W. Arthur Lewis's (The Manchester School, Vol. 28 (1954), No. 2, pp. 139-191) seminal paper, the Lewis model is treated as a model of labour market dualism (Fields, The Manchester School, Vol. 72 (2004), No. 6, pp. 724-735). This interpretation is flawed for a number of reasons. First, it overemphasizes the role ascribed by Lewis to intersectoral earnings differentials in his original model. Second, it fails to acknowledge that a major shortcoming of the model was its inability to account for the widening intersectoral earnings differential observed across a wide range of developing economies. For Lewis himself this was one of the 'major theoretical puzzles of the period' (1979, p. 150). Third, it ignores Lewis's subsequent revision of the model (Lewis, The Manchester School, Vol. 47 (1979), No. 3, pp. 211-229) that, ironically, incorporates a dual labour market to resolve this puzzle. However, for Lewis the critical issue was dualism within the modern sector, not, as Fields understands it, labour market dualism between the modern and traditional sectors. Fields's appreciation of the contribution of the Lewis model to understanding the process of wage determination in developing economies is therefore misplaced.