Economic constraints on public policy

Economics is commonly described as "the science of allocating scarce resources." By contrast, a popular description of politics is "the art of the possible." Both of these descriptions refer to the same central feature of human existence: our wants generally exceed our capacity to satisfy them. However, economic and political approaches to the problem of scarcity are quite different. [Extract from Introduction]

Attitudes to entry fees to National Parks: Results and policy implications from a Queensland case study

Examines visitor attitudes and whether visitors are willing to pay to enter Lamington National Park and under what circumstances they would do so. First a sample of visitors is asked a general (normative) question as to whether visitors should pay to visit Lamington National Park and in another question (positive) they are asked whether they would be more willing to pay if the money collected would be invested in the park to improve visitor facilities and for conservation work. The results show that visitors are more willing to accept the ‘user-pays’ principle if the money will be used for the benefit of the national park and its visitors. It was found that foreigners are more in support for a ‘user-pay’ fee than Australians, and among Australians, those visitors from Queensland are the least willing to accept the idea of a user-pay fee to enter the park. The results indicate that if visitors can be shown the benefits (both for visitors and for conservation) of charging an entry fee, then visitors are more likely to support such a concept than when they are unaware of the benefits of a user-fee. The study shows that on average foreigners are willing to pay more than Australians. Finally, the regression results identify significant factors influencing visitors’ attitudes and suggested amounts to visit the national park.

The net benefit of saving the Asian Elephant: A policy and contingent valuation Study

Reports results from a contingent valuation survey of willingness to pay for the conservation of the Asian elephant of a sample of urban residents living in three selected housing schemes in Colombo, the capital of Sri Lanka. Face–to–face surveys were conducted using an interview schedule. A non-linear logit regression model is used to analyse the respondents’ responses for the payment principle questions and to identify the factors that influence their responses. We investigate whether urban residents’ willingness to pay for the conservation of elephants is sufficient to compensate farmers for the damage caused by elephants. We find that the beneficiaries (the urban residents) could compensate losers (the farmers in the areas affected by human–elephant conflict) and be better off than in the absence of elephants in Sri Lanka. Therefore, there is a strong economic case for the conservation of the wild elephant population in Sri Lanka. However, we have insufficient data to determine the optimal level of this elephant population in the Kaldor-Hicks sense. Nevertheless, the current population of elephant in Sri Lanka is Kaldor-Hicks preferable to having none.