Advertisement

Best Management Practices Versus Socially Optimal Practices

  • H. D. Leathers
Part of the Agricultural Management and Economics book series (AGRICULT.MANAG.)

Abstract

A principal connection between agricultural and resource policies arises from the use of pesticides, fertilizers, irrigation, and soil conservation inputs which affect environmental quality. To some degree, the objectives of the two policies are incompatible, in the sense that the level of input use that best achieves resource policy objectives differs from the level of input use which best achieves agricultural policy objectives. The challenge facing policymakers and analysts is to define and implement an appropriate level of use for these inputs which takes into account both sets of objectives.

Keywords

Soil Erosion Farm Practice Social Optimum Private Benefit Resource Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alt KF, Miranowski JA, Heady EO (1979) Social costs and effectiveness of alternative nonpoint pollution control practices. In: Loehr RC, Haith DA, Walter MF, Martin CS (eds) Best management practices. Ann Arbor Sci, Ann Arbor, pp 321–28Google Scholar
  2. Angle JS, Bandel VA, Beegle DB et al. (1985) Best management practices for nutrient uses in the Chesapeake basin. Cooperative Extension Bull 308, Extension Serv Chesapeake BasinGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey GW, Waddell TE (1979) Best management practices for agriculture and silviculture: an integrated overview. In: Loehr RC, Haith DA, Walter MF, Martin CS (eds) Best management practices. Ann Arbor Sci, Ann Arbor, pp 33–56Google Scholar
  4. Baum KH, Seal D, Kems WR (1981) Econometric and programming for evaluation of the economic impacts of nonpoint pollution. In: Flynn KC (ed) Nonpoint pollution control. Interstate Comm Potomac River Basin, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumol WJ, Oates WE (1975) The theory of environmental policy. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs Chavas JP (1990) Information issues in the coordination of agricultural and resource policy. In: Just RE, Bockstael N (eds) Commodity and resource policies in agricultural systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York TokyoGoogle Scholar
  6. Crowder B, Young C (1988) Managing farm nutrients. Agric Econ Rep 583, US Dep Agric, Econ Res Syst Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Daberkow SG, Reichelderfer KH (1988) Low-input agriculture: trends, goals and prospects for input use. Am J Agric Econ 70:1159–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dempster TH, Stierna JH (1979) Procedure for economic evaluation of best management practices. In: Loehr RC, Haith DA, Walter MF, Martin CS (eds) Best management practices. Ann Arbor Sci, Ann Arbor, pp 383–923–92Google Scholar
  9. Farnsworth RL, Braden JB (1988) Education and institutional needs of the conservation title. J Soil Water Conserv 43:145–147Google Scholar
  10. Flynn KC (ed) (1981) Nonpoint pollution control. Interstate Comm Potomac River Basin, Rockville MDGoogle Scholar
  11. Gardner B (1983) Efficient Redistribution through Commodity Markets. Am J Agric Econ 65:225–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gardner B (1990) Redistribution of income through commodity and resource policy: In: Just RE, Bockstael N (eds) Commodity and resource policies in agricultural systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York TokyoGoogle Scholar
  13. Horowitz J, McConnell E (1990) Sequential coordination of agricultural and resource policy. In: Just RE, Bockstael N (eds) Commodity and resource policies in agricultural systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York TokyoGoogle Scholar
  14. Leathers H (1989) Attitudes towards risk and policy analysis: comparative statics with a Just and Pope production function. Agric Resour Econ, Univ Maryland College ParkGoogle Scholar
  15. Lessley BV, Roka F (1987) BMP installation costs: data collected from the Maryland agricultural cost-share program. Dep Agric Resour Econ, Univ Maryland College ParkGoogle Scholar
  16. Loehr RC (1979) Preface. In: Loehr RC, Haith DA, Walter MF, Martin CS (eds) Best Management Practices. Ann Arbor Sci, Ann Arbor, pp i–vGoogle Scholar
  17. Meyers PC (1986) Nonpoint-source pollution control: The USDA position. J Soil Water Conserv 41:156–158Google Scholar
  18. Meyers PC (1988) Conservation at the crossroads. J Soil Water Conserv 43:10–13Google Scholar
  19. Newbery DMG, Stiglitz JE (1981) The theory of commodity price stabilization. Oxford Univ Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Novotny V, Chesters G (1981) Handbook of nonpoint pollution. Van Norstrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Peskin HM, Seskin EP (eds) (1973) Cost benefit analysis and water pollution policy. Urban Inst, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Reilly WK (1987) Agriculture and conservation: a new alliance. J Soil Water Conserv 42:4–17Google Scholar
  23. Reneau DR, Taylor C (1979) An economic analysis of erosion control options in Texas. In: Loehr RC, Haith DA, Walter ME, Martin CS (eds) Best management practices. Ann Arbor Sei, Ann Arbor, pp 393–418Google Scholar
  24. Ribaudo M (1986) Reducing soil erosion: offsite benefits. Agric Econ Rep 561, US Dep Agric, Econ Res Serv, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Unger DW (1979) Improving water quality in agriculture and silviculture. In: Loehr RC, Haith DA, Walter MF, Martin CS (eds) Best management practices. Ann Arbor Sci, Ann Arbor, pp 117–132Google Scholar
  26. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (1977) National Handbook of Conservation Practices. Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  27. U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (1985) CRES-ACP Table 1. State and county data by practice; primary purpose of erosion Control; by conservation division, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  28. Weitzman ML (1974) Price vs quantities. Rev Econ Stud XLI:477–91Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. D. Leathers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations