Market-Based
Solutions

Tradeable Resource Rights

For example:

water rights
fishing quotas

Economic rationalists argue that people are more likely to take care of what they own; therefore, commonly owned goods would be better looked after if they were in private hands. For example, farmers who own their land outright are more likely to take care of the land so that they can pass it on in good condition to their children than are farmers who lease their land, even for long periods of time. Another example is that 'people who litter in public parks and public thoroughfares do not, in general, dump trash in their own back yards' (Seneca & Taussig 1984, p. 85).

It is similarly argued by economic rationalists that species are endangered because no-one owns them. They point to the fact that all endangered species are wild and undomesticated, and that privately owned livestock face no such extinction. The example is given of whales, whom nobody owns or has a special licence to kill. Since the supply of whales is obviously limited, those who get in first will get the most. This provides an incentive to overharvest the whales.

In Zimbabwe, this idea is being used to preserve the wildlife by transferring ownership of animals from the state to the local people. The idea is that subsistence farmers who previously killed wildlife, because they demolished their crops, are given property rights over these animals. They form committees, and auction controlled quotas of animals to the highest bidders&emdash;people like safari-tour operators who pay for the right to shoot the animals. The money earned from this activity is shared among the local families, and gives them an incentive to protect the wildlife and to put up with the damage it causes (BBC 1992).

Although this policy is claimed by the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Service to be successful in maintaining wildlife populations, it is abhorred in other parts of Africa and by environmentalists and animal lovers worldwide; instead, these critics prefer a ban on animal hunting and the sale of wildlife products such as ivory. This example can also be used to argue for the advantages of letting local communities take control of their own destinies. It should also be noted that the wildlife, in this case, is still communally owned.

The Business Council of Australia argues that property rights should be extended to individuals and organisations that use resources, such as mining companies, so that they will be fully accountable for that usage. 'Mining and processing of minerals&emdash;the cornerstone of the Australian economy&emdash;requires access to land and clear property rights (ie ownership which then confers responsibility) if exploration is to proceed' (1991, p. 8).

Jeff Bennet, editor of Reconciling Economics with the Environment, published by the economic rationalist Institute of Public Affairs, says:

The first element in any move toward 'market environmentalism' is the extension of private property rights to incorporate as many of the now open-access environmental resources as is technically possible. These resources would include environmentally sensitive lands, waterways and even species of plants and animals. (Bennet 1991, p. 5)

He gives the example of a waterway for which legal usage rights, whether for waste disposal, recreation or fishing, are sold to the highest bidder. This, he argues, would provide an incentive for those who have paid for those rights to devise ways of monitoring pollution to ensure that others are not using the water for waste disposal without paying for it. Similarly, he argues that those wanting to preserve an area as a national park should have to 'bid for the private property rights over the area. Ownership would then be a simple matter of which group could offer the highest bid'.

Back to the top...