Inquiries into the role of economics in Canadian forestry

Abstract

Forest economists have had a checkered history in showing their relevance to foresters in Canada. At the same time, foresters have sometimes seemed to ignore social considerations, identified by economists, in practices and policies. Although communication seems to be improving, there are still a number of divisive issues and associated viewpoints that inhibit the use of economics in forestry. In this paper, I investigate four hypotheses that could explain why forest economists and foresters in Canada have had such a hard time communicating. Hypothesis #1 is that economic concepts are irrelevant to forestry. Hypothesis #2 is that foresters are actually brilliant, but "dark side," economists that have structured systems to protect forests from economic forces. Hypothesis #3 is that foresters are "enlightened" economists that are catering to real social preferences that most economists do not understand. Hypothesis #4 is that forest economics may be relevant but is difficult within the contexts that it is practised. Analysis shows that while all hypotheses have elements of truth, the higher numbered hypotheses tend to be more supportable.