Christopher Bruce

I am currently engaged in a long-term project, funded by the Donner Canadian Foundation, in which I am investigating alternative methods of allocating public lands among competing uses. There are many uses to which public lands could be put. These include: protection of endangered or threatened species, preservation of endangered spaces, provision of recreational opportunities, attraction of tourists, and extraction of both renewable and non-renewable resources. I am looking for techniques by which conflicts among these uses can be resolved. On the one hand, as an economist, I am studying methods by which social welfare can be maximised. On the other hand, as a political economist, I am attempting to identify techniques that will minimise political discord. At this stage in my studies, I am not attracted to planning solutions, in which a planner (such as a Department of the Environment or Forest Service) makes decisions based either on cost-benefit/contingent valuation studies or on the results of "public forums." First, I am not convinced that these techniques force the interested parties to reveal their true utility functions. Second, it is commonly found that these techniques offer an incentive for parties to continue pressing their cases if they disagree with the decision made at any particular round of the political process. Hence, "planning" solutions tend to breed continuous, escalating discord. Rather, I am attracted to processes in which the interested parties are required to bargain out their own solutions - perhaps aided by mediators or arbitrators – and to those in which the market is used to signal individual preferences – such as “eco-labeling."

Dr. Bruce is president of Economica Ltd, a consulting firm which specializes in the calculation of damages in personal injury and fatal accident law suits (www.economica.ca)