Abstract
Hyde, Amacher, and Magrath (1996) imply that deforestation and timber rents (logging revenue minus logging costs other than timber fees) are not subjects that justify policymakers' attention, arguing that market responses limit the scope of deforestation and that rents are usually small. But they fail to recognize that land markets will not develop efficiently, nor will efficient levels of forestry investments occur, when policy distortions and other factors obstruct the conversion of open-access forests to private or communal ownership. For these reasons rates of deforestation can be far above optimal levels. Contrary to the authors' claims, timber rents often (although not always) are large in developing countries. Moreover, the allocation of rents between loggers and the government owners of public forests can indeed affect the profitability of forestry (and thus deforestation), the intensity of timber harvesting, and national welfare.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
