In research to be published this summer in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Mr. Weitzman and Andrew Metrick, a Harvard colleague, look for the priorities reflected by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's spending to protect 142 invertebrate species that are listed as endangered. You would expect that the biological distinctiveness of a species would increase its standing. So ought the probability that intervention would preserve the species. N fact, the Metrick-Weitzman analysis shows that the more endangered a species is, the less money is spent to preserve it. And the higher the cost of preserving a species in terms of dislocating economic activities, the higher the priority the species gets.
Genetic uniqueness seems to play little or no role in priority.
Think of the northern spotted owl. Mr. Stavins put it more plainly. That may worry biologists who are concerned about the potential disappearance of broad categories of plants and smaller animals that help knit healthy ecosystems. But the focus on fur balls may or may not bother taxpayers. Economists have no business telling people what they should value, Mr. Weitzman argued, but they have plenty to contribute on the subject of rationality.