Discussion: Policy Science in the Land-Grant Complex: A Perspective on Natural Resource Economics

Three of Randall's general viewpoints particu- are the means available for producing goods larly deserve emphasis as being in agreement which in turn are used to satisfy wants. Hunwith my methodological views. First, the dreds of different kinds of resources exist in the pluralistic view of the policy process and the role economy. Among these are labor of all kinds, of economists in providing information both on raw materials of all kinds, land, machinery, objectives and policies seem to be more in accord buildings, semi-finished materials, fuel, power, with the nature of human beings and the policy transportation, and the like (p. 4)." While the process, compared with earlier views of econo- loose use of the concept of resource probably is mists prescribing programs to meet given objec- not confusing to most professional agricultural tives. Second, his endorsement of provision of economists, it may be perplexing to research information, rather than prescription, corre- administrators, politicians, and others with sponds with my view of the most fruitful method whom agricultural economists interact. A second of organization of research for such a policy en- comment concerns an absence in the paper of vironment. A new body of literature in psychol- discussion of issues relative to income distribuogy provides support for this position, in addition tion. Perhaps, this failure was an oversight, beto the policy literature that he cites. This litera- cause distribution issues are explicitly considture presents the view that individual and group ered in his text (Randall). However, income disdecisions are greatly influenced by the limited tribution is such an important component of rehuman capacity to process information. Of par- search in a pluralistic policy setting that the issue ticular relevance are various biases that arise deserves emphasis. A final comment concerns from imperfect methods of making judgments the use of optimizing models in research. While I because of limited human capacity (Kahneman agree that such models probably have limited or and Tversky; Nisbett and Ross; Musser and no prescriptive value, they can be useful in reMusser). The third viewpoint is that natural re- search such as Randall endorses. As Just argued source economics is a science, with standards of with respect to price analysis, optimizing models objectivity and pursuit of generalities-a credi- provide comparative statics information concernble, if somewhat rare, stance among modern ag- ing issues on which historical data do not exist. ricultural economists. This comment is again largely semantic, but the These three views are not generally held by all conventional use of the concept "normative" to members of the profession. For example, King, describe both prescriptive research and optimizin his AAEA presidential address, supported at ing models suggests to some agricultural econoleast some of these methodological views, while mists that rejection of prescriptive research imTweeten, in his address, endorsed some alterna- plies rejection of optimizing models, which is not tive views. In the sense that my philosophical the case. Just et al. even consider applied welfare views of research in natural resource economics economics, which is usually considered to be are so similar to Professor Randall's, I may have prescriptive analysis, as providing information to been the wrong choice for a discussant. To policy makers, rather than prescribing approprivindicate the choice of the program planners, I ate policies (pp. 3-5). will raise three minor questions and then further Now that my duties as critic have been fulamplify several views in the paper. filled, I will turn to further consideration of two One semantic comment concerns his use of issues that Randall discussed. These fundamen"resource economics" as synonymous with tal issues are: (1) the appropriate focus of natural "natural resource economics." This usage seems resources research on applied versus fundamento imply a broader content for the area than ac- tal research; and (2) the appropriate clientele for tually exists. For example, Leftwich summarizes the research-agricultural or broader societal the concept of resources as follows: "Resources groups. The position that I will summarize in the