Search

Traditional fisheries often coexist tenuously with modern economies. Within Canada, Newfoundland has a heavily subsidized groundfishery. Despite repeated crises and innumerable studies, the commercially unviable fishery continues to support too many fishermen because the industrial society in which the fishery is embedded provides few employment alternatives. Society can "muddle through," hoping that demographic or political changes will solve the problem, or can eliminate subsidies, letting fishermen fend for themselves, or systematically reduce the size of the industry. Action must ultimately be taken; governments will not subsidize the industry forever, and continued overfishing can lead to the complete closure of the fishery. This article describes the historical and economic framework of the Newfoundland fishery, the crises it has faced over the past twenty-five years, and the public debate over its future. Although the details are specific to Newfoundland, a similar story could be told of many of the world's fisheries.

The article focuses on growth of the professional literature in economics. The article presents estimates that are made of growth rates in economics and psychology, and comparisons are made with those of biology, electrical engineering, and physics. Some implications of continued growth, particularly for the university, are examined briefly. In a mathematical appendix, it explores the estimation of the average rate of growth when data periods are not of uniform duration, and the size of the literature that existed at the time the flow of new articles was first observed.

The article presents a critique of the article "Verification of Computer Simulation Models," by Thomas H. Naylor and J. M. Finger. The problems of building complex simulation models and getting them to operate on computers has consumed so much time and energy that the validation problem has been neglected. The article applauds Naylor and Finger for drawing on the existing literature on scientific methodology to construct models that have the ability to withstand meaningful validation procedures. Details related to the methodology of validation are discussed.

A new approach to fisheries management is suggested. Recognizing thegreat uncertainty and variability that affects the supply of fish, combined with the immobility of capital and labor in the industry, a small core fishery should be maintained with the capacity to catch only the quantity of fish that it would be safe to catch as the stock approaches the lower limits of its natural cycle. When fish are abundant, the excess would be auctioned to risk takers who have neither a permanent commitment to, nor multi-year fishing rights in, the fishery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports on the results of an investigation of management costs in the fisheries of Iceland, Newfoundland and Norway and discusses them in a more general framework. Management costs are defined ascosts necessary to overcome the problems associated with common property. The question of whether management costs should be paid by industry is discussed, as is the likely effect of user pay on the efficiency with which management is provided. Since management has public goods characteristics, it is likely that there is an unavoidable role for government in providing these services. The question of who pays for it is separate, and recovering costs from industry has both efficiency and optimal taxation aspects. A greater involvement in management by industry further raises the question of compatibility between the industry's interests and the public interest. Measured as percent of gross value of fish landings the management costs are by far highest in Newfoundland (15/25%), lowest in Iceland (about 3%), with Norwayin the middle (about 10%). Management costs thus appear to be substantial and quite variable. This gives rise to three conclusions. First, when calculating optimal harvesting and investment paths one must take the management costs of implementing these paths explicitly into account. Second, what is the economic efficiency of management? Couldthe same level of benefits be produced at lower costs? Third, can fisheries management expenditures of the magnitude discussed be justified in the sense that the benefits exceed the costs? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]