Skip to main content
Log in

Incentive problems in Canada's land markets: Emphasis on Ontario

  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The specific issue addressed in this paper is urban encroachment on agricultural lands, and the problems it poses for both analysis and the conservation of the land resource. The purpose of our discussion is two-fold: (1) to identify where and why traditional analytical and regulatory approaches fail to resolve land use conflicts, and (2) to explore ways and means of resolving some of the dilemmas which society faces in making land use decisions. This paper's contribution is in the spirit of “Getting Incentives Right” for the inter-temporal transfer of wealth, as represented in trade-offs between environmental and resource endowments and human and physical capital. Efforts are placed on identifying what the appropriate price, levy, taxes, and grant ratios “ought” to be in order to encourage individuals in the marketplace to act in society's interest. We have also explored ways of efficiently transmitting those incentives through the market mechanism, without unduly relying on bureaucratic methods or suasion. Emphasis is placed on mechanisms that have little scope for preferential access and are subject to public scrutiny; emphasis on such self-disciplining approaches should result in less effort expended on (unproductive) lobbying activities and bureaucratic administration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agricultural Institute of Canada. 1987.Land Use and Soil Degradation: A Statement, Ottawa.

  • Audet, R., and A. Le Henaff. 1983.Land Planning Framework of Canada: An Overview, Working Paper No. 28, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada.

  • Baker, L., P. Thomassin, and J. Henning. 1990. The Economic Competitiveness of Jerusalem Artichoke as An Agricultural Feedstock for Transportation Fuels.Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 38: 981–990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbier, E.B. 1989. Economic Evaluation of Tropical Wetland Resources: Application in Central America, LEEC Working Paper, University College, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbier, E.B., A. Markandya, and D.W. Pearce. 1990. Sustainable Agricultural Development and Project Appraisal.European Review of Agricultural Economics 17(2): 181–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. 1990. Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive.Journal of Political Economy, 98(5): 893–921.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W., E. Bailey, and R. Willig. 1977. Weak Invisible Hand Theorems on the Sustainability of Multiproduct Natural Monopolies.American Economic Review 67, June, pp. 350–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W., J. Panzar, and R. Willig. 1982.Contestable Markets and the Theory of Industry Structure. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W., J. Panzar, and R. Willig. 1983. Contestable Markets: An Uprising in the Theory of Industry Structure-Reply.American Economic Review 73, June, pp. 491–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaton, W., Patrick. 1991. The Impact of Regional Land Use Control on Property Value.Land Economics 67(2): 172–194, May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brklacich, M.J., M.H. Miller, R.S. Rodd, and B.E. Smit., 1981.A Demonstration of the Land Evaluation Model (LEM 2) for Ontario: Applications to Selected Land Use Issues, Technical Report No. 4/81, Centre for Resources Development, University of Guelph.

  • Brock, W. 1983. Contestable Markets and the Theory of Industry Structure,Journal of Political Economy 91(6): 1055–1066.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, W. and J. Scheinkman. 1983. Free Entry and the Sustainability of Natural Monopoly: Bertrand Revisited by Cournot. InBreaking up Bell: Essays on Industrial Organization and Regulation, edited by D. Evans. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, T. 1990. Policies to Preserve Prime Farmland in the USA: Comment.Journal of Rural Studies 6(3): 331–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabos, J.G. 1985.Land Use Planning. New York: Dowden & Culver Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, B., and J. Conrad. 1975. Economic Issues in Programs of Transferable Development Rights.Land Economics LI(4): 331–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischel, W. 1990. Four Maxims for Research on Land-Use Controls.Land Economics 66(3): 229–236, August.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M.F. 1988. Canada's Agricultural and Forest Lands: Issues and Policy.Canadian Public Policy — Analyse de Politiques XIV(3): 266–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaurnaut, R. 1983.Taxation of Mineral Rents. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, M., and E. Allen. 1985. State of the U.S. Ethanol Market.Feed: Outlook and Situation Report. Washington: USDA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilmour, B. (1986) Potential Market Impact of a Corn/Ethanol Plant to be Located in Southern Ontario, Marketing and Economics Branch, Working Paper 8-86, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of Ontario. 1978.Foodland Guidelines. Toronto.

  • Hamilton, G. 1991. Quebec Goes Easy on Polluters.The Citizen, Ottawa, 19 July, p. F8.

  • Hansen, D., and S. Schwartz. 1975. Landowner Behaviour at the Rural-Urban Fringe in Response to Preferential Property Taxation.Land Economics LI(4): 341–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazeldine, T. 1990. Why do Free Trade Gain Numbers Differ so Much?Canadian Journal of Economics 23(4): 791–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henneberry, D., and R. Barrows. 1990. Capitalization of Exclusive Agricultural Zoning into Farmland Prices.Land Economics 66(3): 249–258, August.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinchy, M., B. Fisher, and N. Wallace. 1989.Mineral Taxation and Risk in Australia, ABARE Discussion Paper 89.8, AGPS, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, I. 1984. Uncertainty, Irreversibility and the Loss of Agricultural Land.Journal of Agricultural Economics May: 191–202.

  • Howarth, R., and R. Norgaard. 1990. Intergenerational Resource Rights, Efficiency, and Social Optimality.Land Economics 66(1): 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huffman, E., and J. Dumanski. 1986.Agricultural Land Use Systems of the Regional Municipality of Niagara, LRRI No. 84-02, Land Resource Research Institute, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada.

  • Hunter, J. 1991. Protecting the Public's Right to Know.The Citizen, Ottawa, 16 August, pp. A11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hushak, L. 1975. The Urban Demand for Urban-Rural Fringe Land (1975).Land Economics LI(2), pp. 112–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibbitson, J. 1991. Comment: Principles Only Work if You Follow Them.The Citizen, Ottawa, 29 August, pp. B2.

  • Izac, A-M.N. 1986. Resource Policies, Property Rights and Conflicts of Interest.Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 30(1): 23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. 1972.Land Use Planning: The Methodology of Choice, Review Publication No. 1, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau (Agricultural Economics).

  • Lermer, G. 1984.Probing Leviathan. Vancouver: Fraser Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopez, R. 1984. Measuring Oligopoly Power and Productive Responses of the Canadian Food Processing Industry.Journal of Agricultural Economics May.

  • Maler, K.G. 1974.Environmental Economics: A Theoretical Inquiry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning, E. 1986.Towards Sustainable Land Use: A Strategy, Working Paper No. 47, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada.

  • Muggeridge, J. 1991. City Goes on Spree—Farmers Pick Up Tab.Town and Country May.

  • Nelson, A. 1990a. Economic Critique of U.S. Prime Farmland Preservation Policies.Journal of Rural Studies 6(2): 119–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, A. 1990b The Analytic Basis for an Effective Prime Farmland Landscape Preservation Scheme in the USA.Journal of Rural Studies 6(3): 337–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). 1991a. Report pertaining to the (Ottawa Senators') Palladium, OBM File nos. 900207, 910004, 910015 and 910027.

  • Ontario Municipal Board. 1991b. Site Shown as the Only One Suitable ... Within Required Time Frame.The Citizen, Ottawa, 29 August, p. A13.

  • Pearse, P. 1988. Property Rights and the Development of Natural Resource Policies in Canada.Canadian Public Policty — Analyse de Politiques XIV(3): 307–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, W., and B. Cozzarin. 1990. The Economic Feasibility of Producing Wood Fuel for Electrical Power Generation in Eastern Ontario, Ontario Hydro Contract, Toronto.

  • Phillips, T.P., and J.W. Schildroth. 1981.A Demonstration of the Land Evaluation Model (LEM 2) for Ontario: Concept, Structure and Output, Technical Report No. 1/81, Centre for Resources Development, University of Guelph.

  • Pope, C.A. 1984. Agricultural Productive and Consumptive Use Components of Rural Land Values.American Journal of Agricultural Economics February, pp. 81–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees, W. 1990.Why Economics Won't Save the World, Staff Paper, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regional Municipality of Niagara. Planning and Development Department. 1991.Choices for Agricultural Areas.

  • Robson, B. 1991. The Rafferty Dam: Proof that Political Bullying Work.The Citizen, 09 October, p. A11.

  • Rose, R. 1990. Valuing Environmental Services.Agriculture and Resources Quarterly 2(3): 300–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R., and A. Cox. 1991.Australia's Natural Resources: Optimising Present and Future Use, ABARE Discussion Paper 91.5, AGPS, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears, M. 1992.Submission to the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario, 21 January.

  • Simpson-Lewis W., and R. McKechnie. 1981.Land and the Automobile, Working Paper No. 12, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada.

  • Sinden, J. and A. Worrell. 1979.Unpriced Values: Decisions Without Market Prices. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanbury, W.T. 1986.Business-Government Relations in Canada. Toronto: Methuen Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R., and S. Wibe. 1992.Market and Government Failures in Environmental Management, Publications Services, OECD, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Kooten, G.C., and A. Schmitz. 1992. Preserving Waterfowl Habitat on the Canadian Prairies: Economic Incentives versus Moral Suasion.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(1): 79–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wills, M. 1987. Land Tenure: Plaything of Governments or Effective Instrument? InLand Degradation: Problems and Policies, edited by A. Chisholm and R. Dumsday, pp. 175–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, T., and P.G. Allan. 1986. Methods for Valuing Countryside Amenity.Journal of Agricultural Economics 37(3): 349–364.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Additional information

Brad Gilmour and Ted Huffman are Policy Analyst and Land Use Specialist respectively with Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. Andy Terauds and Charlie Jefferson are chairman and secretary respectively for the Ontario Institute of Agrologists Ottawa Branch Land Use Committee. This paper is intended to provoke thought and stimulate debate for input into the land use policy process and should not be seen as representing the views and policies of either Agriculture Canada or the Ontario Institute of Agrologists.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gilmour, B., Huffman, T., Terauds, A. et al. Incentive problems in Canada's land markets: Emphasis on Ontario. J Agric Environ Ethics 9, 16–41 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01965668

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01965668

Keywords

Navigation