Two Cheers for Economics

  • Graham Hallett

Abstract

‘Urban land economics deals with the processes and patterns of land utilisation’, according to an older textbook,1 which points out that it is part of land economics, which is in turn part of economics as a whole. However, land economics as a subject covering all forms of land use has not (probably unfortunately) developed in the way envisaged by the inter-War pioneers in the USA, so that ‘urban economics’ may be considered a preferable term to ‘urban land economics’. The latter term is certainly misleading if it implies a merely two dimensional approach: the economics of buildings are an integral part of its subject matter. However, ‘urban land economics’ has come to indicate a certain type of emphasis. It is primarily concerned with the way in which buildings are developed, managed and used, and is associated with the institutional inclinations of the ‘Wisconsin School’.2 This approach does not disparage economic theory. But it tries to combine simple theory with an analysis of institutional factors; it does not, for example, regard as particularly useful the ‘new urban economics’ which constructs an elaborate but purely theoretical edifice, with no discussion of the laws or institutions of the. ‘real world’ (Chap. 6). We will therefore retain the term ‘urban land economics’.

Keywords

Transportation Milton 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. U. Ratcliff,Urban Land Economics, New York, 1949, p. v.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. T. Ely & G. S. Wehrwein, Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, 1940Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Samuel Brittan, Capitalism and the Permissive Society Macmillan, 1975, p. 80.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Everyman ed. p. 149, Vol. 1.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Even if the investment is undertaken by the state, and no price charged (e.g. for roads) it may still be desirable to make use of an assumed, or ‘shadow’ rate of interest, in order to decide rationally on economic priorities. The Marxist attack on the charging of interest (like that by Aristotle, the scholastic philosophers of the Middle Ages, and Mohammed) was developed before the modern analysis of the rate of interest. Marx — basing his reasoning on the labour theory of value of the ‘classical’ economists — regarded interest as being stolen from the workers. As a result, interest was orginally ignored in investment calculations in the USSR. This led to such obvious inefficiency in investment decisions that, Marxist doctrine notwithstanding, a ‘shadow’ rate of interest has been adopted for industrial investment.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Encounter March 1968, p. 91.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. Robbins, The Nature and Significance of Economic Science, p. 16.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graham Hallett, Housing and Land Policies in Britain and Germany Macmillan, 1977, Pt. 1; Duncan Maclennan, ‘The 1974 Rent Act—Some Short Run Supply Effects’, The Economic Journal June 1978.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Milton Friedman, ‘The Methodology of Positive Economics’ in Essays in Positive Economics, Chicago, 1935.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. R. Walker, From Economic Theory to Policy, Chicago, 1943, p. 227.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peter Self,Econocrats and the Policy Process, Macmillan, 1975.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    I. M. D. Little, A Critique of Welfare Economics, Oxford, 1952, p. 272.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Graham Hallett 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graham Hallett
    • 1
  1. 1.University CollegeCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations