Abstract
A theoretical model is derived in the utility maximum framework where the representative forest owner maximises his consumption utility. The owner optimises his forest investments and cuttings to obtain this target. It is shown that government cost sharing (loans and grants) has positive private investment effects. These results are not rejected in an econometric analysis of a Finnish regional panel data from Forestry Board Districts in years 1983 to 2000. Significant negative cost sharing effects on timber supply are not found in the data. Unit costs of investments increase wood supply. A strong complementary is found between forest investments and sawlog and pulpwood supplies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
Amacher, G.S., Brazee, R.J.. AND Thomson, T.A. 1991. The effects of forest productivity taxes on timber stand investment and rotation length. Forest Science, 37: 1099–1118.
Boyd, R. 1984. Government support of nonindustrial production: the case of private forest. Southern Economic Journal. 51: 89–107.
BrÄnnlund, R. 1990. The effects of subsidized regeneration measures on timber supply, once again. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 5: 133–142.
Brannlund. R., GÖransson, M., AND LÖfgren, K.-G. 1985. The effects on the short-run supply of wood from subsidized regeneration measures: an econometric analysis. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 15: 941–948.
Brooks, D.J. 1985. Public policy and long term timber supply in the south. Forest Science, 31: 342–357.
Carlen, O., AND LÖFgren, K.-G. 1986. Supply consequences of subsidizing thinning activities in sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 1: 379–386.
Chang, S.J. 1983. Rotation age, management intensity, and the economic factors of timber production: do changes in stumpage price, interest rate, regeneration cost, and forest taxation matter. Forest Science, 29: 267–277.
DE Steiguer, J.E. 1984. Impact of cost-share programs on private reforestation investment. Forest Science, 30: 697–704.
Hyberg, B.T., AND Holthauser, D.M. 1989. The behaviour of nonindustrial private forest landowners. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 19: 1014–1023.
Linden, M. 2002. Optimal harvesting and forest investments in consumption maximization model. (mimeo).
Ovaskainen, V. 1992. Forest taxation, timber supply, and economic efficiency. Acta Forestalia Fennica233:1–98.
Royer, J.P. 1987. Determinants of reforestation behaviour among southern landowners. Forest Science33:654–667.
Tikkanen, I. 1981. Effects of public forest policy in finland. Silva Fennica, 15: 38–64.
Vehkamaki, S. 1986. The economic basis of forest policy: a study on the goals and means of forest policy. Acta Forestalia Fennica, 194: 1–72.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Linden, M., Leppänen, J. (2003). The impact of government investment assistance on forest investment and timber supply. In: Helles, F., Strange, N., Wichmann, L. (eds) Recent Accomplishments in Applied Forest Economics Research. Forestry Sciences, vol 74. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0279-9_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0279-9_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6221-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0279-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive