A Cautionary Note on the Use of Socio-Economic Analyses in Water Planning

Economic Papers

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 41-47

  Crase, Lin ^a  

^a LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Q25; Q28; water planning; water policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84912086170     PISSN: 08120439     EISSN: 17593441     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1759-3441.2010.00054.x     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Connor, J., Schwabe, K., King, D., Kaczan, D. and Kirby, M. (2009), ‘Impacts of Climate Change on Lower Murray Irrigation’, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 53(3), 437–56.
2. Crase, L. and O’Keefe, S. (2009), ‘The Paradox of National Water Savings’, Agenda, 16(1), 45–60.
3. Crase, L., Dollery, B. and Wallis, J. (2005), ‘Conceptualising Community Consultation in Public Policy Formulation: The Case of the Living Murray Debate in the Murray–Darling Basin of Australia’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 221–37.
4. Dixon, P., Rimmer, M. and Wittwer, G. (2009). ‘Modelling the Australian Government’s Buyback Scheme with a Dynamic Multi-Regional CGE Model’, COPS Working Paper G186. Melbourne, Centre of Policy Studies.
5. Dobes, L. and Bennett, J. (2009), ‘Multi-Criteria Analysis: “Good Enough” for Government Work? Agenda, 16(3), 7–30.
6. EPA (2001). EPA Submission to IPART Review of Bulk Water Prices, Sydney.
7. Ley, S. (2009), Speech to the House of Representatives: Second Reading of the Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill. House of Representatives, Canberra.
8. Marohasy, J. and Hoskin, N. (2008), ‘What’s Happening to the Murray River? Institute of Public Affairs Facts, 47(3). Available at: http://www.ipa.org.au/library/publication/1228170972_document_marohasy_hoskin_facts-murrayriver.pdf.
9. MDBA (2009), Issues Paper: Development of Sustainable Diversion Limits for the Murray–Darling Basin. Murray–Darling Basin Authority, Canberra.
10. Productivity Commission (2009), Market Mechanisms for Recovering Water in the Murray–Darling Basin: Draft Research Report. Productivity Commission, Melbourne.
11. Randall, A. (1981), ‘Property Entitlements and Pricing Policies for a Mature Water Economy’, Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 25(3), 195–220.
12. RMCG. (2009). ‘Socio-economic Impacts: Closure of Wakool Irrigation District (or Parts thereof)’. Available at: http://wakool.local-e.nsw.gov.au/files/353401/File/SocioEconomicImpactsWakoolShire09.pdf.
13. Watson, A. and Cummins, T. (2009), Industry Adjustment in Sunraysia: A Report prepared for the Victorian Department of Primary Industries. Victorian Department of Primary Industries, Melbourne.
14. The Living Murray (TLM) eventually settled on an agreement to return 500 GL of water to enhance the environmental status of the Murray River. The rather ad hoc political compromises that led to this outcome are described in detail in Craseet al.(2005)
15. There is some confusion embodied in this statement. Economists would invariably argue that “environmental use” is also an “economic use” since: (a) application of the resource to the environment has an opportunity cost and (b) there is clearly a willingness to pay on the part of some to achieve environmental benefits
16. The recent decline of the wine grape industry in some parts of the Basin is a case in point (see, for instance, WatsonandCummins,2009). These events can be traced to the radical fall in grape prices, although some are keen to attribute all industry adjustments to policy aimed at delivering environmental water
17. It may also be possible to argue that these rents derive from the fact that not all costs have been adequately captured in the past – say in the form of environmental degradation or subsidised irrigation infrastructure (see, for instance, EPA2001)
18. There are more sophisticated approaches but, in the experience of the author, most commissioned work relies on I–O models