A free market and less government zoning to preserve agricultural land would do more to ensure an ample supply of food, local economic benefits and orderly urban development than the current system, says one economist.
B. Delworth Gardner, professor emeritus of economics at Brigham Young University, disputes the idea that the United States is losing farm land."We have 300 million to 325 million acres of farm land, and that could be enhanced to about twice that," Gardner said at a Wednesday luncheon sponsored by the Sutherland Institute. "We have agricultural land running out of our ears."
Moreover, Gardner said many farmers periodically are paid by the federal government to keep acreage out of production to keep food prices favorable, a practice that, if changed, could put more land into production.
Many people have a stake in keeping things the way they are, and these individuals often exert political pressure to retain agricultural land through zoning or other controls. "Why?" Gardner asked. "Because economic change, while good for the economy at large and standards of living in general, always involves some short-term dislocation and discomfort."
Government should step in with remedial action to protect farm land only if the market fails, he suggested.
Gardner also doubts that it is a good idea for regions, or even countries, to try to maintain complete self-sufficiency as far as food.
"This notion is absolutely contrary to economic laws that operate to maximize the standard of living through specialization and trade," he said.
"It is sheer folly to think that the residents of Rhode Island would be better off if that state were self-sufficient in food production. This would require that resources would be sucked into agricultural production that have much higher valued uses in other employments," he said. "Is there any relevant sense in which California as a food exporter is any better off because of that than is Utah, which is a food importer?"
Gardner said as long as goods or services are free to move to their highest and best employment, each area will be better off if it specializes in producing those things that provide a comparative advantage - and then trading with other states or countries.
Gardner added one caveat - protecting open space.
"It must be granted that open space is a collective good that the market will not consider adequately. The problem is that no one really owns these amenities so property rights are imperfect."
But if open space is to be preserved then the parcels of land should be chosen by open-space criteria, rather than criteria relating to agriculture, he said.
Gardner favors individuals or groups spending private money to buy property for open space preservation through such things as nature conservancies or land trusts, rather than "taking resources away . . . through coercion."