Abstract
Federal land management has always been contentious, but recent years have seen a rise in legislative activity demanding transfer of federal land to state control. Can states afford to assume land management without increasing taxes or other revenue enhancement actions? We find that (1) on average, federal lands are not likely to be as economically productive as private lands, (2) states are likely to have management costs equivalent to federal agencies, and (3) states can cover land management costs with land-based revenues if they have access to fossil fuels and timber resources, and prices for these commodities are relatively high. (JEL R14, R52)
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
