Environmental Protection Measures Proposed by the Adherents of the New School
According to Ely, the dominance of the abstract and deductive approaches of the classical orthodoxy was one of the key reasons behind the lack of effort to develop conservation measures in the US.
However, this situation started to change with the return of German-trained American political economists. For example, Ely (1917, 5) pointed out that James and Patten, who were both conservationists, included the ‘conservation of natural resources’ as one the goals in ‘their programme or statement of aims’ when they released their proposal to establish the Society for the Study of National Economy (SSNE). They also highlighted the importance of a state role in the conservation of natural resources. Ultimately, the SSNE never came to fruition, because it did not attract sufficient support to justify its establishment. However, the founding members of the American Economic Association (AEA), which was established in 1885 and retained the fundamental ideas of the SSNE, also defended conservation efforts. That said, the founders of the AEA held the view that the ‘excessive cultivation of deduction’ and the ‘narrow view of the scope of economics’ shut ‘men’s eyes to the economic significance of conservation’ (ibid.: 14). In fact, ‘its statement of principles’ stated that the AEA was strongly opposed to ‘laissez-faire, which in its very essence is fatal to conservation’ (ibid.: 15).In the US, ‘the idea of conservation has developed from a general recognition of rapidly increasing scarcity of natural resources’ in the early decades
of the 20th century (Gray 1913, 497). At that time, it was already recognized that nearly all natural resources were appropriated and being overexploited. As a result, Americans started to experience ‘the greatest inequality in the distribution of wealth the world has ever seen, and the greatest degree of concentration and control of that wealth’ (Gray 1914, 19).
By excessively exploiting natural resources, powerful and rich business owners were depriving ‘others, not only of exploiting in the same manner, but even of the right of attaining a decent living’ (ibid.). In response, American economists began to engage in discussions with the conservation movement and participate in the preparation of conservation policies in the early decades of the 20th century. In doing so, they advised that it was necessary to determine ‘the proper balance in conservational practice between public and private interests and between the present and the future’ (Leith 1917, 188).Seligman (1910, 21) explained that natural resources allow a nation ‘to acquire wealth, just as intelligence or strength enables a man to acquire wealth.’ Given his view of natural resources as a ‘source of wealth,’ Seligman (ibid.) argued that the protection and conservation of the environment are crucial for the well-being and prosperity of the people. Similarly, Adams (1886, 9) emphasized the importance of using natural resources carefully and strategically in order to secure economic progress and development. Meanwhile, Gray (1913, 516) explained that exploitation resulted ‘in maximum production under certain conditions, but maximum production does not necessarily mean progress.’ As for Ely (1917, 22), he argued that:
whether fertile lands are turned into deserts, forests into waste places, brooks into torrents, rivers changed from means of power and intercourse into means of destruction and desolation-these are questions which concern the material existence itself of society, and since such changes become often irreversible, the damage irremediable, and at the same time the extent of available resources becomes smaller in proportion to population conservation efforts should be an immediate priority.
When it came to the use of the natural resources of the nation, adherents of the New School thought that economic agents do not always consider the common good of society when they pursue their own self-interests.
Generally speaking, they were opposed to the laissez-faire approach and individualism while advocating for positive state actions in the development of conservation measures (Seager 1910, 1, 4). As such, they called on state to protect the natural environment, even though they were conscious that Americans, particularly businessmen and farmers, believed that ‘government is best which attempts least’ (ibid.: 4). For example, Adams (1887) supported positive state action for the protection and expansion of forests, as he knew that business classes would not invest in such endeavors because they would not see immediate returns. Similarly, Farnam (1913) supported the conservation of natural resources, particularly forests, via positive state action. Seligman also believedThe New School on the Conservation of the Natural Environment 207 that forest conservation required positive state action because it was crucial for the national interest. More specifically, he argued that ‘the afforestation of treeless lands and the reforestation of denuded hillsides’ should be ‘a part of the economic policy of every careful government’ (Seligman 1910, 43). Meanwhile, in his own conservation efforts, Gray supported the establishment of a national system of land use planning. He also advocated for positive state action to correct ‘the habit of exploitation’ as well as the wasteful practices of individuals (Gray 1913, 498).
Ely (1917, 47) was also of the opinion that positive state action was required in order to implement conservation policies that would maintain natural ‘resources so far as possible, improve them whenever and wherever possible,’ and ‘secure as high a degree ofjustice in distribution.’ When it came to the issue of deforestation, Ely (1910, 52) believed that the main problem was the ‘system of land laws,’ which allowed ‘individuals and localities, led by motives of private interest, to reduce the amount of forest land below the proportion which it should bear to arable land.’ In response, Ely proposed reforestation efforts and the public ownership and management of forests, with a focus on long-term conservation (Ely 1917, 4).
He believed that state ownership was necessary for ‘preserving our forests,’ because ‘the ordinary laws of supply and demand’ were not adequate in doing so (Ely 1883, 232). In fact, he argued that in order to protect forests, ‘the civilized world now recognizes a large amount of public ownership as necessary; so also with regard to the shores of harbors; so also with regard to mineral treasures’ (Ely 1917, 45). According to Ely (1910, 52), the state should:insist that in every locality there shall be reserved for forests such a proportion of its area as the public welfare demands, and to change our present laws so as to favor the acquisition of the land by those whose interests in management will coincide with those of the public.
The support of the New School for positive state actions aimed at protecting the natural environment was not limited to forests. For instance, Leith (1917, 269) defended ‘the application of public power to further conservation of privately owned mineral sources’ in the interests of future generations. In doing so, ‘a larger proportion of the mineral resources may be saved for the future than under present methods’ (ibid.: 187). He insisted that ‘conservation measures may be made really effective only by the application of government power’ (ibid.). Basically, he believed that it was possible to have ‘an intelligent plan for government control without the difficulties which arise in dealing with private ownership’ (ibid.: 209). He primarily supported state interventions in instances where individual and general interests do not harmonize. According to Leith (1917, 269), ‘there is no essential conflict between public and private, present and future, welfare’ under this kind of arrangement. Furthermore, he believed that the positive state action he proposed was neither oppressive nor authoritarian.
In his own research on conservation, Ralph Henry Hess (1877—1956) (1917, 157), a professor of political economy at the University of Wisconsin,
determined that ‘private monopoly and true conservation are essentially incompatible.’ To be more precise, he was of the opinion that ‘in so far as corporations may covet monopoly gains, they will be out of sympathy with the aims and objects of conservation’ (ibid.).
In particular, Hess (1917, 161) believed that it was impossible to attain adequate and effective conservation ‘under the regime of corporation dominance in the development and management of natural resources,’ ‘unless there is brought about a more effective public control of private property.’ Accordingly, he defended positive state actions that facilitated conservation, as he claimed that ‘every impulse which moves the individual to conserve natural resources is either inadequate or ineffectual because it originates within the springs of personal interest and its action is primarily confined to the realm of private affairs and individual relations’ (ibid.: 162). According to Hess (1917, 175), when the private ownership of a property is ‘incompatible with the public use of such property, then private ownership should be displaced by public ownership.’ That is to say, an ‘incompatibility of public use and private ownership is the imperative justification of eminent domain and of the conversion of private property to public or government ownership’ (ibid.). In addition to public ownership, Hess (1917, 167) also supported state regulations on the use of natural resources when:there is more or less conflict between the public interests and private interests; and regulative agencies are exercised in behalf of the public, since, otherwise, society is defenseless against the persistent aggression of individuals who are motivated by personal desires and interests.
Essentially, he concluded that ‘a definite public policy and positive governmental action’ were necessary in order to ensure the conservation of the natural environment that is so crucial to the future safety and prosperity of the nation (ibid.: 162).
In addition to positive state actions, Carver (1917, 275) argued that when it came to conservation, the ‘most valuable resource of any country is its fund of human’ resources, which led him to focus on facilitating the fullest self-development of individuals via training and education.
Meanwhile, Ely wanted to prepare the public mind for the importance of conservation through lectures and books, as he believed that:in every part of the country, almost in every village and hamlet, a new economic philosophy, a new way of looking at things, a new attitude towards the State gradually made its way and prepared men for the extension of governmental functions called for by conservation measures.
(Ely 1917, 16)
Ely (1917, 39) also highlighted the importance of ethical and moral values in conservation, as they provided men with ‘more self-control and ability
The New School on the Conservation of the Natural Environment 209 to sacrifice within rational limits the present for the future.’ Carver (1917) agreed that ethical practices had an important role to play in the conservation of natural resources, as he associated the wasteful consumption and use of natural resources with vices. Additionally, Hess (1917, 167) pointed out that practicing ethical values could contribute to conservation efforts, while Gray (1913, 514) maintained that protecting the natural environment required ethical judgments.
The fact that the New School supported safeguarding the natural environment by providing an ethical education and encouraging ethical practices was in accordance with the principles of the GHSE, which promoted the idea that every human action was not merely an individual decision, it also had ethical implications for society as a whole. The emphasis that the GHSE placed on ethical economics makes this school of thought very relevant at the present time, given that the world is faced with the possibility of ecological collapse and environmental disasters. That would also suggest that many of the questions and concerns raised by GHSE have never really disappeared; they have simply been veiled or obscured.