A WELFARE ECONOMICAL INTERPRETATION OF TH E DISTINCTION BETWEEN NATURAL FOREST BENEFITS AND SPECIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS OF FORESTRY

This article starts from the distinction made by BLUM et a. (1996) bet ween the contribution to public welfare by unmanaged forest covered la nd and the specific share of forestry to the contribution, and discuss es this in the context of neoclassic welfare-economics. After a short introduction into the theory of welfare-economics, the authors clarify the term 'externalities' and describe procedures to internalize exter nalities. It becomes clear that only the contributions of forestry (i. e. those features of forests resulting directly from forests enterpri se activities), which are not internalized by markets, can be seen as externalities. To internalize externalities through correction of mark et forces, a monetary evaluation of the scale of external economies an d diseconomies is necessary. This creates mainly methodological proble ms. Against this background it is shown that the different forms of su bsidies given to forest enterprises are often justified by using terms closely related to the ideas of welfare-economics, However, besides t he welfare-economic goal of efficient allocation, forest enterprises a re also harnessed to achieve other and more political goat, like the d istribution of ownership or the stabilization of rural areas for examp le, which are nor justifiable by welfare-economics theory. This leads to some critical remarks on the features of current subsidising of for est-enterprises. In conclusion 2 conditions for a useful application o f welfare-economics in forestry are specified: 1.) Externalities shoul d only be understood as the direct achievements of specific forestry a ctivity and nor be confused with. natural benefits. 2.) The explanatio nal capacity of welfare-economic theory should not be misused by tryin g to develop societal goals out of welfare-economics theory, in stead of using it only as a cool to analyse the efficiency of governmental p olicies.