other management strategy that might affect 

 the harvesting labor force. 



For the purpose of this study, four groups 



have been constructed, using alternative 

 criteria. It is not intended that the groups be 

 mutually exclusive. 



The variables chosen for this analysis in- 

 clude the following: income, investment, effort, 

 and earnings/effort ratio.* It should be noted 

 that with the exception of one target group, 

 combinations of variables were used to define 

 the target groups. Admittedly, similar groups 

 could be constructed using different criteria. 

 Groups selected appeared to be quite meaning- 

 ful for the purpose of this study. 



Target Group I was chosen on the basis of 

 a combination of two criteria: (a) low earn- 

 ings/effort ratio, and (b) low number of trap- 

 days serving as a proxy for low income. It 

 was arbitrarily decided that to be eligible 

 for this group a fisherman had to have an 

 income/effort ratio of less than 0.3 and had 

 to fish less than 30,000 trap-days per year. 

 Those fishing over 30,000 traps were not in- 

 cluded because they earned sufficient income 

 for subsistence. Table 6 was especially con- 

 structed for this purpose. 



Forty fishermen met the conditions set for 

 this group. As it turned out, this group had 

 an average earnings/effort ratio of 0.182 

 compared to 0.230 for the entire sample and 

 they fished an average number of 12,570 trap- 



^ The earning/effort ratio was calculated by dividing 

 the number of trap-days into gi'oss income reported 

 by the sample fishermen. 



days compared to 30,707 trap-days for the 

 sample as a whole. Their average income was 

 only $2,061 compared to an average income 

 of $6,213 for the sample as a whole. The 

 fishermen in this group fish fewer number of 

 days and have invested small amounts of 

 capital in gear and boat. 



In any discussion of deliberate or planned 

 changes in the harvesting labor force in the 

 lobster fishery, this group with a low earnings/ 

 effort relationship and low absolute level of 

 income would warrant consideration. Pre- 

 sumably, the economic status of the remain- 

 ing fishermen would improve the terms of a 

 higher ratio of income to effort and higher 

 absolute level of income, if this group is elimi- 

 nated. Of course, one has to look at the social 

 cost of such a change and the political feasi- 

 bility of such a change. Some measures of 

 social cost are developed later in this paper. 



An alternative approach to the problem 

 would be to consider only low levels of pro- 

 ductivity as measured by the low income/ 

 effort ratio, regardless of the absolute size 

 of income. Here one could argue that shifting 

 away from lobstering in this case may be 

 socially gainful, given possibilities for im- 

 proving the income/effort ratio in alternative 

 employments. From such a reallocation of 

 effort as an economic resource, both the dis- 

 placed fishermen as well as the surviving 

 fishermen might benefit, as the marginal pro- 

 ductivity of both groups is likely to increase. 



On this premise. Target Group II has been 

 constructed. Those fishermen who recorded 

 an income/effort ratio of less than 0.2 were 



Table 6. — Distribution of sample lobstermen according to income/effort ratio and trap-days. 



Source: University of Maine Survey Data, 1970. 



165 



