Table 13. — Profile of socioeconomic impact by target groups. 



Impact variables 



1. Loss of income from lobstering ($) 



2. Gain of income from lobstering ($) 



3. Monetary value of saving in effort ($) 



4. Gain of income from alternative jobs (marketable 

 skills) ($) 



5. Gain of income from alternative jobs (post- 

 training) ($) 



6. Training costs (S) 



7. Income maintenance burden on society ($) 



8. Estimated value of investment in boat and gear ($) 



9. Number of fishermen 



Source: University of Maine Survey Data, 1970; local Manpower Development Training Act program officials. 



pected income from alternative jobs. 



It would have been desirable to compute 

 a ratio of total gains and losses. However, 

 with the data in hand, it does not appear to 

 be feasible and meaningful. First, the quanti- 

 ties calculated are not additive. Second, costs 

 and benefits have different time dimensions. 

 For instance, training costs are once-over 

 cost items whereas the expected income is 

 a flow over time. Finally, the figures for in- 

 come maintenance burden on society do not 

 take into consideration the loss of income 

 from lobstering of those who are classified as 

 "potentially employable" but are already 

 employed. Furthermore, the discrepancy be- 

 tween current income from lobstering and 

 expected income from alternative jobs for those 

 employable but currently full-time fishermen 

 is also disregarded. 



Despite these limitations, the results do 

 give certain indicator values that should be 

 considered and comparatively analyzed rela- 

 tive to alternative management strategies 

 and implicit goals. Admittedly, these values 

 involve many simplifying and rather arbi- 

 trary assumptions, although hard data were 

 utilized when available. The value of this 

 type of approach is primarily methodological, 

 which is to be expected in a pilot study. 



CONCLUSIONS 



Several qualifications need to be attached 

 to the foregoing analysis before any general- 

 ization is made. First, some fishermen who 

 are considered as candidates for a given target 



group may continue to lobster because of non- 

 economic reasons. Second, expected new in- 

 comes from alternative jobs for the displaced 

 fishermen may not materialize because of lack 

 of motivation and reluctance to move geo- 

 graphically and/or occupationally. Third, 

 there is no assurance that the additional new 

 income earned by the remaining lobstermen 

 will exactly equal the lost income due to 

 limited entry. There is, however, a strong 

 probability that if they were to capture the 

 same number of lobsters as attributable to 

 the displaced fishermen, they could do so 

 more efficiently because of excess capacity 

 and potential economies of scale. Fourth, there 

 may be a significant gap between the number 

 of those considered trainable and those who 

 will take advantage of training if made avail- 

 able. Fifth, a fraction of those trained may 

 still remain unemployed due to labor market 

 conditions. Sixth, the income maintenance 

 burden may not be as severe as indicated be- 

 cause some of the potentially hard-core un- 

 employed may be absorbed in unskilled jobs 

 or in the lobster industry as "helpers." Con- 

 ceivably, jobs may be redesigned to facilitate 

 the entry of these men into the labor market. 

 Filially, some of those who are not in the labor 

 force, e.g., students, will, in cour.se of time, par- 

 ticipate in the labor market and reduce the 

 stated social burden. 



It is important that in this kind of analysis 

 one takes cognizance of the time element 

 relative to the process of adjustment. The 

 short run impact may appear to be quite 

 severe because of the imperfections in the 



172 



