CAN WE STILL AFFORD A 

 SEPARATE RESOURCES POLICY? 



^ Charles M. Hardin 



Gilbert White's major conclusion is that the United States needs a 

 much more systematic method for comparative evaluation of resource 

 programs, especially in the fields of land and water. I fully agree with 

 this proposal. Its adoption would make our natural resource policy 

 choices much clearer and sharper. I do not think, however, that Mr. 

 White goes nearly far enough. After weighing the various kinds of 

 resources projects against each other, we need some governmental 

 means for taking the whole field of natural resources as a policy area, 

 and subjecting it to vigorous comparative evaluation with the other 

 large areas of national policy. 



We need to improve our ways of doing things politically so that the 

 aims of policies may be better understood, the means evaluated more 



CHARLES M. HARDIN, Professor of Political Science at the Uni- 

 versity of Chicago, has taught at Harvard University (1940-45) and has lec- 

 tured widely among United States universities, particularly on his research 

 specialty which embraces public policy in agriculture and in natural resources, 

 on which he has published numerous articles, and two books, The Politics of 

 Agriculture: Soil Conservation and the Struggle for Power in Rural America 

 and Freedom in Agricultural Education. He has acted as a consultant to the 

 Department of Agriculture, to the Tennessee Valley Authority, and to the 

 Agricultural Extension Committee on Public Policy. In 1957 he had a Rocke- 

 feller Grant for the study of agricultural policy and politics in Latin America. 

 Born in Lander, Wyoming, in 1908, Mr. Hardin has a B.A. from the Uni- 

 versity of Wyoming, an M.A. from the University of Colorado, and a Ph.D. 

 from Harvard University. 



227 



