various FOREST resources. This should be 

 done only as an indication that new or differ- 

 ent priorities are being established on behalf 

 of the public. The Forest Service will then have 

 the responsibility of making sure that the 

 public is aware of the implication of the shift 

 in priorities, a task the agency can perform 

 only if it can demonstrate the specific con- 

 sequences of the changes. 



The previous conclusion rests on what 

 seems to be logical ground. It is, however, ad- 

 mittedly idealistic in that it does not take into 

 account the realities of politics. This being so, 

 the agency is faced with a more awesome re- 

 sponsibility. It must be able to demonstrate 

 not only the consequences of alterations in 

 the priorities it has established in the budget, 

 but also the consequences of changes in levels 

 of funding. If the agency budget request is 

 funded at only the 80-percent level, for 

 example, project relationships within program 

 areas will be changed. 



If optimal programing is to be achieved, 

 such shifts must be recognized and pointed 

 out to those who would alter the management 

 effort implied in the original request. Such 

 analysis must become an integral part of the 

 goal-oriented decisionmaking process. 



The Economist 

 and the Decision Model 



In the past, economists have attempted to 

 treat the problems of decisionmaking in mul- 

 tiple goal situations. Each such attempt has 

 begun with the assumption that the ranking 

 among goals was known and clearly specified. 

 Such economic studies, in the absence of a 

 defined goal, have been of limited usefulness 

 to the Forest Service. If a FOREST-type de- 

 cision model is accepted throughout the 

 agency, this shortcoming will be eliminated. 



In the initial stages of such a new manage- 

 ment policy the economist should prove help- 

 ful in determining just what initial weights are 

 to be placed on the FOREST resources. To- 

 gether with the political scientist and sociol- 

 ogist, the economist should be able to achieve 

 a relatively good estimate of the weights de- 

 sired by the public. The estimate will not be 



perfect, but it will provide a starting point. 

 Continued research in this area will improve 

 the approximation techniques. 



Economic analysis is not an end in itself. It 

 cannot guarantee that proper decisions will be 

 made. Decisionmaking, particularly in the po- 

 litical arena, is an art. Economic analysis will 

 serve to insure that as the artist goes to work 

 his palette will contain all the necessary col- 

 ors, tints, and shades. The economist, it is 

 hoped, will force the organization to face up 

 to the issue of stating its objectives. 



Economic analysis can serve three major 

 functions, each tending toward improvement 

 of the ability of the Forest Service to demon- 

 strate the costs and consequences of alter- 

 native policies. It is here that improvement is 

 most immediately needed. First, goal iden- 

 tification depends on the degree of knowledge 

 possessed. Economic analysis can make sure 

 that most of the costs and benefits are ac- 

 counted for. To some extent, the interrelation- 

 ships of the resource uses of the FOREST can 

 be discerned through an interdisciplinary ap- 

 proach. Economic analysis can integrate that 

 knowledge, especially by identifying pre- 

 viously unrepresented beneficiaries or cost 

 bearers (in terms of the actual resources or in 

 terms of specific public interests). The result 

 should be more nearly correct assessments of 

 the value of any particular program or pro- 

 ject. 



Second, economic analysis can make clear 

 the trade-offs represented by a decision to 

 forgo an "economic efficiency" criterion in 

 favor of noncommodity goals. The nation 

 may decide that concern for the en- 

 vironmental amenities of the forest should re- 

 sult in decisions to pursue less economic- 

 growth and development in favor of a better 

 quality of life. If so, economic analysis will 

 help to insure public awareness of how much 

 "economic" gain must be given up to attain 

 its objective. The economic analysis may serve 

 also to highlight the problems of fulfilling the 

 existing mandate of the Forest Service. It will 

 be useful in helping the public, through its re- 

 presentatives in Congress, to make such alter- 

 ations in the prescribed objectives as will bet- 

 ter meet the needs and desires of the nation. 



Finally, implementation of a goal-oriented, 



71 



