Poverty and scarcity
The scarcity of resources in the society has a relationship with poverty. However, poverty refers to a scenario where people lack basic necessities or adequate wealth to sustain meaningful life. It is important to note that poverty can be rampant in a country that has more resources than a country fewer resources. Therefore, poverty declines if people utilize the available resources in an efficient way to meet their needs. For example, a country that is in the civil war will have more people languishing in poverty than a stable country. On the other hand, scarcity refers to a shortage of resources in relation to human wants. In every society, resources are always fewer than the human wants. Unsustainable use of recourses contributes to increased scarcity of resources in the society. For example, unsustainable hunting of wild animals like rhinos has led to increased scarcity of rhinos. Normally, the rhino’s are killed at a higher rate than the rate of breeding. The decrease in the number of rhinos in a country does not lead to an automatic increase in the level of poverty. The unlimited nature of human wants makes economists to say that resources are scarce. The established gap between demand for resources and the supply is the scarcity of resources in the society. Thus, scarcity is identified upon a comparison of wants and resources or supply of resources and demand for resources (Block, 2013).
In the above paragraph, the scarcity of resources has been related to the shortage of supply in relationship to their demand. The increasing scarcity of resources leads to increase in the value of the particular resource. The price of rhino horns increases as the supply decrease. The hunters earn a high profit as the price of the horns increase, and this makes them improve their hunting skills. However, the number of rhinos does not increase because those who are earning the high profit do not support the breeding of rhinos. The rhinos owned by the government are taken as public goods, so hunters do not feel direct negative economic consequences when their numbers fall (Pope, Majid & Dockery, 2015).
The scarcity of rhinos decreases when the government transfers the ownership of rhinos to the private sector. This is because many people will consider keeping rhinos as a business venture and will set aside adequate land and other resources for the new investment. The people who were risking their lives by engaging in illegal hunting of rhinos will lead in conserving the animal because they look forward to increasing the supply to earn high returns. The supply of rhinos also increases due to expectations of a high future profit of horns. People will prefer to own the rhino instead of killing it and obtaining its horn. There will be increased trade of the rhinos and decreased trade of their horns. This will not only be fuelled by expectations of high future prices of horns but also other benefits as tourism revenue. Ranchers will also diversify and include various wild animals within their ranches. Thus, scarcity of wild animals decreases as private sector increases investment on wild animals and decreases investment on domestic animals (Cuesta, 2013).
How Incentives Accompanying Private Property Can Help Save or Endanger Rhino and Endangered Species
The transfer of ownership of endangered species to the private sector will ensure there is sustainable hunting. The private sector will ensure that the conditions of ranchers are set in a way that maximizes breeding and growth of the endangered species to maximize returns. It is likely that the community will come together and establish community policing network that will help protect the endangered species. This will eliminate the possibility of illegal hunting that is conducted by collusion of hunters and community members (Timothy Taylor, 2011).
The human wildlife conflict falls drastically when property rights are transferred to the private sector as the community will choose to keep wild animals that generate high returns than growing crops. The wild animals will be free to cross to public land, and this will reduce the cost of keeping the rhinos. Moreover, the black market will fall drastically because people will be free to buy and sell rhinos and its horns. This will make sure there is only one market price, and the supply of rhinos will always equal the demand. The private sector will choose to hold onto the rhinos and benefit from high future prices if they speculate the high future returns. This will increase the population of rhinos. It is simple for the government to encourage private ownership of rhinos by encouraging tourism and offering tax incentives (Cuesta, 2013).
On the other hand, the transfer of ownership of rhinos and other endangered species to the private sector may threaten their population. A negative population growth will occur in periods when there is speculation of decreasing returns of keeping the rhinos and when it becomes quite expensive to maintain them in ranches. It is probable that buyers of rhino horns will likely collude to force prices downwards and encourage ranchers to kill the rhinos and sell the horns. Moreover, the cost of keeping the wild animals becomes unsustainable during the period of prolonged drought. This may make them neglect the animal and poachers will take advantage (Timothy Taylor, 2011).
In the private sector, every commodity has a price. Thus, buyers of horns may offer extensively high price for the commodity, and this will increase the number of rhinos killed. The increase in the number of animals killed may continue exponentially to a point where all the rhinos or the endangered species will be killed. This cannot happen when the government owns all the endangered species because it can ensure maximum protection of the species and fail to sell them even when the profit margins are quite high (Timothy Taylor, 2011).
References
Block, W. E. (2013). DEBATE OVER THE NORMATIVE POSITIVE DISTINCTION IN ECONOMICS. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 8(1), 11-19. Retrieved January 4, 2017.
Timothy Taylor (2011). Conversable economists: Saving Jaguars and Elephants with Property Rights and Incentives.Retrieved January 4, 2017, from http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.co.ke/2011/12/saving-jaguars-and-elephants-with.html
Cuesta, J. (2013). Resource Scarcity from an Applied Economic Perspective. Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law, 42, 11th ser., 10-34. Retrieved January 4, 2017.
Pope, A., Majid, E., & Dockery, D. (2015). Tradeoffs between income, air pollution and life expectancy: Brief reportontheUSexperience,1980–2000. Environmental Research, 142, 591-593.
