Synthesis

Source: National Parks Conservation Association

The economic principle I examined was that people respond to incentives in predictable ways. There are many situations where this economic principle can be applied to the real world. For instance, while studying the current plan to downsize national monuments, I found many examples of this principle. In my second blog post, I briefly explored the reasons, or incentives, the government and President Trump have for pursuing these specific public lands. This shows that, when a monetary incentive such as oil drilling and mining presents itself, people will attempt to act on it. In my third blog post, I explored the thoughts and reasons advocates for national monuments had for saving, protesting, and protecting them, specifically Bears Ears. I addressed the facts that there are over 100,00 protected archaeological sites on the monument and other various cultural ties that this specific monument is home to. This demonstrates that the tribes of Bears Ears have an incentive to keep the traditions and cultures that thrive on Bears Ears alive an because of this incentive, will act in predictable ways and create coalitions to preserve and protect their land.

 In my fourth blog post, I analyze and review the ways that the government responds to the concerns about destroying culturally significant land. In a report from the Department of the Interior, Secretary Zinke makes broad and vague promises to uphold the importance of certain national monuments. He was ambiguous and did not seem to prioritize the concerns of advocates for national monuments. This means that, because Secretary Zinke and many in charge of reviewing these lands don’t have emotional ties to them or any incentive to save or protect them, they will not act in ways incongruent to their opinions and beliefs. Overall, you can see that people will choose to support and act on ideas and plans that benefit them most directly and, like the principle states, will “respond in predictable ways”.