Environmental Choices: Policy Responses to Green Demands
Publication Year: 2002
Within a federal system, government agencies and regulatory policies can be fractured -- even at odds with each other. National actors share power with their counterparts in states and localities, as do presidents with Congressional leaders, and bureaucrats with judges. Understanding the broad economic and political contexts of environmental policymaking illuminates the motivations behind policy choices of various interested parties, from the National Park Service and the EPA to environmental activists and members of Congress. Rothenberg utilizes basic economic ideas to provide, not only a fresh look at how the U.S. deals with environmental ills, but a way of thinking about policy making in general.
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 1: Environmental Policy in Context: Economic Demand, Political Supply
- The Economic Context: Environmental Quality as a Normal Good
- The Political Context: Constitutional Foundations and Their Policy Implications
- Outline of Analysis
- Key Terms
- Chapter 2: Environmental Action, Environmental Caution: The Case for Government Intervention
- Traditional Justification: The Tragedy of the Commons
- Public Goods
- The Right to Know: Informational Rationales
- Do the Right Thing: The Moral Imperative
- Several Notes of Caution: The Case Against Government Intervention
- Grounds for Action and Caution
- Key Terms
- Chapter 3: A Brief History of U.S. Environmental Policy
- The Evolution of Environmentalism
- Before “Environmentalism”: The Nineteenth Century
- Beginnings of Environmentalism: 1870–1920
- Increasing Supply and Fluctuating Demand: 1920–1960
- The Environmental Movement and the EPA: 1960–1980
- Contemporary Environmentalism: 1980–Present
- Environmental Policy Evolution: Growth and Fragmentation
- Key Terms
- Chapter 4: National Political Influences on Environmental Policy
- The Demand Side: Organized Interests and Environmental Politics
- The Supply Side: Formal Political Institutions and the Environment
- Linking Demand and Supply: Implications for Public Policy
- Key Terms
- Chapter 5: Developing and Enforcing Environmental Policy
- Mandates for Implementation
- Enforcement: Deterrence, Cooperation, Information
- Political Impacts on Implementation
- The Perils and Pitfalls of Implementation
- Key Terms
- Chapter 6: National or Local Control: Conflicts Over Environmental Federalism
- The Case for Policy Devolution
- The Case for Policy Centralization
- Federalism and Environmental Policy
- Falling Short
- Case Studies
- Federalism in Theory and Practice
- Key Terms
- Chapter 7: Land Use Agencies: Government as Landlord
- The Land Use Agencies
- Conclusions: Government as Steward
- Key Terms
- Chapter 8: The EPA: Government as Regulator
- Environmental Regulation Circa 1970
- Growth and Fragmentation
- The EPA's Many Responsibilities
- General Trends: Rationalization and Complication
- Regulation, Fragmentation, and Contemporary Environmental Policy
- Key Terms
- Chapter 9: The Costs of Environmental Progress
- Successes and Failures
- The High Cost of Progress: Proximate and Fundamental Causes
- Future Trends
- Sustaining Environmental Quality
- Final Thoughts
- Key Terms
A Division of Congressional Quarterly Inc.
1255 22nd Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 822-1475; (800) 638-1710
© 2002 by CQ Press, A Division of Congressional Quarterly Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Printed and bound in the United States of America
06 05 04 03 02 5 4 3 2 1
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992.
Cover design: Karen Doody
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Rothenberg, Lawrence S.
Environmental choices : policy responses to green demands / Lawrence S. Rothenberg.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-56802-630-7 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Environmental policy—United States. 2. Environmental quality—United States. 3. Environmentalism—United States. I. Title.
GE180 .R67 2002
In memory of Jeffrey S. Banks (1958–2000), extraordinary scholar and dear friend[Page vi]
Tables and Figures[Page xi]Tables
- 1-1 Attitudes toward the Environment 9
- 1-2 Willingness to Pay for Environmental Quality 11
- 3-1 Schematic History of Environmentalism 39
- 4-1 Groups and Government Organizations Concerned with National Environmental Policy 66
- 4-2 Government and EPA Support of Organizations, 1996–1997 72
- 4-3 Environmental PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates, 1997–1998 75
- 4-4 House Votes Used by the League of Conservation Voters to Rank Members of Congress in 1999 76
- 4-5 Congressional Committees and Subcommittees Dealing with the EPA 82
- 4-6 Estimate of Savings from Cutting Nine Congressionally Championed Programs that Have Possible Negative Environmental Effects 84
- 5-1 EPA Inspection Activities, Fiscal Year 1997 112
- 5-2 Dollar Value of EPA Enforcement Actions by Statute, Fiscal Year 1997 116
- 6-1 Variance in State Environmental Expenditures, Fiscal Year 1996 137
- 6-2 Average Household Costs for Proposed Rules by Size of Affected System 144
- 7-1 National Government Ownership by States, 1997 152
- 7-2 Condition of Riparian Areas 162
- 7-3 Diversity of National Park Service Holdings, by Type and Acreage, as of December 31, 1999 166 [Page xii]
- 8-1 Summaries of Environmental Laws Administered by the EPA 181
- 9-1 Nation's Surface Water Quality, 1988–1998 212
- 1-1 State Income and Pollution Subsidies 13
- 3-1 Growth in Federal Employment, 1871–2001 45
- 3-2 Timber Harvests from National Forests, 1940–1997 50
- 3-3 Visitors to National Park System, 1940–1998 51
- 3-4 EPA Budget and Employment, 1970–1999 59
- 4-1 Foundation Support for Environmental Organizations, 1974–1998 71
- 4-2 Agency Zone of Discretion: An Illustration 97
- 5-1 EPA Administrative Actions by Statute, 1974–1997 113
- 5-2 State Administrative Actions, 1987–1997 114
- 5-3 EPA and State Judicial Referrals 115
- 7-1 Real Grazing Fees, 1946–1999 163
- 7-2 Authorized Grazing AUMS, 1961–1968 (Section 3 Lands) 164
- 8-1 Major Regulatory Rules, October 1, 1996–September 30, 1999 182
- 8-2 Superfund Expenditures, 1987–1998 196
- 9-1 Estimates of Environmental and Risk Protection Costs, 1977–2000 209
- 9-2 Air Pollution Emissions, 1970–1998 210
- 9-3 Violations of Federal Ozone Standard in the Los Angeles Basin, 1976–1998 211
- 9-4 Toxic Releases—Core Chemicals and Industries, 1988, 1995–1998 213
- 9-5 Number of National Priority List (NPL) Sites, 1982–1998 214
- 9-6 Pesticide Use for Selected U.S. Crops, 1964–1995 215
- 9-7 Threatened and Endangered Species, 1980–1999 216
List of Acronyms[Page xiii]
ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 AUM Animal unit month BLM Bureau of Land Management CAA Clean Air Act CAFE Corporate average fuel economy CBO Congressional Budget Office CCC Civilian Conservation Corps CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund) CFC Chlorofluorocarbon CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission CWA Clean Water Act DDT Dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane DOD Department of Defense DOI Department of Interior EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 ESA Endangered Species Act FDA Food and Drug Administration FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 FQPA Food Quality Protection Act FWS Fish and Wildlife Service GAO General Accounting Office GNP Gross national product LCV League of Conservation Voters [Page xiv] NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NIMBY Not in My Backyard NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priority List NPS National Park Service OMB Office of Management and Budget OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PRIA Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 PRP Potentially responsible parties RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act TMDL Total maximum daily load TRI Toxic Release Inventories TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act TVA Tennessee Valley Authority USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFS United States Forest Service
Environmental policies in the United States often appear to be a perplexing morass—fragmented, contradictory, inconsistent, and rule-bound. Although it is fairly easy to describe the policy system, it is far more difficult to gain a deeper understanding of what determines policy and the costs and efficacy of policy initiatives.
Despite the obvious importance of the environment and the policies that govern it, contemporary books that provide a unifying analytic approach are in short supply. Environmental Choices: Policy Responses to Green Demands fills this gap. It furnishes an important overview and perspective on research and issues while providing analytic tools that challenge students' intuitive understanding of environmental policy and public policy. Students using the book will be prepared to apply the knowledge gained from it to make sense of the world they observe. As well as being employed as a principal text, this book may be used in conjunction with a standard core text as a means of questioning conventional wisdom, shedding light on hard-to-understand policy features, and making connections more generally between environmental policy and public policy.
Although the book incorporates sophisticated ideas, it is written to be comprehensible. It offers and consistently applies a coherent framework that focuses both on the economic determinants of demand for environmental quality and on the nature of political supply in responding to such demands. In doing so, it provides a distinctive approach that shows how the U.S. political system produces higher environmental quality than would occur without government intervention but at a seemingly high cost.
More generally, Environmental Choices has two goals. The first is to provide a framework for understanding environmental policy that is derived from a general perspective on public policy. Environmental policy is a manifestation of more general processes that affect policy and is best understood that way. Drawing heavily on existing social science about public policy—and about how individuals, firms, organizations, and institutions make relevant choices—the various chapters accessibly introduce key ideas in economics and political science so that readers can easily understand where demand for environmental policy comes from and how political institutions supply it.
[Page xvi]The second goal is to survey government's environmental policies in a way that closely ties in to the analytical framework. Consequently, rather than being presented with the history of environmental policy choices and their influences as a laundry list of accomplishments and failures, students are given a perspective from which to make sense of the political intervention observed, the policy instruments and agencies chosen, and the level of government and means of enforcement selected.
In communicating complicated and nuanced ideas, Environmental Choices employs a variety of helpful pedagogic tools. Key terms appear in bold face and are listed at the end of each chapter. Key data are presented in easy-to-digest tables and figures. And extensive references are provided to direct readers who are interested in exploring further.
Environmental Choices begins by laying out the general framework by which policies, among them environmental policy, are seen as a product of demand for goods and the nature of government supply. Chapter 1 explores how that demand for environmental quality has grown with economic prosperity and how the capacity of the United States to meet that demand has increased in a manner heavily influenced by a constitutional structure that produces fragmentation. This interaction—of rising demand with an expanding but fragmented political system—is a crucial element in the understanding of environmental policy. Chapter 2 lays out both the economic and noneconomic rationales for government intervention, and Chapter 3 applies the conceptual framework to the history of environmental policy in the United States. Chapter 4 investigates the impact of national political influences—voters and groups on the one hand and political institutions on the other—and shows how such demand- and supply-side forces interact. Chapter 5 surveys the implementation and enforcement of environmental policy and demonstrates that, although policy enforcement does seem to increase compliance, it also reflects the fragmented political process. Chapter 6 discusses federalism, providing an overview of the reasons for and against either localizing or nationalizing policies, and shows how the working of federalism in practice is profoundly related to the nature of supply and demand for environmental quality. Chapter 7 applies the conceptual framework to government policies with respect to the government's role as landlord, looking at the four principal land management agencies—the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Chapter 8 applies the framework to government regulatory policies, focusing on the Environmental Protection Agency. Chapter 9, after demonstrating how the conceptual framework reconciles an often seemingly misguided political system with improvement in at least some elements of environmental quality, speculates on the many challenges that the future holds.[Page xvii]Acknowledgments
This book has been a decade in the making, and I have incurred many debts along the way. Thanks principally go to my former students, graduate and undergraduate. My initial commitment to developing expertise in environmental affairs stemmed from a feeling of responsibility toward my graduate students, and special appreciation goes to Lucy Drotning, Todd Kunioka, and Marc Shapiro, among others. Thanks also to Randy Calvert for encouraging me to develop an undergraduate seminar in environmental politics and to the students who sat through the class as I educated myself.
Through the years, the University of Rochester's Department of Political Science and the Wallis Institute of Political Economy have been stimulating and congenial places to get my work done. Thanks to my colleagues and to the associated staffs. Thanks also to the administration at the University of Rochester for giving me a semester off as a Bridging Fellow to learn more about environmental concerns; Larry Lundgren of the Earth and Environmental Sciences Department proved a most gracious sponsor for that semester.
Several colleagues deserve special recognition. David Weimer, now of the University of Wisconsin, alerted CQ Press to the existence of my then-scattered manuscript and was a source of encouragement. Nathan Dietz of American University was willing to be co-opted into learning about grazing policy. Seth Goldstein provided able research assistance. Special thanks to Bill Lowry of Washington University for his support, his calming of my worries of being an intellectual interloper, and his valuable comments on the manuscript. Other very helpful comments were provided by Matthew Cahn (California State University, North-ridge), Donald Haider-Markel (University of Kansas), Sheldon Kamieniecki (University of Southern California), Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith (University of California, Davis), and Patrick Wilson (University of Iowa). After all this valuable feedback, I'm not even sure I recognize the finished manuscript any more.
Thanks also to the folks at CQ Press. Special thanks to Charisse Kiino for taking a flier on a manuscript that is admittedly a bit different from the press's norm, to Amy Briggs and Joanne S. Ainsworth for their patience with the author and their helpful editing of the manuscript, and to Gwenda Larsen for seeing the manuscript through production.
Finally, thanks to my family, particularly to my children, Daniel and Sarah, who are used to daddy carrying his laptop to art, swimming, and karate classes, on vacation, and to sundry other locations. Your love and affection make life something extraordinary.
This manuscript is dedicated to the memory of my dear friend and former colleague, Jeffrey Banks (1958–2000), whose extraordinary scholarship was, for those who had the privilege to call him a friend, overshadowed by his warmth and humanity. I count myself among those who are better for having known him.[Page xviii]
Notes[Page 227]1. Environmental Policy in Context
1. For example, political scientist Ronald Inglehart (for example, 1995) emphasizes the importance of individuals being inculcated with so-called post-materialist values—values reflecting the desire for goods beyond those satisfying basic human needs such as housing and shelter that have allegedly become more important as economic security has become less problematic—as an additional determinant of demand beyond ability to pay. Nevertheless, as will be discussed in more depth, whatever the validity of such assertions (the utility of the post-materialist framework has been widely contested, see Duch and Taylor 1993), the evidence that a significant and positive relationship exists between economic growth and government and between the demand for environmental quality and the ability to pay for it is strong and unambiguous (for example, Grossman and Krueger 1995, Holsey and Borcherding 1997, Rothenberg 2000).
2. Statements that more environmental quality is demanded with growth and prosperity should not be construed as endorsing the more extreme proposition, which some on the political right espouse, that economic activity is the best policy for a clean environment. (For a particularly controversial example of such environmental optimism see Easterbrook 1995; for critiques, see Arrow et al. 1995; Oppenheimer, Wilcove, and Bean 1995.) For present purposes, noting that demand for environmental quality seems to rise with prosperity and that this demand collides with political, economic, and technical realities to produce environmental policy and quality is sufficient.
3. Kahn (1998) discusses this process and reactions to cleaning up air pollution in the Los Angeles basin, while Chay and Greenstone (1998) analyze the relationship between air pollution and housing prices. Such behavior designed to avoid pollution's negative effects is partially responsible for concerns that environmental ills fall disproportionately on the poor and the disenfranchised. For instance, as will be discussed further, many activists, scholars, and political figures decry what they consider to be a system of environmental injustice and racism by which the poor inhabit high pollution areas (see Bullard 1993, 1994; Hamilton 1995b; Hamilton and Viscusi 1999). Analogously, many find that those who are better situated politically, and typically better-off financially, are more adept than those with little political clout at preventing activities that cause or dispose of pollution and, therefore, might improve quality of life generally but impose costs on those located nearby (this is the NIMBY, or Not in My Backyard, syndrome; for a discussion, see Rabe 1994). Indeed, environmental justice concerns were politically sanctioned by Bill Clinton in February 1994 when he signed Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Ensure Environmental Justice in Minority and Low Income Communities,” which ordered seventeen federal agencies to develop strategic plans to address environmental justice (for an analysis of environmental justice issues, see Foreman 1998).
4. Residentially, radon is most commonly found in the air at high levels in structures providing little ventilation, such as in many energy-efficient buildings constructed during the last several decades, that are built on granite, shale, or phosphate-bearing geological formations. [Page 228]Occupational exposure is most associated with uranium mining. Although inexpensive detection kits identify radon dangers fairly cheaply, remediation costs, such as those of substantially improving ventilation, can run into thousands of dollars (Cole 1993, Reitze and Carof 1998).
5. Establishing secure and well-defined property rights is deemed essential for generating productive economic activity, as the creation of value is commonly thought to be diminished if property rights are undefined, unclear, or unenforced (North and Thomas 1973, Eggertsson 1996).
6. Indeed, the 1996 passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which established a variety of standards for pesticide residues on food, formally recognized this fact (Schierow 1996; for a critical discussion see Byrd 1997). Previously, under the 1958 Delaney Clause, pesticide traces were not allowed in processed foods (Vogt 1995), leading to the paradox that acceptable amounts of pesticides on raw foods were unacceptable after processing.
7. It would be unsurprising to discover that people in poorer countries consider the environment to be problematic, especially because quality is objectively worse in such nations on many dimensions, even if they are unwilling or unable to pay the same amount per capita for environmental attributes. (On comparing opinions of those in poor and rich nations on the environment, see Dunlap, Gallup, and Gallup 1993; Dunlap and Mertig 1995.) Also, particularly for a good with costs and benefits spilling over to so many others, asking people hypothetical questions often raises validity issues (are responses actually measuring what they seem to?); indeed, a huge literature considers how to measure willingness to pay for public goods such as the environment (for example, Mitchell and Carson 1989). In this book, therefore, most opinion data are viewed as suggestive, and measures of actual behavior are considered stronger indications of how to classify environmental quality as a good.
8. Although green parties are important forces in certain western European countries, America's version is a pale imitation (for example, Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader received 685,000 votes, or 0.71 percent of the popular vote, in 1996 and 2,878,000 votes or 2.73 percent in 2000). The discrepancy in green party success is almost certainly a function of the advanced democracies of Europe being parliamentary systems, which typically encourage multiple parties, and America being a presidential system biased toward two principal parties (for the classic work, see Duverger 1954).
9. For instance, only 17.3 percent of General Social Survey respondents answer that they have a great deal of confidence in the people running the executive branch of the federal government (51 percent say that have “only some” confidence, 27.3 percent have “hardly any” confidence, and 2.8 percent simply “don't know” if they have confidence). Perhaps more ironically, by producing pressures to make government even more inert and inflexible (for example, Kagan 1995), this tension between the mistrust of government and the demands on it may exacerbate pathologies associated with American public policy.
10. Kahn and Matsusaka actually make the stronger claim that preferences are unimportant determinants of behavior once income is controlled; however, their measures of preferences (voter registration and vote for president) are incomplete, and their measures of production costs (for example, agricultural production in a county) may tap some of the effects of preferences, particularly if mobility is important (that is, similar types of people may deliberately congregate together). Additionally, Kahn and Matsusaka do discover that income has a declining effect for some referenda, which they attribute, probably reasonably, to “crowding” behavior by which wealthy individuals purchase private goods, such as an isolated house in the midst of pristine surroundings, rather than contribute to public provision, such as parks open to all, thereby displacing the production of public goods with that of private goods.
[Page 229]11. Consistent with this discussion (although other factors are relevant), while the United States virtually eliminated its emissions fairly quickly once international efforts to reduce CFCs gained momentum (industrial nation production declined by roughly 90 percent from 1989 to 1995), a variety of developing nations continue to use them and have actually increased production,
12. In a related vein, whether unifying authority in a single party across both chambers of the U.S. Congress and the office of the president makes for more effective or decisive government is vigorously debated (Mayhew 1991, Fiorina 1996, Epstein and O'Halloran 1999, Laver 1999).
13. In this framework, second-tier explanations focus on fundamental differences with separation of powers or parliamentary systems related to regime or government type, and third-tier explanations include a plethora of other considerations not directly tied to legislative-executive relations.
14. Also, interestingly, there was a recent movement in judicial circles to revive the so-called nondelegation doctrine, which had been presumed dead since the 1930s, with specific application to environmental issues (on nondelegation, see Lowi 1979). Under this doctrine, delegating broad discretion to agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is deemed unconstitutional; notably, in American Trucking Associations v. Environmental Protection Agency, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that regulatory efforts to promulgate new ozone and particulate standards violated Article I of the Constitution vesting legislative powers in Congress. However, in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, the Supreme Court put a stop to this potential assault on agency delegation (see also Chapter 6).
15. Another form of commitment that government may find more difficult to solve and which will be covered in Chapter 5, involves implementing sanctions to punish those not behaving in a prescribed manner. Although durability may solve commitment problems related to expectations about a policy's longevity, it will not solve those stemming from expectations about whether government will have the nerve to punish transgressors (for example, manufacturers not meeting prescribed standards) even at the risk of, for example, throwing employees out of work.2. Environmental Action, Environmental Caution
1. Another typical justification for intervention, notably for economic regulation by which government decides issues such as firm entry, exit, and pricing, is imperfect competition stemming from market concentration, that is, government steps in when a monopoly or an oligopoly gives economic actors market power. However, concentration is not especially relevant for social regulation of consumption and production choices generally or for environmental policy specifically. Although imperfect competition can have environmental repercussions justifying intervention in selected instances, such as with respect to public utilities where economies of scale may make competition difficult and harm the environment, other market failures weigh far more heavily. (Economies of scale involve the reduction of the average cost of a product when it is made by a single producer.) As such, monopoly and oligopoly will be largely ignored.
2. One argument heard for discounting smokers' utility is that those with high chemical sensitivities, such as asthmatics, suffer through no fault of their own, whereas smoking is more or less voluntary. Also, along the lines that smokers should be harshly penalized, another possible justification for discounting smokers' utility is that symbolic gestures such as bans or the [Page 230]condemnation of other forms of environmentally damaging behavior might change attitudes in the population more generally and result in a more favorable state of affairs through a process of stigmatization; in other words, ostracizing smokers can be good (on stigma, which has been principally analyzed with application to means-based programs such as welfare, see Besley and Coate 1992).
3. Although not obviously what Sandel has in mind, as implied, an instrumental perspective on moral stigma could suggest that it helps reduce policy enforcement costs by internalizing beliefs that harming the environment is wrong (similar arguments are found, for example, in Glazer and Rothenberg 2001). However, moral stigma likely works far more on individuals than on larger economic decision makers, such as corporations, who are the primary focus of many environmental market mechanisms. Additionally, the positive effects of moral stigma would have to be quite large to justify eschewing markets on instrumental grounds.
4. For instance, Keohane, Revesz, and Stavins (1999) suggest a wide variety of reasons for hesitancy in adopting market instruments: legislators may find command-and-control more comfortable, familiar, better for hiding costs, more symbolically attractive, and better for distributing benefits; firms may be wary of market instruments if they push more costs onto their industry or undo established rights, undo barriers for new entrants into the industry, or eliminate a cost advantage relative to other firms in complying with regulations; besides philosophical objections, environmental organizations may be suspicious of market instruments if they threaten their ability to attract members, if they are more difficult to alter than command-and-control policy (which, frankly, would not seem to be the case), or because group leaders believe market mechanisms will be less effective in practice than theory.
5. In the spirit of the earlier discussion, the Coasian solution can only be realized with clearly defined and easily transferable property rights. The ability to make effective bargains is undermined if rights or their exchange are in question—for example, proper choices will not be made if those involved are worried that government will step in and appropriate rights by fiat.3. A Brief History of U.S. Environmental Policy
1. The definition of multiple use cited here is from the Federal Land and Policy Management Act of 1976.
2. Passage of the 1960 Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act codified the linkage between multiple use and sustained yield.
3. These groups were the Environmental Defense Fund, the Environmental Policy Institute, the Friends of the Earth, the Izaak Walton League of America, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Audubon Society, the National Parks and Conservation Association, the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, and the Wilderness Society.
4. Illustrative of the increasing attention to brownfields was the Clinton administration's 1997 announcement of a Brownfields National Partnership (Bartsch 1997) and, despite some complaints that it is statutorily inappropriate, the EPA's decision to employ some Superfund monies to help clean up selected brownfield sites ($91.3 million in fiscal year 2000; see, for example, General Accounting Office [GAO] 1998c, Reisch 2000a).
Climate change issues principally concern worries that increasing emissions of atmospheric greenhouse gases, such as of carbon dioxide, cause global warming. They are highlighted [Page 231]by the 1997 Kyoto, Japan, multinational agreement—although meaningful implementation of this accord has proven difficult. As mentioned earlier, ozone depletion involves worries about how gases, such as CFCs, might deplete stratospheric ozone, potentially resulting in changes such as increases in skin cancer. Besides prompting domestic efforts, worries about climate seemingly precipitated nations to sign the Montreal Protocol in 1987 (Benedick 1998). Although not completely alleviating broader concerns, as other chemicals threaten the ozone layer and developing nations increase their CFC production and consumption, this accord greatly reduced CFC production and usage, particularly in the industrial countries.
5. The United States had developed significant pollution problems by the end of the nineteenth century, such as waterborne diseases, particularly in urban areas, caused by a lack of sewers and water treatment (Melosi 1980, Andrews 1999), and urban air pollution produced by America's industrial engine (Hays 1959).
6. Perhaps even more surprising, unlike the soon-to-be-discussed General Revision Act, Congress has never revoked this authority. An obvious reason is that presidents have exercised caution in using these powers in ways that would alienate Congress. However, there are exceptions. For instance, in 1996 Bill Clinton created the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in Utah in a transparent election-time gesture to skeptical environmentalists. Lacking much local support—for example, both Utah senators opposed it—this action provoked unsuccessful cries for repealing the act. Predictably, the president then abstained from using the act in such incendiary ways until near his administrations end, when, because his worries about legislative retribution were marginal, he produced a torrent of lame-duck initiatives.
7. Separating agencies that are, intuitively, best served by coordination between different executive departments with contrasting orientations reflects and reinforces institutional and policy fragmentation. Although such differences should not be exaggerated, those favoring preservationist goals have historically found the DOI more receptive than the USDA.
8. Providing ranchers with grazing rights over specific lands eliminated the commons, but moral hazard remains problematic to the extent that ranchers worry that their rights may be adjusted or taken away after their leases expire. More generally, as will be discussed in Chapter 7, the guardianship of the Grazing Service and the BLM, although producing lands that are better than previously, comes under considerable attack from all sides.
9. As Kaufman's seminal analysis illustrates, the USFS had a reputation for developing mechanisms to keep producer interests at arm's length. It became known for its highly professional employees, decentralized decision making, and mission orientation. For many years the USFS was claimed to be one of the best managed American organizations—public or private (see Clarke and McCool 1996). However, although perhaps not as reviled as the BLM, the USFS would ultimately be subject to claims of special interest capture (for example, Hodges 1996).
10. Specifically, Nixon's executive order transferred two DOI bureaus—the Federal Water Quality Administration and the Office of Research on Effects of Pesticides on Wildlife and Fish—five Health, Education and Welfare agencies (Bureau of Water Hygiene, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, National Air Pollution Control Administration, Bureau of Radiological Health, and the Office of Pesticides Research), the Pesticides Regulation Division from the USDA, the Division of Radiation Standards from the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Interagency Federal Radiation Council.
11. Delegating authority locally over various environmental issues may be sensible. However, one can also convincingly argue that tasks that were locally delegated—and the nature of the defined intergovernmental relationship—do not correspond to those suggested by a rationalized treatment of environmental policy (see Chapter 6).[Page 232]4. National Political Influences on Environmental Policy
1. Public interest groups and business-commercial organizations may overlap financially. A variety of grassroots organizations, for example, many wise use groups, are substantially bankrolled by the corporate sector; similarly, more conservative interests frequently complain about government support for environmental organizations (to be discussed in more detail later).
2. Reiterating an earlier point, business and corporate interests have, at times, pushed for more efficient policy (for example, adopting market instruments) to meet goals more cheaply. But such preferences are often overwhelmed by incentives of specific corporations or business sectors to pursue their narrow self-interest.
3. Assertions that structural choice is exclusively the province of organized interests should be made cautiously because voters care about environmental conditions and their financial well-being. By this logic, elected officials will be penalized if mistakes in agency design cause poor environmental quality or high costs. A balance must be struck between narrow, concentrated interests and inefficiency (Becker 1983; Grossman and Helpman 1994; and Keohane, Revesz, and Stavins 1999 provide arguments consistent with this assertion).
4. In contrast, scholars such as Berry (1999) emphasize the influence of liberal environmental interest groups on congressional policy choices.
5. Somewhat counter to claims of legislative venality, others maintain that congressional impact is limited because large numbers of members deter effective organization for pursuing collective goals because of high transaction costs, leaving more nimble political actors such as the president with a strategic advantage (Moe and Howell 1999). However, the repeated nature of congressional activity and the coordination mechanisms, such as political parties, that legislators have created should substantially mitigate such obstacles. (The increasing complexity of institutions such as the presidency may also produce problems in getting subordinates to march in lockstep.) Thus, for example, legislators representing various concerns have little problem organizing around mutual concerns; in illustration, those interested in protecting auto producers effectively mobilize when air pollution standards threaten, as do western Republicans combating attempts to raise grazing fees.
6. The most notable recent threat occurred in 1993, when the House and Senate passed contrasting royalty payment schemes. The two chambers failed to reconcile their differences, and the legislation died in a House/Senate conference committee charged with forging a compromise. Currently, legislators, environmentalists, and mining interests are fighting over how much of a given parcel can be used as a mill site, with smaller sites reducing environmental damage and mining profitability.
7. These processes are frequently nuanced, with political actors anticipating each other's actions. Executive orders may be circumvented by strategic legislators passing statutes; vetoes may be rendered unnecessary by strategically amended bills; and presidential nominations of candidates mutually acceptable to all sides may defuse hostile conferral battles.
8. Although the following discussion focuses on federal courts (since the EPA's formation for the most part), state courts have jurisdiction over intrastate pollution issues and concerns of state regulatory agencies and the like.
9. Justices may also invite statutory reversal when they believe that the law ties their hands. Perhaps the best known example is the Supreme Court's ruling in TVA v. Hill (437 U.S. 153 ) in which the ESA unambiguously required that a dam threatening the existence of a species of snail darter not be built regardless of the desirability of an exception.
10. The next section shows how this confluence of preferences could have given agencies such as the EPA a zone of discretion; essentially, these agencies could change the status quo, and statutory reversion would be difficult as these agencies had presidential support.
[Page 233]11. Workload is an additional capacity issue. Interestingly, while the lower federal courts are overwhelmed by growing caseloads—a situation exacerbated after 1994, when squabbling between Republican senators and a Democratic president left both sides willing to leave judgeships unfilled at the expense of increasing delay and transaction costs (for example, in April 1997, twenty-three positions had been vacant for at least eighteen months)—the Supreme Court has not found restrictions in the number of cases that it can handle annually constraining in the sense of not being able to hear cases for reasons of workload as its present composition has made it more passive than in the past.
Also, a caveat is that the District of Columbia Court of Appeals handles more environmental cases than other courts (for example, the EPA litigates about two-thirds of its cases in the court) and thus its justices have become somewhat more familiar with environmental issues (Wald 1992). However, administrative cases are still a small absolute percentage of the court's workload, and judicial expertise regarding the environment remains modest (Banks 1999).5. Developing and Enforcing Environmental Policy
1. For those interested in the importance of program areas, for the EPA in fiscal 1997 there were 89 air cases, 111 water cases, 154 CERCLA cases, 49 RCRA cases, and 23 toxics/ pesticide cases. For the states, the numbers were 151 water, 164 air, and 64 RCRA.
2. A similar movement concerns environmental management systems and involves efforts to survey and improve firms' environmentally relevant activities.
3. This does not mean that CAFE standards are good public policy. Indeed, from an economist's perspective they are far from ideal and could be improved by simpler taxes; for example CAFE is estimated to be seven to ten times more expensive than a petroleum tax and is claimed to have possibly reduced average fuel efficiency in the 1980s by shifting automobile sales toward low fuel efficiency cars (Kleit 1990, Crandall 1992, Thorpe 1997).6. National or Local Control
1. Although a stable federal system helps check the abrogation of property rights—which is essential if markets are to function and, for that matter, if policies requiring investment are to succeed—establishing the processes preventing national government usurpation of authority is complex (for example, Weingast 1993, 1995; Qian and Weingast 1997; see also, Riker 1987). Put differently, since national political actors need to devise mechanisms for credibly committing to preserving federalism, they can be viewed as party to any bargain allowing local control.
2. Specifically, Tiebout's model suggests that, if different bundles of public goods are offered in different geographic polities, those with homogenous preferences will separate themselves through residential choice by “voting with their feet.”
3. Another complicating factor in stopping a bidding war is that the national government may find itself having to reserve vast arrays of policies as local leaders, faced with having to maintain a single national standard, may respond by manipulating others. For example, local leaders wishing to reduce business costs may respond to a national rule setting a strict environmental standard by relaxing local worker safety rules.
4. For instance, in the spirit of the analysis emphasizing the relationship between ability to pay and demand for environmental quality, Henry Butler and Jonathan Macey (1996b, 20), scholars of law and economics, argue that income effects may produce more environmental [Page 234]quality in high-income states: “In fact, competition between jurisdictions may lead to greater increases in environmental quality. It is often argued that environmental quality is a luxury good, in that individuals develop a greater concern for environmental issues as their incomes rise. If this is true, the key to increases in environmental quality may be found in higher incomes. This point has implications for the desirability of jurisdictional competition.” In reality, although they might be more proactive if the devolution of authority were less constraining, states only exceed current national environmental standards with modest frequency.
5. Politically, there may also be an imbalance in regard to costs if they are disproportionately borne by those outside the district; for example, midwestern automakers do not vote in California, providing the latter with an incentive to pass legislation that makes the former pay for cleaner air in their state (Elliott, Ackerman, and Millian 1985).
6. This inference is conditioned on assuming that national policies would be identical in centralized and federated systems. Intuitively, national standards might be stricter if local leaders could not exceed them when demand warrants, although prominent economist Wallace Oates (1997) speculates that national regulators tend toward excessively stringent standards.
7. The commissions domain includes areas of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, parts of Virginia, and the District of Columbia (one criticism is that this area is not comprehensive for covering all externalities) and involves representatives from each states environmental quality bureaucracy and the three relevant EPA regions. The commission may recommend initiatives, by majority vote, that the EPA may or may not approve. To date, the commission has passed two initiatives successfully, one regarding the use of low-emission vehicles and the other concerning the production of nitrogen oxide from power plants and large boilers (for a discussion of the commission, see Trinkle 1995).
8. One exception, already discussed, is setting designs and standards for automobile tailpipe emissions, given large economies of scale. Here, the national government almost certainly plays a positive coordinating role.7. Land Use Agencies
1. Although these environmental policies substantially affect land quality and value (for example, areas covered with toxics are diminished and devalued), this chapter concentrates on how land is directly managed, whereas Chapter 8 provides additional insight into the effect on lands of EPA regulatory policies.
2. Illustrative of the reasoning of skeptics is the policy advice furnished by the conservative, market-oriented Cato Institute in its manual designed for members of Congress: “[L]ands that have recreational or historical value should be sold or given to private conservation groups such as the Nature Conservancy or the Audubon Society. Such groups would surely do a better job of preserving those lands than has the federal government. Lands that have commercial value—such as timber and grazing lands—should be sold to the private business concerns that currently lease them from the federal government or to environmentalists who wish to buy them for conservation purposes.” (Stansel 2001, 176)
3. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation could also fall into this group and would reinforce many analytic themes. They are excluded only for the sake of brevity. These agencies, long associated with water projects such as dam construction, control about 21 million acres of land (almost 9 million by the bureau and over 12 million by the corps). Traditionally [Page 235]identified with economically inefficient, pork barrel projects, environmental pressures have recently made them more environmentally sensitive (for example, Clarke and McCool 1996). Also, the Department of Defense (DOD) is excluded, as its goals are geared neither toward conservation nor toward preservation. Nonetheless, the DOD owns about one percent of the total land in the United States, takes actions with significant environmental consequences, and spends billions of dollars annually on environmental programs.
4. This battle engulfed three of the four principal land management agencies, the courts, Congress, and several presidents (for a detailed description covering the period until 1993, see Yaffee 1994). It was highlighted by a summit called by Bill Clinton that ultimately led to a compromise—putting substantial environmental safeguards in place and transferring more than $ 1 billion to the region to ease the economic pain—that left both sides dissatisfied and appears to have contributed to the substantial decline of logging in the Northwest.
5. Bidder collusion over timber rights may also reduce prices received by the USFS (Brannman 1996; Baldwin, Marshall, and Richard 1997). Such collusion is facilitated by relying on oral auctions (where behavior is observable) rather than on sealed bids.
6. Claims of below market pricing are sometimes challenged on the grounds that (1) public land quality is poor, and (2) grazing rights have a capital value for which ranchers not originally receiving rights have to pay, that is, after the initial allocation of who could purchase grazing rights was decided, the windfall for ranchers subsequently controlling these rights was not as great as might appear, since they had to be purchased from the original grantees.
7. The National Marine Fisheries Service (part of the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) also has some responsibility for implementing the ESA.8. The EPA
1. DDT became commercially important after World War II because it was cheap, killed mosquitoes and lice carrying malaria and typhus, and had other desirable properties. But the slow rate at which it metabolizes means that it builds up in those consuming it directly or indirectly. Consequently, widespread DDT application threatened the ability of birds such as the American bald eagle and the peregrine falcon to reproduce successfully because it deformed embryos, thinned eggshells, and lowered hatching rates. The EPA banned DDT in 1973 (Dunlap 1981).
2. Also, although Superfund is heavily centralized, for those cleanups that require program monies because PRPs are not picking up the tab, states may influence which sites get cleaned up and how vigorously because, among other requirements, they must pay 10 percent of the costs.
3. Harking back to the discussion in Chapter 2 of indoor air pollution and justifications for intervention, it is not intuitively clear that radon involves a market failure. As no obvious public goods or externality problems exist, it must be argued that the market is incapable of furnishing information.
4. This discussion is related in spirit to that of divided government (where the presidency and control of Congress are split between the two major parties). Divided government may accentuate preference divergences between presidents and Congress and, therefore, give all involved an incentive to write a detailed contract, everything else being equal. However, as indicated by the fact that much key environmental legislation in the 1970s was written under divided government (notably with the Republican Richard Nixon in the White House and a [Page 236]Democratic Congress), the obstacle is obviously not divided government per se but preference divergence (see Krehbiel 1998).9. The Costs of Environmental Progress
1. Solow (2000) makes clear that there are more restrictive definitions of sustainability. However, his view is intuitive, sensible, and consistent with this analysis.
2. Not only are democracies likely to be more receptive to the production of environmental quality than other forms of government but the correlation between democracy and sociodemographic factors, such as wealth, that produce demand for environmental quality may further widen the gap between high- and low-demand countries.
3. Ironically, there are only small returns to populations burning rainforests, as the land's agricultural value is exhausted quickly (inducing still more burning), making a Coasian type contract by which payments are made to maintain the rainforest an obvious solution if enforceable.
4. Others now discuss this movement under the rubric of sustainability (for example, Kraft and Mazmanian 1999), but in this chapter the word sustainability is used in accordance with the precise definition offered earlier.
References[Page 237][Page 264]1975. The Monkey Wrench Gang. New York: Avon..1981. Clean Coal, Dirty Air. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press., and .1998. “Bean Counting for a Better Earth”. Regulation21:40–48..1995. Annual Editions: Environment.14thedition. Guilford, Conn.: Dushkin.1998. “Instrument Choice When Regulators and Firms Bargain”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management35:225–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1998.1032, and .1994. Governance by Green Taxes: Making Pollution Prevention Pay. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press..1997. “Cost Savings from the Use of Market Incentives for Pollution Control”. In Market-Based Approaches to Environmental Policy: Regulatory Innovations to the Fore. Edited by Richard F.Kosobud and Jennifer M.Zimmerman. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold., , , and .1997. “Environmental Federalism: Thinking Smaller”. In Environmental Federalism. Edited by Terry L.Anderson and Peter J.Hill. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield., and .1997. Enviro-capitalists: Doing Good while Doing Well. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield., and .Anderson, Terry L., and Randy T.Simmons, eds. 1993. The Political Economy of Customs and Culture: Informal Solutions to the Commons Problem. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.1997. “Delay on the Path to the Endangered Species List: Do Costs and Benefits Matter?” Resources for the Future Working Paper 97-44. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future..1999. “Waiting to Be Protected under the Endangered Species Act: The Political Economy of Regulatory Delay”. Journal of Law and Economics42:29–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/467417.1999. Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.1993. Ecology Wars: Environmentalism as If People Mattered. Bellevue, Wash.: Free Enterprise Press..2000. Undue Influence: Wealthy Foundations, Grant-Driven Environmental Groups, and Zealous Bureaucrats That Control Your Future. Bellevue, Wash.: Merril Press..1996. “Why Do Firms Volunteer to Exceed Environmental Regulation? Understanding Participation in EPA's 33/50 Program”. Land Economics72:413–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3146906, and .1999. “Do Community Characteristics Influence Environmental Outcomes? Evidence from the Toxics Release Inventory”. Southern Economic Journal65:691–716. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1061271, and .1995. “Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity, and the Environment”. Science268 (April 28):520–521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.268.5210.520, and others. [Page 238]1997. “State Expenditures and Policy Outcomes in Environmental Program Management”. Policy Studies Quarterly25:355–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1997.tb00027.x, and .1996. “The Role of Market Forces in EPA Enforcement Activity”. Journal of Regulatory Economics10:165–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00133530, and .1998. Congress and Air Pollution: Environmental Politics in the U.S. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.1997. “Bidder Collusion at Forest Service Timber Sales,” Journal of Political Economy105:657–699. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/262089, , and .2000. “Federal Grazing Regulations: Public Lands Council v. Babbitt”. CRS Issue Brief RS20453. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service..1999. Judicial Politics in the D.C. Circuit Court. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.1982. Going by the Book: The Problem of Regulatory Unreasonableness. Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press., and .1996. Getting It Right: Markets and Choices in a Free Society. Cambridge: MIT Press.1997. “New Life for Brownfields”. Issues in Science and Technology14:35–36..1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press., and .1998. Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and Political Science. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press., and .1988. The Theory of Environmental Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173513, and .1995. “Political Control versus Expertise: Congressional Choices about Administrative Procedures”. American Political Science Review89:62–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2083075.1999. Air Quality and Emissions Trading: An Overview of Current Issues. CRS Report 98-563. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.1983. “A Theory of Competition among Pressure Groups for Political Influence”. Quarterly Journal of Economics98:371–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/18860171985. Parallel Systems: Redundancy in Government. Berkeley: University of California Press.1998. Ozone Diplomacy: New Directions in Safeguarding the Planet. Enlarged edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press..1977. Lobbying for the People: The Political Behavior of Public Interest Groups. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.1999. The New Liberalism: The Rising Power of Citizen Groups. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.1992. “Understanding Welfare Stigma: Taxpayer Resentment and Statistical Discrimination”. Journal of Public Economics48:165–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727%2892%2990025-B, and .1999. “Centralized versus Decentralized Provision of Local Public Goods: A Political Economy Analysis”. NBER Working Paper No. W7084. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research., and .1997. “Behavior Intentions of the Public after Bans on Smoking in Restaurants and Bars”. American Journal of Public Health87:2042–2044. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.87.12.2042, and .1997. Air Quality: EPA's Proposed New Ozone and Particulate Matter Standards. CRS Issue Brief 97-8ENR. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service., , and . [Page 239]1984. “The Taking of Land: When Should Compensation Be Paid?” Quarterly Journal of Economics99:71–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1885721, , and .1995. Restructuring Environmental Big Business. Center for the Study of American Business Policy Study No. 124. St. Louis, Mo.: CSAB., and .1998. “EPA Enforcement, Firm Response Strategies, and Stockholder Wealth: An Empirical Examination”. Managerial and Decision Economics19:167–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/%28SICI%291099-1468%28199805%2919:3%3C167::AID-MDE882%3E3.0.CO;2-7, , and .1987. Pesticides and Politics: The Life Cycle of a Public Issue. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.1998. Revolving Gridlock: Politics and Policy from Carter to Clinton. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press., and .1996. “Potential Competition and Possible Collusion in Forest Service Timber Auctions”. Economic Inquiry34:730–745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1996.tb01407.x.1993. Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.1997. “The Distribution of Pollution: Community Characteristics and Exposure to Air Toxics”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management32:233–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0967, and .1987. Bureaucratic Discretion: Law and Policy in Federal Regulatory Agencies. New York: Pergamon.1994. “Social Regulation”. In Handbook of Regulation and Administrative Law. Edited by David H.Rosenbloom and Richard D.Schwartz. New York: Marcel Dekker.1995. Blue Skies, Green Politics: The Clean Air Act of 1990 and Its Implementation.2dedition. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.2001. Endangered Species: Difficult Choices. CRS Report IB 1072. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service., , and .1994. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality..2dedition. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.Bullard, Robert., ed. 1993. Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. Boston: South End Press.1996a. “Externalities and the Matching Principle: The Case for Reallocating Environmental Regulatory Authority”. Yale Law and Policy Review14:23–66., and .1996b. Using Federalism to Improve Environmental Policy. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute., and .1997. “Whither Pesticides? The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996”. Regulation20:57–62.Cahn, Robert, ed. 1985. An Environmental Agenda for the Future by Leaders of America's Foremost Environmental Organizations. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court”. American Political Science Review82:1109–1127. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1961752, and .1998. The National Environmental Policy Act: An Agenda for the Future. Bloomington: Indiana University Press..1989. “A Theory of Political Control and Agency Discretion”. American Journal of Political Science33:588–611. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111064, , and .1995. Governments as Interest Groups: Intergovernmental Lobbying and the Federal System. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.. [Page 240]1989. “Legislative Institutions, Lobbying, and the Endogenous Choice of Regulatory Instruments”. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization5:333–353.1994. “Designing Pollution Market Instruments: Cases of Uncertainty”. Contemporary Economic Policy14:114–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1994.tb00450.x, and .1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin..1993. Federal Land, Western Anger: The Sagebrush Rebellion and Environmental Politics. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press..Center for Public Integrity. 1998. Unreasonable Risks: The Politics of Pesticides. Washington, D.C.: Center for Public Integrity.Center for Responsive Politics. 1999. The Big Picture: The Money behind the 1998 Elections. Washington, D.C.: Center for Responsive Politics.1995. “From the Cradle to the Grave: An Historical Perspective on RCRA”. Natural Resources and Environment10:21–23, 73–74., and .1998. “Does Air Quality Matter? Evidence from the Housing Market”. NBER Working Paper No. 6826. Boston: National Bureau of Economic Research., and .1993. Cleaning Up the Mess: Implementation Strategies in Superfund. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution., and .1995. “Not Just Another Special Interest: Intergovernmental Representation”. In Interest Group Politics. 4th edition. Edited by Allan J.Cigler and Burdett A.Loomis. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.Clark, Ray, and LarryCanter, eds. 1997. Environmental Policy and NEPA: Past, Present, and Future. Boca Raton, Fla.: St. Lucie Press.1996. Staking out the Terrain: Power and Performance among Natural Resource Agencies., and .2dedition. Albany: State University of New York Press.1986. Timber and the Forest Service. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.1960. “The Problem of Social Cost”. Journal of Law and Economics3:1–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/466560.1997. Grazing Fees and Rangeland Management. CRS Issue Brief 96006. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service., and .1994. Challenging the Rules: Litigation and Bargaining in the Administrative Process. Ph.D. diss., Department of Political Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor..1997. “Assessing Consensus: The Promise and Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking”. Duke Law Journal46:1255–1349. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1372989.1994. “Solving the Chevron Puzzle”. Law and Contemporary Problems57:65–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1192047, and .1996. “Judicial Deference to Agency Action”. Southern California Law Review69:431–476., and .1993. Element of Risk: The Politics of Radon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.1988. New Federalism: Intergovernmental Reform from Nixon to Reagan. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.1970. The Origins of the Standing Committees and the Development of the Modem House. Houston, Texas: Rice University..1982. “The Cost of Coase”. Journal of Legal Studies11:1–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/467690Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law. CRS Issue Brief RL30030. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service..1995. “The Evolution of Environmentalism”. In Environmental Politics and Policy. 2d edition. Edited by James P.Lester. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press., and . [Page 241]1997. “Environmental Pressure Groups and State Environmental Expenditures”. Journal of Private Enterprise13:60–67., , and .Council of Economic Advisors. 2000. Economic Report of the President. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Council on Environmental Quality. 1996. 25th Anniversary Report. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Council of State Governments. 1999. Resource Guide to State Environmental Management.5thedition. Lexington, Ky.: Council of State Governments.1992. “The Demand for Environmental Quality”. Washington University, St. Louis..1994. “The Revealed Demand for a Public Good: Evidence from Endangered and Threatened Species”. University of Chicago..1992. “Policy Watch: Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards”. Journal of Economic Perspectives6:171–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.6.2.1711997. “Clearing the Air: EPA's Self-Assessment of Clean-Air Policy”. Regulation4:35–46., , and .Cronon, William, ed. 1995. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York: Norton.1992. “The Determinants of Pesticide Regulation: A Statistical Analysis of EPA Decision Making”. Journal of Political Economy100:175–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/261812, , , , and .1992. “Environmental Economics: A Survey”. Journal of Economic Literature30:675–740., and .1997. “The Consequences of Consensus: Dangerous Compromises of the Food Quality Protection Act”. Washington University Law Quarterly75:1155–1206.1999. “Shattering the Fragile Case for Judicial Review of Rulemaking”. Virginia Law Review85:1243–1334. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/10738691998. “Judicial Partisanship and Obedience to Legal Doctrine: Whistleblowing on the Federal Courts of Appeals”. Yale Law Journal107:2155–2176. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/797418, and .1993. Forest Resource Policy. New York: Wiley., , and .1981. Public Lands Politics: Interest Group Influence on the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.1994. The Green Rainbow: Environmental Groups in Western Europe. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.1980. Forest and Range Policy: Its Development in the United States., and .2dedition. New York: McGraw-Hill.1997. Regulating Pollution: Does the System Work?Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future., and .1998. Pollution Control in the United States: Evaluating the System. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future., and .1998. “Critically Evaluating America's Pollution Control System”. Resources130:17–18..1985. “Implementing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976: Problems and Prospects”. Public Administration Quarterly9:218–236..1996. “The Structure of Reciprocity: A Formal Theory of Electoral Uncertainty”. Stanford University.[Page 242]1991. “Enforcement of Pollution Regulations in a Declining Industry”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management21:260–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696%2891%2990030-M, and .1999. “Changing the Price of Pork: The Impact of Local Cost Sharing on Legislators' Demands for Distributive Public Goods”. Journal of Public Economics71:247–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727%2898%2900071-1, and .1986. “Legislators and Interest Groups: How Unorganized Interests Get Represented”. American Political Science Review80:89–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1957085, and .1985. The Politics of Deregulation. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution., and .2000. “The Institutional Basis of Non-Market Pricing: Modeling Valuations of Grazing Lands”. University of Rochester., and .1999. The Political Economy of Environmental Policy: A Public Choice Approach to Market Instruments. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.1996. The Making of Economic Policy: A Transaction-Cost Politics Perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press.1994. “Reform of the 1872 Mining Law: A Primer”. In Multiple Conflicts over Multiple Uses. Edited by Terry L.Anderson. Bozeman, Mont.: Political Economy Research Center.1995. Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: MIT Press..1972. “Ups and Downs with Ecology: The Issue-Attention Cycle”. Public Interest28:38–50..1999. “Predicting Bureaucratic Control: Evidence from the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments”. Law and Policy29:1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9930.00063, and .1993. “Postmaterialism and the Economic Condition”. American Journal of Political Science37:737–769. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111573, and .1997. “Congress and the Clinton OMB: Unwilling Partners in Regulatory Oversight,” Regulation20:17–23., and .1995. “Public Opinion and Environmental Policy”. In Environmental Politics and Policy: Theories and Evidence. 2d edition. Edited by James P.Lester. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.1993. “Of Global Concern: Results of the Health of the Planet Survey”. Environment35:6–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1993.9929122, , and .1995. “Global Concern for the Environment: Is Affluence a Prerequisite?” Journal of Social Issues51:121–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01351.x, and .1981. DDT: Scientists, Citizens, and Public Policy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.1992. The Administrative Presidency Revisited: Public Lands, the BLM, and the Reagan Revolution. Albany: State University of New York Press.1954. Political Parties, Their Organization and Activity in the Modem State. New York: Wiley..1995. A Moment on the Earth: The Coming Age of Environmental Optimism. New York: Viking..Echeverria, John D., and RaymondBooth Eby, eds. 1995. Let the People Judge: Wise Use and the Private Property Rights Movement. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.1996. “A Note on the Economics of Institutions”. In Empirical Studies of Institutional Change. Edited by Lee J.Alston, ThrainnEggertsson, and Douglass C.North. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174633. [Page 243]1996. Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future. Washington, D.C.: Island Press., and .1985. “Toward a Theory of Statutory Evolution: The Federalization of Environmental Law”. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization1:313–340., , and .Environmental Defense Fund. 1999. 1998 Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Defense Fund.1991. “Mobility and Redistribution”. Journal of Political Economy99:828–858. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/261780, and .1999. Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making under Separate Powers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609312, and .1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press., and .1991. “Debunking the Myth of Interest Group Invincibility in the Courts”. American Political Science Review85:205–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1962886, and .1993. Bargaining with the State. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.1998. “Campaign Spending and Incumbency: An Alternative Simultaneous Equations Approach”. Journal of Politics60:355–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2647913, and .1991. “Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions”. Yale Law Journal101:331–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/7968051992. “Making the Deal Stick: Enforcing the Original Constitutional Structure of Lawmaking in the Modern Regulatory State”. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization8:165–189., and .1996. “Revitalizing Environmental Federalism”. Michigan Law Review95:570–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/12901622000. “Amazon Timber Stewards Busted for Bribes”. Available: http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2000/10/10112000/loggingbribes_324l3.asp?site=email..1999. Toxic Deception: How the Chemical Industry Manipulates Science, Bends the Law, and Endangers Your Health. Monroe, Me.: Common Courage Press., , and the Center for Public Integrity.1997a. “Environmental Federalism in a Global Economy”. Virginia Law Review83:1283–1329. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1073758“Parody Lost/Pragmatism Regained: The Ironic History of the Coase Theorem”. Virginia Law Review83:397–428. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/10737811997b.1987. “Information and the Coase Theorem”. Journal of Economic Perspectives1:113–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.126.96.36.1999. “Independent Judges, Dependent Judiciary: Explaining Judicial Independence”. Southern California Law Review72:353–384.1990. “Congressional Influence on Bureaucracy”. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization6:1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jleo/6.special_issue.1, and .1997. “Can the States Be Trusted?” In The New Federalism: Can the States Be Trusted? Edited by JohnFerejohn and Barry R.Weingast. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press., and .1989. Congress, Keystone of the Washington Establishment.2dedition. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.1996. Divided Government.2dedition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.1995. Making Environmental Policy. Berkeley: University of California Press.[Page 244]1995. Regulatory Takings: Law, Economics, and Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.1992. Soft Coal, Hard Choices: The Economic Welfare of Bituminous Coal Miners, 1890–1930. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195067255.001.00011995. “Pests, Pollution, and Politics: The Nixon Administration's Pesticide Policy”. Agriculture History71:442–456..1998. The Promise and Peril of Environmental Justice. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.1995. “Designing More Efficient Markets: Lessons from Los Angeles Smog Control,” Journal of Law and Economics38:19–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/467324, and .1987. “The Grass Roots Connection: Environmental Activists and Senate Roll Calls”. American Journal of Political Science31:484–510. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111280, and .2000. “Adding up Pollution Prosecutions”. National Journal32 (October 21): 3330..1998. “GOP's Secret Weapon against Regulations: Finesse”. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report56 (September 5): 2305, 2314..1991. Islands under Siege: National Parks and the Politics of External Threats. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Friends of the Earth. 1999. 1998 Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: Friends of the Earth.2000. Regulating Wetlands Protection: Environmental Federalism and the States. Albany: State University of New York Press., and .1998. “Reinventing EPA Enforcement”. Natural Resources and Environment12:180–182, 223–224.1999. “Markets and Regulatory Hold-Up Problems”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management37:151–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1998.1063, and .1989. “Politics and the Choice of Durability”. American Economic Review79:1207–1213..2001. The Causes of Governmental Success and Failure. Cambridge: Harvard University Press., and .1999. Clearing the Air: The Real Story of the War on Air Pollution. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute.1994. “Selling Environmental Indulgences”. Kyklos47:573–596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.1994.tb02067.x1992. Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin..1995. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management: History and Analysis of Merger Proposals. CRS Issue Brief 95-117ENR. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service., and .1995. “Regulating Pesticides”. In Risk vs. Risk: Tradeoffs in Protecting Health and the Environment. Edited by John D.Graham and Jonathan BaertWiener. Cambridge: Harvard University Press., and .1999. Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis., , and .7thedition. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.1996. “Compliance and Enforcement: Air Pollution Regulation in the U.S. Steel Industry”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management31:96–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0034, and .1996. The Demise of Environmentalism in American Law. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.[Page 245]1991. “The Industrial Organization of Corporate Political Activity”. Southern Economic Journal57:727–738. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1059786, , and .1994. “The Determinants of Industry Political Activity, 1978–1986”. American Political Science Review88:911–926. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2082716, , and .1994. “Protection for Sale”. American Economic Review88:833–860., and .1999. “Economic Models of Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior”. American Economic Review89:501–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.501, and .1995. “Economic Growth and the Environment”. Quarterly Journal of Economics110:353–377. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2118443, and .1990. “The Political Economy of Environmental Regulation: Towards a Unifying Theory”. Public Choice65:21–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF001392891998. “Policy Watch: Government Analysis of the Benefits and Costs of Regulation”. Journal of Economic Perspectives12:201–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.12.4.2011999. “The Impact of Economics on Environmental Policy”. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies Working Paper No. 99–4. Washington, D.C.: American Economics Institute and Brookings Institution.1991. “The Costs and Benefits of Regulation: Review and Synthesis”. Yale Journal of Regulation8:233–278., and .1974. When Governments Come to Washington: Governors, Mayors, and Intergovernmental Lobbying. New York: Free Press.1991. 1991–1992 Green Index. Washington, D.C.: Island Press., and .1996. Participation in Congress. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.2001. “Company Names Are Busting Out All Over”. New York Times, February 18, C1..1993. “Politics and Social Costs: Estimating the Impact of Collective Action on Hazardous Waste Facilities”. Rand Journal of Economics24:101–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25559551995a. “Pollution as News: Media and Stock Market Reactions to the Toxics Release Inventory Data”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management28:98–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.10071995b. “Testing for Environmental Racism: Prejudice, Profits, Political Power?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management14:107–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/33254351994. “Strategic Regulators and the Choice of Rulemaking Procedures: The Selection of Formal vs. Informal Rules in Regulating Hazardous Waste”. Law and Contemporary Problems57:111–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1192048, and .1999. Calculating Risks: The Spatial and Political Dimensions of Hazardous Waste Policy. Cambridge: MIT Press., and .1985. “The Political Economy of Group Membership”. American Political Science Review79:79–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1956120.1991. Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919–1981. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons”. Science162:1243–1248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243.1982. Collective Action. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press..1988. “Enforcement Leverage When Penalties Are Restricted”. Journal of Public Economics37:29–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727%2888%2990003-5.1995. “Is Cooperation the Answer? Canadian Environmental Enforcement in Comparative Perspective”. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management14:221–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3325151. [Page 246]1982. “Negotiating Regulations: A Cure for Malaise”. Georgetown Law Journal71:1–118.2000. “Assessing the Assessors: The Actual Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking”. New York University Environmental Law Journal9:32–59.1997. “Compliance and Enforcement Changes in Congress and EPA”. Natural Resources and Environment11:42–47.1959. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890–1920. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.1998. Explorations in Environmental History: Essays by Samuel P. Hays. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.1996. “Environmental Commitment among the States: Integrating Alternative Approaches to State Environmental Policy”. Publius26:41–58., , and .1978. “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment”. In The New American Political System. Edited by AnthonyKing. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute..1998a. “The Enforcement of Pollution Control Laws: Inspections, Violations, and Self-Reporting,” Review of Economics and Statistics80:141–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3003322.1998b. “Environmental Protection in the Federalist System: The Political Economy of NPDES Inspections”. Economic Inquiry36:305–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1998.tb01716.x.1998c. “The Revealed Preferences of State EPAs: Stringency, Enforcement, and Substitution”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management35:242–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1998.1028.1994. The War against the Greens: The “Wise Use” Movement, the New Right, and Anti-Environmental Violence. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books..1995. “An Economic Analysis of Takings”. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization11:64–86.1995. “Beyond the Grazing Fee: An Agenda for Rangeland Reform”. Policy Analysis No. 234. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute., and .1998. “Making Things Stick: Enforcement and Compliance”. Oxford Review of Economic Policy14:50–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/14.4.501999. “Regulatory Dealing: Revisiting the Harrington Paradox”. Journal of Public Economics72:361–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727%2898%2900098-X, and .1991. “Constraining Administrative Decisions: A Critical Examination of the Structure and Process Hypothesis”. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization7:355–372., and .1990. “Superfund Expenditures and Cleanup Priorities: Distributive Politics or the Public Interest?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management9:455–483. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/33252581996. “Dead Wood”. Washington Monthly28:12–18..1997. “Why Does Government's Share of the National Income Grow? An Assessment of the Recent Literature on the U.S. Experience”. In Perspectives on Public Choice: A Handbook. Edited by Dennis C.Mueller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., and .1998. “Regulatory Costs in Profile”. Policy Sciences31:301–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:10044499117451995. The Political Economy of Public Administration: Institutional Choice in the Public Sector. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO97805115281631999. Lobbying Together: Interest Group Coalitions in Legislative Politics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.[Page 247]1997. The 1872 Mining Law: Time for Reform? CRS Issue Brief 89130. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service..1996. Enforcing the Law: The Case of the Clean Water Acts. Armonk, N.Y.: Sharpe., and .1953. “The Marasmus of the ICC: The Commission, the Railroads, and the Public Interest”. Yale Law Journal61:467–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/7935861995. “Public Support for Environmental Protection: The Impact of Objective Problems and Subjective Values in 43 Societies”. PS: Political Science and Politics28:57–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/420583.1995. “Interest Groups and Environmental Policy”. In Environmental Politics and Policy: Theories and Evidence. Edited by James P.Lester. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press., , and .1997a. “Rethinking Federalism”. Journal of Economic Perspectives11:43–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.11.4.43, and .1997b“The Political Economy of Federalism”. In Perspectives on Public Choice. Edited by Dennis C.Mueller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., and .1997. “Takings, Compensation, and Equal Treatment for Owners of Developed and Undeveloped Property”. Journal of Law and Economics40:403–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/467378.2000a. “Activists for Roadless Forests Converge on Utah”. Salt Lake Tribune, July 18, B8..2000b“Cutthroat Battle: Colorado River Trout Endangered, Says Suit”. Salt Lake Tribune, November 18, D2..1997. Tobacco Control Laws: Implementation and Enforcement. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand., and .1995. “Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing”. Journal of Economic Literature33:132–163., , , and .1994. Civic Environmentalism: Alternatives to Regulation in States and Communities. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press..1994. The Federal Civil Service System and the Problem of Bureaucracy: The Economics and Politics of Institutional Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226401775.001.0001, and .1996. “Economic Assessment of the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market: A New Emissions Trading Program for Los Angeles”. Land Economics72:277–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3147197, and1975. Clean Air: The Policies and Politics of Pollution Control. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.1997. The Protest Business? Mobilizing Campaign Groups. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press., and .1994. Trees and People: Forestland Ecosystems and Our Future. Washington, D.C.: Regnery.1998. “The Political Economy of Market-Based Environmental Policy: The U.S. Acid Rain Program”. Journal of Law and Economics41: 37–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/467384, and .1998. “The Market for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions”. American Economic Review88:669–685., , and . [Page 248]1995. “Adversarial Legalism and American Government”. In The New Politics of Public Policy. Edited by Marc K.Landy and Martin A.Levin. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.1997. “Political and Legal Obstacles to Collaborative Ecosystem Planning”. Ecology Law Quarterly24:871–875.1999. “Trying to Have It Both Ways: Local Discretion, Central Control, and Adversarial Legalism in American Environmental Regulation”. Ecology Law Quarterly25:718–732.1998. The Economic Approach to Environmental and Natural Resources.2dedition. Orlando, Fla.: Dryden Press.1998. “Does Smog Regulation Replace Private Self Protection?” Columbia University.2000. “United States Pollution Intensive Trade Trends from 1972 to 1992”. Tufts University.1997. “Demand for Environmental Goods: Evidence from Voting Patterns on California Initiatives”. Journal of Law and Economics40: 137–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/467369, and .1960. The Forest Ranger, a Study in Administrative Behavior. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press..1981. What Price Incentives? Economics and the Environment. Boston: Auburn House..1999. “The Positive Political Economy of Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy”. In Environmental and Public Economics: Essays in Honor of Wallace Oates. London: Edward Elgar., , and .1999. Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy..2dedition. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.1998. Reinventing Government: A Fifth Year Report Card. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.1998. “Toxics Release Information: A Policy Tool for Environmental Protection”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management36:243–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1998.1048, , , and .1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies.2dedition. New York: HarperCollins.1990. “The Effect of Annual Changes in Automobile Fuel Economy Standards”. Journal of Regulatory Economics2:151–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF001659312000. First Along the River: A Brief History of the U.S. Environmental Movement..2dedition. San Francisco: Acada Books.1996. Who Controls Public Lands? Mining, Forestry, and Grazing Policies, 1870–1990. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press..1987. Reforming Bureaucracy: The Politics of Institutional Choice. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall., and .1997. “Information as Regulation: The Effect of Community Right to Know Laws on Toxic Emissions”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management32:109–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0955, and .1991. “The Reagan Judiciary and Environmental Policy: The Impact of Appointments to the Federal Court of Appeals”. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review18:669–713.[Page 249]1996. Environmental Policy and Politics: Toward the Twenty-first Century. New York: HarperCollins.2000a. “Environmental Policy in Congress: Revolution, Reform, or Gridlock?” In Environmental Politics. 4th edition. Edited by Norman J.Vig and Michael E.Kraft. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.2000b. “U.S. Environmental Policy and Politics: From the 1960s to the 1990s”. Journal of Policy History12:17–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jph.2000.0006Kraft, Michael E., and DanielMazmanian, eds. 1999. Toward Sustainable Communities: Transition and Transformation in Environmental Policy. Cambridge: MIT Press.1996. “Committee Power, Leadership, and the Median Voter: Evidence from the Smoking Ban”. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization12:234–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jleo.a023359.1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226452739.001.0001.1997. “Earth in the Balance Sheet: Economists Go for the Green”. Available: http://www.mit.edu./krugman/www/green.html..1993. “The Politics of Bureaucratic Competition: The Case of Natural Resource Policy”. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management12:700–725. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3325347, and .1961. Capital in the American Economy: Its Formation and Financing. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.1995. Attitudes toward the Environment: Twenty-five Years after Earth Day. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute., and .1996. “Public Opinion on the Environment”. Resources124:5–7., and .1969. “Redundancy, Rationality, and the Problem of Duplication and Overlap”. Public Administration Review29:346–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/973247.1995. “The New Politics of Environmental Policy”. In The New Politics of Public Policy. Edited by Marc K.Landy and Martin A.Levin. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.1994. The Environmental Protection Agency: Asking the Wrong Questions from Nixon to Clinton., , and .2dedition. New York: Oxford University Press.1992. “Institutional Features of Congressional Decisions: The Fight to Prohibit Smoking on Airlines”. Public Choice18:301–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00140924, and .1999. “Divided Parties, Divided Government”. Legislative Studies Quarterly24:5–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/440298.1998. “The Impact of Industry Structure and Penalty Policies on Incentives for Compliance and Regulatory Enforcement”. Journal of Regulatory Economics14:127–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008005201435, and .1999. Summaries of Environmental Laws Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (Updated). CRS Report RL30022. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.1995. Privatizing Public Lands. Oxford: Oxford University Press..1998. “Putting the Antiquities Act in Perspective”. In Visions of the Grand Staircase-Escalante: Examining Utah's Newest National Monument. Edited by Robert B.Keiter, Sarah B.George, and JoroWalker. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.1995. “Federalism and State Environmental Policy”. In Environmental Politics and Policy. Edited by James P.Lester. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.2000. Public Policy: An Evolutionary Approach., and [Page 250]2dedition. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.1974. “Environmental Decisionmaking and the Role of the Courts”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review122:509–555. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3311540.1996. “Environmental Regulations and Manufacturers' Location Choice: Evidence from the Census of Manufactures”. Journal of Public Economics62:5–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727%2896%2901572-1.1997. “A Note on Environmental Federalism: Interpreting Some Contradictory Results”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management33:359–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1997.0997.1999. “NIMBY Taxes Matter: The Case of State Hazardous Waste Disposal Taxes”. Journal of Public Economics74:31–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727%2899%2900021-3.1998. Unreasonable Risk: The Politics of Pesticides. Washington, D.C.: Center for Public Integrity..1998. Eco-Wars: Political Campaigns and Social Movements. New York: Columbia University Press.1981. Locking up the Range: Federal Lands Control and Grazing. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.1992. “Bureaucratic Issues and Environmental Concerns: A Review of the History of Federal Land Ownership and Management”. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy15:467–487.1979. The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States.2d edition. New York: Norton.1997. “The Private Production of Public Goods: Organizational Maintenance, Managers' Objectives, and Collective Goods”. American Political Science Review91:308–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/29523581999. “Foundation Patronage toward Citizen Groups and Think Tanks: Who Gets Grants?” Journal of Politics61:758–776. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/26478271992. The Dimensions of Federalism: State Governments and Pollution Control. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.1994. The Capacity for Wonder: Preserving National Parks. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.1998. “Public Provision of Intergenerational Goods: The Case of Preserved Lands”. American Journal of Political Science42:1082–1107. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/29918501990. “Effectiveness of the EPA's Regulatory Enforcement: The Case of Industrial Effluent Standards”. Journal of Law and Economics33: 331–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/467208, and .1992. Informational Approaches to Regulation. Cambridge: MIT Press., and .“Managing Paradise: National Parks”. 1993. Economist, February 6, A31.1999. “Wild Bill Douglass Last Stand: A Retrospective on the First Supreme Court Environmentalist”. Temple Law Review72:111–196..1990. “Explaining Administrative Process: Normative, Positive, and Critical Stories of Legal Development”. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization. 6:267–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jleo/6.special_issue.2671988. “What Reagan Promised, What Reagan Delivered”. National Journal30 (May 14): 1298., with National Journal staff.1991. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946–1990. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.1996. “Analyzing the Airwaves Auction”. Journal of Economic Perspectives10:159–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.10.1.159, and .1999. Clean Air Act Issues. CRS Issue Brief 97007. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.[Page 251]2000. “Presidential Pork: Executive Veto Power and Distributive Politics”. American Political Science Review94:117–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2586384.1996. “Contributors, Candidates, and the Nature of Electoral Support”. Paper presented at W. Allen Wallis Conference on Political Economy, University of Rochester, October 4., and .2000. “The Time to Give: PAC Motivations and Electoral Timing”. Political Analysis8:239–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pan.a029815, and .1990. “The Impact of Environmental Regulation on Industry Location Decisions: The Motor Vehicle Industry”. Land Economics66:67–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3146684, and .1989. “Structure and Process, Politics and Policy: Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies”. Virginia Law Review74:431–482. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1073179, , and .1991. “The Internal Structure of EPA Rulemaking”. Law and Contemporary Problems54:57–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/11918741985. “Sequential Elections with Limited Information”. American Journal of Political Science29:480–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111140, and .1986. “Information, Electoral Equilibria, and the Democratic Ideal”. Journal of Politics48:909–937. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2131005, and .1997. “The Coase Theorem with Private Information”. California Institute of Technology., and .1999. “Taking the Coase Theorem Seriously”. Economics and Philosophy15:235–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S02662671000039901997. “Competition in Federal Systems: The Role of Political and Financial Constraints”. In The New Federalism: Can the States Be Trusted? Edited by JohnFerejohn and Barry R.Weingast. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press., and .1995. “The Courts and Environmental Policy”. In Environmental Politics and Policy..2dedition. Edited by James P.Lester. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.1999. “Legal Fiction: The Place of the Coase Theorem in Law and Economics”. Economics and Philosophy15:209–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266267100003989Meiners, Roger, and AndrewMorriss, eds. 1999. The Common Law and the Environment: Rethinking the Statutory Basis for Modern Environmental Law. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.1983. Regulation and the Courts: The Case of the Clean Air Act. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution..1992. “Pollution Deadlines and the Coalition for Failure”. In Environmental Politics: Public Costs, Private Rewards. Edited by Michael S.Greve and Fred L.Smith Jr.New York: Praeger..1997. “The Political Roots of the Judicial Diilemma”. Administrative Law Review49:585–598..1998. “Strange Bedfellows Make Normal Politics: An Essay”. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum9:75–93..1980. Pollution and Reform in American Cities, 1870–1930. Austin: University of Texas Press..1999. The D.C. Circuit Remands the Ozone and Particulate Matter Clean-Air Standards: American Trucking Associations v. EPA. CRS Issue Brief RS20228. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service., and . [Page 252]2001. The Supreme Court Upholds EPA Standard-Setting under the Clean Air Act: Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns. CRS Report RS20860. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service., and .1994. “The Impact of Global Warming on Agriculture: A Ricardian Analysis”. American Economic Review84:753–771., , and .1997. “Golden Rules for Transboundary Pollution”. Duke Law Journal46:931–1019. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/13729151999. “When the Cause Is Just”. Journal of Business Strategy20:27..1992. Economics, Organization and Management. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall., and .Managerial Dilemmas: The Political Economy of Hierarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO97811391737421992.1995. Enforcement at the EPA: High Stakes and Hard Choices. Austin: University of Texas Press.1998. “Publication Bias and Research on Passive Smoking: Comparison of Published and Unpublished Studies”. Journal of the American Medical Association280:250–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.250, and .1997. “The Determinants of Domestic and Foreign Corporate Political Activity”. Journal of Politics59:1096–1113. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2998594, , and .1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press., and .1995. “Public Choice and the EPA: Empirical Evidence on Carbon Emissions Violations”. Public Choice83:127–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF010476881989. “The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure”. In Can the Government Govern? Edited by JohnChubb and PaulPeterson. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.1990. “Political Institutions: The Neglected Side of the Story”. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization6:213–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jleo/6.special_issue.2131994. “The Institutional Foundations of Democratic Governments–-A Comparison of Presidential and Parliamentary Systems”. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics150:171–195., and .1999. “The Presidential Power of Unilateral Action”. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization15:132–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jleo/15.1.132, and .1994. “Presidents and the Politics of Structure”. Law and Contemporary Problems57:1–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1192044, and .1997. “Two Versions of the Tragedy of the Commons”. Economic Design2:399–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02499143, and .1989. Public Choice II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1999. “After a Decade of Toxic Talk–-Congress Is (Maybe) About to Turn to Revising the Superfund Hazardous-Waste Cleanup Program”. National Journal31 (October 30): 3139–3140..1992. Interest Groups: Cases and Characteristics. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.1995. “Strategizing in Small Group Decision Making: Host State Identification in the Southeast Compact”. Public Choice82:1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01047726, and .1997. “The Voluntary Provision of a Pure Public Good: The Case of Reduced CFC Emissions and the Montreal Protocol”. Journal of Public Economics63:331–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727%2896%2901598-8, and .1997. “Devolution, Grants, and Fiscal Competition”. Journal of Economic Perspectives11:65–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.11.4.65[Page 253]1997. “EPA Effectiveness at Reducing the Duration of Plant-Level Noncompliance”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management34:54–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1997.1003National Audubon Society. 1999. Annual Report 98. Washington, D.C.: National Audubon Society.“National Park Status Sought for Paterson Waterfall Site”. 2001. New York Times February 19, B8.National Performance Review. 1993. Environmental Protection Agency: Accompanying Report of the National Performance Review. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Vice President.National Research Council. 1986. Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the United States. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.National Research Council. 1987. Regulating Pesticides in Food: The Delaney Paradox. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.National Research Council. 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetlands Loss under the Clean Water Act. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.1999. “Paving the Road to Wetlands Mitigation Banking”. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review27:161–192..1994. Policy Innovation in State Government. Ames: Iowa State University Press.1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.1998. Endangered Species List Revisions: A Summary of Delisting and Down-listing. CRS Report 98-32 ENR. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO97805118086781973. The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819438, and .1994. “Challenging the Enforcement of Environmental Regulation”. Journal of Regulatory Economics6:265–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01064655, and .1996. “Public Interest Group Entrepreneurship and Theories of Group Mobilization”. Political Research Quarterly49:119–146.1998. Federalism Attained: Gubernatorial Lobbying in Washington as a Constitutional Function. Ph.D. diss., Department of Political Science, University of Texas, Austin..1997. “On Environmental Federalism”. Virginia Law Review83:1321–1329. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/10737591998. “Thinking about Environmental Federalism”. Resources130:14–16.1988. “Economic Competition among Jurisdictions: Efficiency Enhancing or Distortion Inducing”. Journal of Public Economics33:333–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727%2888%2990036-9, and .1992. “The Theory of Regulatory Federalism: The Case of Environmental Management”. In The Economics of the Environment. Edited by Wallace E.Oates. Aldershot, England: Edwin Elgar., and .1965. The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge: Harvard University Press..1995. “Review: A Moment on the Earth: The Coming of Age of Environmental Optimism”. Environmental Law25:1293–1325., , and .1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763. [Page 254]1994. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press., , and .1997. “Neither Markets nor States: Linking Transformation Processes in Collective Action Arenas”. In Perspectives on Public Choice: A Handbook. Edited by Dennis C.Mueller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., and .1988. Reforming the Forest Service. Washington, D.C.: Island Press..1995. “The National Pork Service”. Forbes November 20, 160–165..1997. “Anomalous Behavior in Public Goods Experiments: How Much and Why?” American Economic Review87:829–846., and .1999. Air Quality: EPA's Ozone Transport Rule, OTAG, and Section 126 Petitions–-A Hazy Situation? CRS Report ENR98-236. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service., and .1985. “Environmental Regulation: Whose Self-Interests Are Being Protected?” Economic Inquiry23:551–584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1985.tb01783.x.1995. “Environmental Federalism: Historical Roots and Contemporary Models”. Maryland Law Review54:1141–1182.1990. Macroeconomic Policy, Credibility, and Politics. Chur, Switzerland: Harwood., and .1999. “Congress and Charismatic Megafauna: A Legislative History”. Environmental Law29:463–491..1992. “The Presidency and Organized Interests: White House Patterns of Interest Group Liaison”. American Political Science Review86:612–625. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/19641251981. City Limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226922645.001.00011995. The Price of Federalism. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.2000. “The Inherent Limits on Judicial Control of Agency Discretion: The D.C. Circuit and the Nondelegation Doctrine”. Administrative Law Review52:63–96.1920. The Economics of Welfare. London: Macmillan.1999. “Reinventing the Regulatory State”. University of Chicago Law Review62:1–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1600132, and .1998. “When the Truth Hurts: Endangered Species Policy on Private Land with Imperfect Information”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management35:22–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1998.1021, and .1999. “Justice on the Rampage”. Amicus Journal21:34–35., and .1987. “The Revealed Preferences of Political Action Committees”. American Economic Review77:298–302., , and .1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. Oxford: Oxford University Press., and .2000. “Congress Likely to Take Piecemeal Approach Again to Environmental Legislation”. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report58 (January 29): 191..1999. “Environmental Policy in the Next Century”. In Setting National Priorities: The 2000 Election and Beyond. Edited by Henry J.Aaron and Robert D.Reischauer. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution..2000. “Looking Ahead to 2050. Environmental Problems and Policy: 2000–2050”. Resources138:6–10..1997. “Campaign Expenditures, Contributions and Direct Endorsements: The Strategic Use of Information and Money to Influence Voter Behavior”. European Journal of Political Economy13:1–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0176-2680%2896%2900032-8, , and .1999. Science at EPA: Information in the Regulatory Process. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.[Page 255]President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization. 1971. A New Regulatory Framework: Report on Selected Independent Regulatory Agencies. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.1996. “The Greater Yellowstone Policy Debate: What Is the Policy Problem?” Policy Sciences29:137–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00137790, and .1997. “National Park Service Burdened by Politics”. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy12:28–32..1995. Footing the Bill for Superfund Cleanups: Who Pays and How?Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution and Resources for the Future., , , and .1997. “Federalism as a Commitment to Preserving Market Incentives”. Journal of Economic Perspectives11:83–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.11.4.83, and .1996. “Federalism and Reductions in the Federal Budget”. National Tax Journal49:289–302., and .1994. Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous Waste Siting in Canada and the United States. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.1995. “Integrating Environmental Regulation: Permitting Innovation at the State Level”. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management14:467–472. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/33250361996. “An Empirical Examination of Innovations in Integrated Environmental Management: the Case of the Great Lakes Basin”. Public Administration Review56:372–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/9763791999a. “Federalism and Entrepreneurship: Explaining American and Canadian Innovation in Pollution Prevention and Regulatory Integration”. Policy Studies Journal27:288–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1999.tb01969.x1999b. “Sustainability in a Regional Context: The Case of the Great Lakes Basin”. In Toward Sustainable Communities: Transition and Transformations in Environmental Policy. Edited by Daniel A.Mazmanian and Michael E.Kraft. Cambridge: MIT Press.2000. “The Promise and Pitfalls of Decentralization”. In Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century. 4th edition. Edited by Norman J.Vig and Michael E.Kraft. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.1993. “Overview”. In Smoking Policy: Law, Politics, and Culture. Edited by Robert L.Rabin and Stephen D.Sugarman. Oxford: Oxford University Press., and .“Rangeland Reform '94: A Proposal to Improve Management of Rangeland Ecosystems and the Administration of Livestock Grazing on Public Lands”. 1994. Washington, D.C.: Departments of Agriculture and Interior.1996. “Bill Clinton: Does He Deserve Your Vote?” Sierra81:38–39..1999. “Enforcement Leverage When Penalties Are Restricted: A Reconsideration under Asymmetric Information”. Journal of Public Economics73:289–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727%2898%2900106-6.1998. “Deterrence vs. Cooperation and the Evolving Theory of Environmental Enforcement”. Southern California Law Review71:1181–1271..1998. Superfund Reauthorization Issues in the 105th Congress (I and II). CRS Report 97025. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service..2000a. Superfund and the Brownfields Issue. CRS Report 97-731. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service..2000b. Superfund Reauthorization Issues in the 106th Congress. CRS Report IB 10011. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service..2000. Superfund Fact Book. CRS Report 97312. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service., and .1998. “The Legal Control of Indoor Air Pollution”. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review25:247–345., and . [Page 256]1992. “Rehabilitating Interstate Competition: Rethinking the ‘Race to the Bottom’ Rationale for Federal Environmental Regulation,” New York University Law Review67:1210–1254.1996. “Federalism and Interstate Environmental Externalities”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review144:2341–2416. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/33126721997a. “Environmental Regulation, Ideology, and the D.C. Circuit”. Virginia Law Review83:1717–1772. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/10736571997b. “Federalism and Environmental Regulation: A Normative Critique”. In The New Federalism: Can the States Be Trusted? Edited by JohnFerejohn and Barry R.Weingast. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press.1995. “Green Giving: An Analysis of Contributions to Major U.S. Environmental Groups”. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 95/39. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future..1987. The Development of American Federalism. Boston: Kluwer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3273-91993. Environmental Protection at the State Level: Politics and Progress in Controlling Pollution. Armonk, N.Y.: Sharpe.1992. Reviving the American Dream: The Economy the States, and the Federal Government. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.1996. “Testing Federalism Inside Out: Intrastate Aspects of Interstate Regulatory Competition”. Yale Law and Policy Review14:149–176.1994. “An Empirical Examination of the Dynamics of PAC Contributions”. American Journal of Political Science38:745–769. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111605, and1994. “Changing Images of the State: American Administrative Law under Siege: Is Germany a Model?” Harvard Law Review107:1279–1302. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1341844.1995. Controlling Environmental Policy: The Limits of Public Law in Germany and the United States. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press..1992. Linking Citizens to Government: Interest Group Politics at Common Cause. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1994. Regulation, Organizations, and Politics: Motor Freight Policy at the Interstate Commerce Commission. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.2000. “Democracy, Economic Growth, and Environmental Quality”. University of Rochester.1998. The Greening of a Nation? Environmentalism in the United States Since 1945. New York: Harcourt Brace.Sabatier, Paul A., ed. 1999. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, Colo.: Westview., and .1981. “At the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima, or Why Political Questions Are Not All Economic”. Arizona Law Review23:1283–1298..1997. “It's Immoral to Buy the Right to Pollute”. New York Times December 15, A23.1999. Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers, and the American State, 1877–1917. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..1995. “Trouble in Paradise”. U.S. News and World Report, June 19, 24–32..1997. Federalism and Environmental Policy: Trust and the Politics of Implementation. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press..1997. “The Costs of Combatting Global Warming”. Foreign Affairs76:8–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20048272[Page 257]1998. Costs and Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Reduction. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.1993. A Directory of Some Interest Groups and Governmental Organizations Concerned with National Environmental Policies. CRS Report 93-831 ENR. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service..1996. Pesticide Policy Issues. CRS Report 95016. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service..1999. Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. CRS Report RL30022. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Schoenbrod, David. 1993. Power without Responsibility: How Congress Abuses the People through Delegation. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press..1996. “Behind the Green Curtain”. Regulation19:18–25..1999. “Putting the “Law” Back into Environmental Law”. Regulation22:17–23..1984. “Voluntary Compliance and Regulatory Enforcement”. Law and Policy6:385–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1984.tb00334.x1994. “Managing Regulatory Enforcement in the United States”. In Handbook of Regulation and Administrative Law. Edited by DavidRosenbloom and RichardSchwartz. New York: Marcel Dekker.1997. “Can Government Facilitate Cooperation? An Informational Model of OSHA Enforcement”. American Journal of Political Science41:693–717. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111672, and .1986. “Regulatory Enforcement in a Federalist System”. American Political Science Review80:1249–1270. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1960866, and .1998. “The Political Origins of Modern Environmental Law: Rational Choice versus Republican Moment-Explanations for Environmental Laws”. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum9:29–59.1999. “Institutions and Environmental Performance in Seventeen Western Democracies”. British Journal of Political Science29:1–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S00071234990000101992. “A Spatial Model of Roll Call Voting: Senators, Constituents, Presidents, and Interest Groups in Supreme Court Confirmations”. American Journal of Political Science36:96–121http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111426, , and .1994. “The Effect of EPA Enforcement Funding on Private-Sector Pollution-Control Investment”. Applied Economics26:949–955. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036849400000102, , , and .1989. The Public Interest Dilemma: Organizational Maintenance and Political Representation in the Public Interest Sector. Ph.D. diss., Department of Political Science, Syracuse University.1998. Voices and Echoes for the Environment: Public Interest Representation in the 1990s and Beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.1992. Presidential Influence and Environmental Policy. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.2000. The Impact of Community Characteristics and State Policy on Changes in Education and Risk from Toxic Airborne Chemicals. Ph.D. diss. Department of Political Science, University of Rochester..2000. “Groups Lobby to Get Work Load off Park Service's Back”. ENN News, June 19, 1–2. Available: http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2000/06/06192000/parkphotos_13936.asp..1997. Analyzing Politics: Rationality, Behavior, and Institutions. New York: Norton., and . [Page 258]1999. Hoodwinking the Nation. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction..1999. “Flexibility, Emissions Trading and the Kyoto Protocol”. In Pollution for Sale: Emissions Trading and Joint Implementation. Edited by SteveSorrell and JimSkea. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar..1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press..1982. Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665080.1999. “Campaign Contributions and the Desirability of Full Disclosure Laws”. Economics and Politics11:83–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0343.00054.1986. “Informing and Educating the Public about Risk”. Risk Analysis6:403–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00953.x.1998. When States Lobby. Ph.D. diss., Department of Political Science, State University of New York, Albany..1999. “Evaluating the Environmental Presidency”. In The Environmental Presidency. Edited by Dennis L.Soden. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press., and .2000. “Sustainability: An Economist's Perspective”. In Economics of the Environment: Selected Readings. 4th edition. Edited by Robert N.Stavins. New York: Norton.1996. “A Positive Political Theory of Regulatory Instruments–-Contracts, Administrative Law or Regulatory Specificity”. Southern California Law Review69:477–515.1996. “Invitations to Override: Congressional Reversals of Supreme Court Decisions”. International Review of Law and Economics16: 503–521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8188%2896%2900042-7, and .2001. “Costly Agencies”. In Cato Handbook for Congress, 107th Congress. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute..1986. “Judicial Review in the Post-Chevron Era,” Yale Journal on Regulation3:283–312.1998. “What Can We Learn from the Grand Policy Experiment? Lessons from SO2 Allowance Trading”. Journal of Economic Perspectives12:69–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.12.3.691999. “Experience with Market-based Environmental Policy Instruments”. Cambridge, Mass.: John F. Kennedy School of Government.Stavins, Robert N., ed. 2000a. Economics of the Environment.4thedition. New York: Norton.2000b. “Market-Based Environmental Policies”. In Public Policies for Environmental Protection. Edited by Paul R.Portneyz and Robert N.Stavins. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.1996. “Resources and Strategies of Interest Groups and Industry Representatives Involved in Federal Forest Policy”. Social Science Journal33:401–419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0362-3319%2896%2990014-2, , and .1975. “The Reformation of American Administrative Law”. Harvard Law Review88:1667–1813. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/13402071977. “Pyramids of Sacrifice? Problems of Federalism in Mandating State Implementation of National Environmental Policy”. Yale Law Journal86:1668–1813. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/7957051993. “Environmental Regulation and International Competitiveness”. Yale Law Journal102:2039–2106. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/7968591997. “Environmental Quality as a National Good in a Federal State”. University of Chicago Legal Forum97:199–229.[Page 259]1995. “Endangered Species Act: Making Innocent Species the Enemy”. Policy Series Paper No. PS-3. Bozeman, Mont.: Political Economy Research Center.1985. “The Theory and Practice of Negotiated Rulemaking”. Yale Journal on Regulation3:133–165., and .1999. “U.S. Interest Groups Prefer Emission Trading: A New Perspective”. Public Choice101:109–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018381309268.1996. “The Race to Laxity and the Race to Undesirability: Explaining Failures in Competition among Jurisdictions in Environmental Law”. Journal of Law and Policy Review14:67–110.1997. Green Backlash: The History and Politics of the Environmental Opposition in the U.S. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner..1982. “Why Reagan Is on Griddle over Environment”. U.S. News and World Report, August 30, 57–59.1984. Making Bureaucracies Think: The Environmental Impact Assessment Strategy of Administrative Reform. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press..1994. Sleeping with the Industry: The U.S. Forest Service and Timber Interests. Washington, D.C.: Center for Public Integrity.1997. “Think Local, Act Local: Environmentalists Are Shifting Their Focus”. New Statesman, August 22, 28–31.1995. “Grazing the Commons: An Empirical Analysis of Externalities, Subsidies and Sustainability”. Ecological Economics12:141–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009%2894%2900043-U1997. “The Endangered Species Act: A Case Study in Takings and Incentives”. Stanford Law Review49:305–380. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/12292991985. The Spider Web: Congress and Lobbying in the Age of Grant. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press..1997. “Fuel Economy Standards, New Vehicle Sales, and Average Fuel Efficiency”. Journal of Regulatory Economics11:311–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:10079831068501956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures”. Journal of Political Economy64:416–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/2578391996. Safe Drinking Water Act: Implementation and Reauthorization. CRS Issue Brief 91041. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.1999. Safe Drinking Water Act. CRS Report RL 30022. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.1998. “Controlling Policy by Controlling Process: Judicial Influence on Regulatory Decision Making”. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization14:114–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jleo.a0233931999. “Strategic Instruments: Legal Structure and Political Games in Administrative Law”. Journal of Law, Economics and Organizations15:349–377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jleo/15.2.349, and .“Cars, Congress, and Clean Air for the Northeast: A Separation of Powers Analysis of the Ozone Transport Commission”. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review23:169–201.U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2000. Public Land Statistics 1999. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 1995. The Safe Drinking Water Act: A Case Study of an Unfunded Federal Mandate. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office.U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 1997a. Federalism and Environmental Protection: Case Studies for Drinking Water and Ground-Level Ozone. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office.[Page 260]U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 1997b. Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office.U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 1998. Factors Affecting the Relative Success of EPA's NOX Cap-and- Trade Program. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office.U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 1999. Maintaining Budgetary Discipline: Spending and Revenue Options. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office.U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1997. Forest Management Program Annual Report: Fiscal Year 1996. Report FS-591. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 1986. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 1998. “Babbitt Challenges Congress to Pass Mining Law Reform”. Press release. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior, April 28.U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2000. Automotive Fuel Economy Program: Twenty-fourth Annual Report to Congress Calendar Year 1999. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987. Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990a. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990b. The Nations Hazardous Waste Management Program at a Crossroads: The RCRA Implementation Study. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report FY 1997. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999a. Reinventing Environmental Protection: 1998 Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999b. Superfund Reforms: Annual Report FY 1998. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999c. Twenty-five Years of the Safe Drinking Water Act: History and Trends. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. National Air Pollutant Emission Trends, 1900–1998. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2000. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, 1986–1997. Washington, D.C.: Fish and Wildlife Service.U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1993. Pesticides: Reregistration Delays Jeopardize Success of Proposed Policy Reforms. GAO/T-RCED-94-48. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1995a. Forest Service: Distribution of Timber Sales Receipts, Fiscal Years 1992–94. GAO/RCED-95-237FS. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1995b. Federal Lands: Information on Land Owned on Acreage with Conservation Restrictions. GAO/RCED-95-73FS. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1996. Federal Land Management: Information on Efforts to Inventory Abandoned Hard Rock Mines. GAO/RCED-96-30. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1997a. Clean Water Act: Nine States' Experience with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. GAO/T-RCED-97-152. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1997b. Hazardous Waste: Remediation Waste Requirements Can Increase the Time and Cost of Cleanups. GAO/RCED-98-4. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.[Page 261]U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1997c. Times to Complete the Assessment and Cleanup of Hazardous Waste Sites, GAO/RCED-97-20. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1998a. Environmental Protection: EPA's and States' Efforts to “Reinvent” Environmental Regulation. GAO/RCED-98-33T. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1998b. National Park Service: Maintenance Backlog Issues. GAO/T-RCED-98-61. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1998c. Superfund: EPA's Use of Funds for Brownfield Revitalization. GAO/RCED-98-97. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1999a. Drinking Water Research: Better Planning Needed to Link Needs and Resources. GAO/T-RCED-00-15. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1999b. Superfund: Half the Sites Have All Cleanup Remedies in Place or Completed. GAO/RCED-99-245. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1999c. Superfund: Information on the Program's Funding Status. GAO/RCED-00-25. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 2000a. Acid Rain: Emissions Trends and Effects in the Eastern United States. GAO/RCED-00-47. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 2000b. Clean Water Act: Proposed Revisions to EPA Regulations to Clean Up Polluted Waters. GAO/RCED-00-206R. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 2000c. Environmental Protection: More Consistency Needed among EPA Regions in Approach to Enforcement. GAO/RCEDB00-108. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2000. Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management and Budget.1996. “When Is a Life Too Costly to Save? The Evidence from U.S. Environmental Regulation”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management30:348–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0024, and .2000. “Presidential Leadership and the Environment: From Reagan to Clinton”. In Environmental Politics. 4th edition. Edited by Norman J.Vig and Michael E.Kraft. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.1997. Discovering the Unknown Landscape: A History of America's Wetlands. Washington, D.C.: Island Press..1996. “Cleaning up Superfund”. The Public Interest124:52–60., and .1996. Economics of Regulation and Antitrust., , and2d edition. Cambridge: MIT Press.1989. Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America. New York: Basic Books..1993. “Representing Diffuse Interests in Environmental Policymaking”. In Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad. Edited by R. KentWeaver and BertRockman. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution..1995. Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in a Global Economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press..1995. The Delaney Clause Effects on Pesticide Policy. CRS Report 95–514 SPR. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.1992. “The Role of the Judiciary in Environmental Protection”. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review19:519–546.1991. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.[Page 262]1996. Our Children's Toxic Legacy: How Science and Law Fail to Protect Us from Pesticides. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press..The Rise of Regulation Continues: An Analysis of the Budget for the Year 2000. Center for the Study of American Business Regulatory Budget Report 22. St. Louis, Mo.: CSAB., and .1994. “Cows, Cowboys, and Controversy: The Grazing Fee Issue”. In Multiple Conflicts over Multiple Uses. Edited by Terry L.Anderson. Bozeman, Mont.: Political Economy Research Center., and .1986. “The Politics of Blame Avoidance”. Journal of Public Policy6:371–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00004219.Weaver, R. Kent, and BertRockman, eds. 1993. Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.1998. Pluralism by the Rules: Conflict and Cooperation in Environmental Regulation. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.1993. “Constitutions as Governance Structures: The Political Foundations of Secure Markets”. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics149:286–311.1995. “The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving Federalism and Economic Development”. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization11:1–31.1996. Environmental Politics: A Global Perspective for the Twenty-first Century. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.1982. The Environmental Decade in Court. Bloomington: Indiana University Press..1990. U.S. Energy and Environmental Interest Groups: Institutional Profiles. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press..1993. “Wetlands Preservation in the United States: A Case of Fragmented Authority”. Northern Illinois University Law Review14:589–609..1994. “Restraint in Environmental Cases by Reagan-Bush Judicial Appointees”. Judicature77:217–220., and .1996. “New England and the Challenge of Interstate Ozone Pollution under the Clean Air Act of 1990”. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review24:1–101.1995. But Is It True? A Citizen's Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues. Cambridge: Harvard University Press..1989. Bureaucracies: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books.1994. “Regulatory Takings”. In Handbook of Regulation and Administrative Law. Edited by David H.Rosenbloom and Richard D.Schwartz. New York: Marcel Dekker.2000. “Candidate Quality, Pressure Group Endorsements, and Uninformed Voters”. University of California, Santa Cruz..1988. “Principals, Bureaucrats, and Responsiveness in Clean Air Enforcements”. American Political Science Review82:213–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1958066.1991. “Federalism and Policy Responsiveness: The Clean Air Case”. Journal of Politics53:851–859. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2131582.1992. “Modeling Federal Implementation: The Clean Air Case”. American Journal of Political Science36:40–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111424.1991. “The Dynamics of Political Control of the Bureaucracy”. American Political Science Review85:801–828. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1963851, and .1994. Bureaucratic Dynamics: The Role of Bureaucracy in a Democracy. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press., and … [Page 263]1990. “Contributions, Lobbying, and Committee Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives”. American Political Science Review84:417–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1963527Yaffee, Steven Lewis. 1994. The Wisdom of the Spotted Owl: Policy Lessons for a New Century. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.1989. The Political Limits of Environmental Regulation: Tracking the Unicorn. New York: Quorum..2001. “Managing Growth and Related Issues in the 107th Congress”. CRS Issue Brief 10015. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.2001. “Wetlands Issues”. CRS Issue Brief 97014. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service., and .2000. “Industry or Environmental Lobbyists: Enemies or Allies?” In The Common Law and the Environment: Rethinking the Statutory Basis for Modern Environmental Law. Edited by RogerMeiners and AndrewMorriss. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.