This article examines adoption of a market instrument for reducing air pollution across the U.S. states. Because market instruments are viewed as reducing compliance costs, we hypothesize that market instruments should be more likely adopted in states whose electricity prices are higher than the average price in other states, especially their economic peers. Using a hazard model for a panel of 35 states from 1991 to 2003, we find that the adoption and the timing of market instruments are positively associated with the relative price of electricity even after controlling for a slate of variables, including the political context, the severity of air pollution, and neighborhood effects.
AlberiniA.AustinD. (1999). On and off the liability bandwagon: Explaining state adoptions of strict liability in hazardous waste programs. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 15, 41-63.
2.
BacotA. H.DawesR. A. (1996). Responses to federal devolution: Measuring state environmental efforts. State and Local Government Review, 28, 124-135.
3.
BaumolW. J.OatesW. E. (1975). The theory of environmental policy: Externalities, public outlays, and the quality of life. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4.
BederS. (1996). Charging the Earth—The promotion of price-based measures for pollution-control. Ecological Economics, 16, 51.
5.
BerryF. S.BerryW. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84, 395-415.
6.
BerryW. D.RingquistE. J.FordingR. C.HansonR. L. (1998). Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American States, 1960-93. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 327-348.
7.
BoehmkeF. J.WitmerR. (2004). Disentangling diffusion: The effects of social learning and economic competition on state policy innovation and expansion. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 39-51.
8.
BowmanA. O’M.KearneyR. C. (1988). Dimensions of state government capability. Western Political Quarterly, 41, 341-362.
9.
BrooksS. M. (2005). Interdependent and domestic foundations of policy change: The diffusion of pension privatization around the world. International Studies Quarterly, 49, 273-294.
10.
CarmanC. J. (2002). Brokering interests: The use of market-based policies by interest groups. Social Science Quarterly, 83, 137-155.
11.
CliffA. D.HaggettP. (1988). Atlas of disease distributions: Analytic approaches to epidemiological data. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
12.
ClineK. (2003). Influence on intergovernmental implementation: The states and the superfund. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 3, 66-85.
13.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
CookB. J. (2002). The politics of market-based environmental regulation. Social Science Quarterly, 83, 156-166.
15.
CroneT. N. (1999). Using state indexes to define economic regions in the United States. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 25, 259-278.
16.
CrottyP. M. (1987). The new federalism game: Primacy implementation of environmental policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 17, 53-67.
17.
DaleyD. M.GarandJ. C. (2005). Horizontal diffusion, vertical diffusion, and internal pressure in state environmental policymaking, 1989-1998. American Politics Research, 33, 615-644.
18.
DiMaggioP.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
19.
DolšakN. (2007). An assessment of tradable permits for common—Pool resources. Review of Policy Research, 24, 541-565.
20.
DreznerD. (2001). Globalization and policy convergence. International Studies Review, 3, 53-78.
21.
DunlapR. E.XiaoC.McCrightA. M. (2001). Politics and environment in America: Partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Environmental Politics, 10(4), 23-48.
22.
DunleavyP.HoodC. (1994). From old public administration to new public management. Public Money & Management, 14(3), 9-16.
23.
EngelK. H. (1997). State environmental standard-setting: Is there a “race” and is it “to the bottom”?Hastings Law Journal, 48, 271-398.
Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Finding of significant contribution and rulemaking for certain states in the ozone transport assessment group region for purposes of reducing regional transport of ozone. 40 CFR parts 51, 72, 75, and 96. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/fr_notices/nxsip.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). 40CFR parts 52 and 97. Findings of significant contribution and rulemaking on Section 126 petitions for purposes of reducing interstate ozone transport. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/fr_notices/126fina.pdf
29.
ErbesR. E. (1996). A practical guide to air quality compliance (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
30.
FarazmandA. (1989). Crisis in the U.S. administrative state. Administration & Society, 21, 173-199.
31.
FeiockR. C.StreamC. (2001). Environmental protection versus economic development: A false trade-off?Public Administration Review, 61, 313-321.
32.
FeiockR.RowlandC. K. (1990). Environmental regulation and economic development: The movement of chemical production among states. Western Political Quarterly, 43, 561-576.
33.
FeiockR. C.StreamC. (1998, March). Explaining the choice of policy instruments for state environmental protection: A political economy approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Los Angeles.
34.
FiorinoD. J. (1999). Rethinking environmental regulation. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 23, 441-469.
35.
GerberB. J.TeskeP. (2000). Regulatory policymaking in the American states: A review of theories and evidence. Political Research Quarterly, 53, 849-886.
36.
GoodinR. E. (1994). Selling environmental indulgences. Kyklos, 47, 573.
37.
GrayV. (1973). Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review, 67, 1174-1185.
38.
GrossbackL.Nicholson-CrottyS.PetersonD. A. M. (2004). Ideology and learning in policy diffusion. American Politics Research, 32, 521-545.
HallB.KerrM. L. (1991). The Green Index: A state by state guide to the nation’s environmental health. Washington, DC: Island Press.
41.
HaqueM. S. (1996). The intellectual crisis in public administration in the current epoch of privatization. Administration & Society, 27, 510-536.
42.
ImperialM. (2005). Using collaboration as a governance strategy lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration & Society, 37, 281-320.
43.
JaffeA. F.StavinsR. N. (1995). Dynamic incentives of environmental regulations. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 20(3), 43-63.
44.
KaganR. (1991). Adversarial legalism and American government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10, 369-406.
45.
KarchA. (2007). Democratic laboratories: Policy diffusion among the American states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
46.
KelmanS. (1981). What price incentives? Economists and the environment. Boston, MA: Auburn House.
47.
KettlD. (Ed.). (2002). Environmental governance: A report on the next generation of environmental policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
48.
KlyzaC.SousaD. (2008). American environmental policy, 1990-2006: Beyond gridlock. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49.
LesterJ. P. (1994). A new federalism? Environmental policies in the states. In VigNorman J.KraftMichael E. (Eds.), Environmental policy in the 1990s: Toward a new agenda (pp. 51-68). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
50.
LesterJ. P. (1986). New federalism and environmental policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 16, 149-165.
51.
LevinsonA. (2001). An industry-adjusted index of state environmental compliance costs. In MetcalfG.CarreroC. (Eds.), Behavioral and distributional effects of environmental policy (pp. 131-158). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
52.
LindblomC. (1977). Politics and markets. New York, NY: Basic Books.
53.
LongS. J. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
54.
MintromM.VergariS. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. Journal of Politics, 60, 126-148.
55.
NiceD. C. (1994). Policy innovation in state government. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
56.
OsborneD.GaeblerT. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
57.
ParkerL. B.BlodgettJ. E. (2004). Air quality: EPA’s Ozone Transport Rule, OTAG, and Section 126 petitions: A hazy situation. In TookerL. S. (Ed.), Air quality: Issues and outlook (pp. 95-112). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
58.
PotoskiM. (2001). Clean air federalism: Do states race to the bottom?Public Administration Review, 61, 335-342.
59.
PotoskiM. (2002). Designing bureaucratic responsiveness. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 2, 1-23.
60.
PotoskiM.PrakashA. (2004a). Regulatory convergence in non–governmental regimes? An empirical examination of cross–national adoption of ISO 14001. Journal of Politics, 66, 885-905.
61.
PotoskiM.PrakashA. (2004b). The regulation dilemma: Cooperation and conflict in environmental governance. Public Administration Review, 64, 137-148.
62.
PrakashA.PotoskiM. (2006). Racing to the bottom? Globalization, environmental governance, and ISO 14001. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 347-361.
63.
RabeB. (2004). Statehouse and greenhouse: The emerging politics of American climate change policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
64.
RingquistE. J. (1993). Environmental protection at the state level: Politics and progress in controlling pollution. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
65.
RogersE. M. (1992). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
66.
RogersE. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
67.
RosnowR. L.RosenthalR. (1996). Computing contrasts, effect sizes, and counternulls on other people’s published data: General procedures for research consumers. Psychological Methods, 1, 331-340.
68.
RostowW. W. (1991). The stages of economic growth: A non-communist manifesto (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
SapatA. (2004). Devolution and innovation: The adoption of state environmental policy innovations by administrative agencies. Public Administration Review, 64, 141-151.
71.
SimmonsB.ZacharyE. (2004). The globalization of liberalization. American Political Science Review, 98, 171-189.
72.
SimonH. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. New York, NY: John Wiley.
73.
StaffordS. L. (2006). State adoption of environmental audit initiatives. Contemporary Economic Policy, 24, 172-187.
74.
TieboutC. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416-424.
75.
TietenbergT. (1974). The design of property rights for air pollution control. Public Policy, 27, 275-292.
76.
TietenbergT. (2001). The tradable permits approach to protecting the commons: What have we learned? In OstromE.DietzT.DolšakN.SternP. C.StonichS.WeberE. U. (Eds.), The drama of the commons (pp. 197-233). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
77.
TravisR.MorrisJ.MorrisE. D. (2004). State implementation of federal environmental policy: Explaining leveraging in the clean water state revolving fund. Policy Studies Journal, 32, 461-480.
78.
VogelD. (1995). Trading up. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
79.
WalkerJ. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 67, 1174-1185.
80.
WoodsN. D. (2004, October). Competitive federalism and the cost of pollution abatement. Paper presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Atlanta, GA.
