How should regulatory authority over environmental policy issues be allocated? While there has been previous work on public preferences regarding environmental federalism, less attention has been paid to the opinions of local government officials, who are often on the front lines testing the limits (or not) of their authority. Using survey data of public and local official opinion about environmental federalism, this article finds that local government officials often see a significantly different role for national, subnational, and local government than their constituents, even after accounting for demographic differences between the groups. This article draws on data from two subnational jurisdictions in different countries (Michigan, United States and Ontario, Canada) and finds that the differences between the general public and local officials are durable even with a change in national context.
BiemerPaul B.LybergLars E.. 2003. Introduction to survey quality. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
2.
BowmanAnn O’M.KearneyRichard C.. 2011. Second-order devolution: Data and doubt. Publius41:563–85.
3.
BroussardShorna R.Washington-OttombreCamilleMillerBrian K.. 2008. Attitudes toward policies to protect open space: A comparative study of government planning officials and the general public. Landscape and Urban Planning86:14–24.
4.
CantrilAlbert H.CantrilSusan Davis. 1999. Reading mixed signals: Ambivalence in American public opinion about government. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
5.
CokeJames G.BrownSteven R.. 1976. Public attitudes about land use policy and their impact on state policy-makers. Publius6:97–134.
6.
CravensRoyal G., III. 2015. Morality politics and municipal LGBT policy adoption: A rare-events analysis. State and Local Government Review47:15–25.
7.
CutlerFred. 2008. Whodunnit? Voters and responsibility in Canadian federalism. Canadian Journal of Political Science41:627–54.
8.
CutlerFred. 2010. The space between worlds: Federalism, public issues and election issues. Regional and Federal Studies20:487–514.
9.
FitzgeraldMichael R.McCabeAmy SnyderFolzDavid H.. 1988. Federalism and the environment: The view from the states. State and Local Government Review20:98–104.
GrossbackLawrence J.2002. The problem of state-imposed mandates: Lessons from Minnesota’s local governments. State and Local Government Review34:183–97.
12.
HobergGeorge. 1991. Sleeping with an elephant: The American influence on Canadian environmental regulation. Journal of Public Policy11:107–31.
13.
HowlettMichael. 1994. The judicialization of Canadian environmental policy, 1980–1990: A test of the Canada–United States convergence thesis. Canadian Journal of Political Science27:9–127.
14.
HowlettMichael. 2000. Beyond legalism? Policy ideas, implementation styles and emulation-based convergence in Canadian and U.S. environmental policy. Journal of Public Policy20:305–29.
15.
IllicalMaryHarrisonKathryn. 2007. Protecting endangered species in the US and Canada: The role of negative lesson drawing. Canadian Journal of Political Science40:367–94.
16.
KincaidJohnColeRichard L.. 2011. Citizen attitudes toward issues of federalism in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Publius41:53–75.
17.
KoniskyDavid M.2008. Bureaucratic and public attitudes toward environmental regulation and the economy. State and Local Government Review40:139–49.
18.
KoniskyDavid M.2011. Public preferences for environmental policy responsibility. Publius41:76–100.
19.
LachapelleErickBorickChristopherRabeBarry. 2012. Public attitudes toward climate science and climate policy in federal systems: Canada and the United States compared. Review of Policy Research29:334–57.
20.
LipsetSeymour Martin. 1990. Continental divide. The values and institutions of the United States and Canada. New York: Routledge.
21.
LuloffA. E.HodgesDonald G.. 1992. Attitudes and Bureaucrats: Assessing the representativeness of local officials in New Hampshire1. Rural Sociology57:381–95.
22.
NevitteNeil. 1996. The decline of deference. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
23.
PierceJohn C.LovrichNicholas P.SteelBrent S.StegerMary Ann E.TennertJohn R.. 2000. Political culture and public policy in Canada and the United States. Only a border apart?Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.
24.
PralleSarah. 2006. The ‘mouse’ that roared: Agenda setting in Canadian pesticides policy. Policy Studies Journal34:171–94.
25.
RabeBarry. 1999. Federalism and entrepreneurship: Explaining American and Canadian innovation in pollution prevention and regulatory integration. Policy Studies Journal27:288–306.
26.
RabeBarryBorickChristopher. 2013. Conventional politics for unconventional drilling? Lessons from Pennsylvania’s early move into fracking policy development. Review of Policy Research30:321–40.
27.
RobinsonPamelaGoreChristopher. 2015. Municipal climate reporting: Gaps in monitoring and implications for governance and action. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy33:1058–75.
ShawGreg M.ReinhartStephanie L.. 2001. Trends: Devolution and confidence in government. Public Opinion Quarterly65:369–88.
30.
StokesLeah C.2015. Electoral backlash against climate policy: A natural experiment on retrospective voting and local resistance to public policy. American Journal of Political Science. doi:10.1111/ajps.12220.
31.
Van NijnattenDebora. 1999. Participation and environmental policy in Canada and the United States: Trends over time. Policy Studies Journal27:267–87.
32.
YbarraVickie D.KrebsTimothy B.. 2016. Policy responsiveness in local government: Adoption of smoke-free policies in U.S. Counties. State and Local Government Review48:6–20.
