Robert Kneuper (US Federal Trade Commission) Bruce Yandle (Clemson University)
Abstract
In the late 1980s, a frustrated effort by federal regulators to require auto producers to mandate air-bag equipped cats, the Secretary of Transportation called on the states to settle the issue. The states were told to establish mandatory seat belt laws. If state voters failed to provide seat-belt protection for two-thirds of the nation's population, passive restraints (air bags) would be mandated. The resulting votes provide an opportunity to examine two Public Choice theories. Conventional theory claims that economic interests will prevail in determining outcomes. The newer theory of expressive voting claims that voters will support popular icons, like auto safety, instead of voting on narrow economic grounds. This article examines the votes and tests these two theories. The conventional interpretation is the most robust.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Contact details of provider: Postal: c/o Iona College, 715 North Avenue, New Rochelle, New York 10801-1890 USA Phone: (914) 633-2088 Fax: (914) 633-2549 Email: Web page: http://www.iona.edu/eea/ More information through EDIRC