IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v64y2020i2p293-308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

For Safety or Profit? How Science Serves the Strategic Interests of Private Actors

Author

Listed:
  • Rebecca L. Perlman

Abstract

Science is central to the regulation of risk. But who provides the science on which risk regulations are based? Through an in‐depth empirical analysis of domestic health and safety standards, this article shows how private actors use scientific information to acquire preferential outcomes. I develop a formal model delineating conditions under which firms will seek stricter standards on their own products, and I reveal how companies can acquire these outcomes through the strategic provision of information. To test the theory, I track changes to U.S. agrochemical standards over a two‐decade period. I also introduce firm‐level petition data and historical evidence to test the mechanism directly. My findings provide new insight into the strategies companies use to benefit from regulations, while also forcing us to reevaluate what it means for regulations to be based on science.

Suggested Citation

  • Rebecca L. Perlman, 2020. "For Safety or Profit? How Science Serves the Strategic Interests of Private Actors," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(2), pages 293-308, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:64:y:2020:i:2:p:293-308
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12450
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12450
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12450?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lohmann, Susanne, 1993. "A Signaling Model of Informative and Manipulative Political Action," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 319-333, June.
    2. Daniel Carpenter & Michael M. Ting, 2007. "Regulatory Errors with Endogenous Agendas," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 835-852, October.
    3. Ernesto Dal Bo´, 2006. "Regulatory Capture: A Review," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 22(2), pages 203-225, Summer.
    4. George J. Stigler, 1971. "The Theory of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 2(1), pages 3-21, Spring.
    5. Grey, Felix, 2018. "Corporate lobbying for environmental protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 23-40.
    6. Oates, Wallace E & Portney, Paul R & McGartland, Albert M, 1989. "The Net Benefits of Incentive-Based Regulation: A Case Study of Environmental Standard Setting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1233-1242, December.
    7. Carpenter, Daniel P., 2004. "Protection without Capture: Product Approval by a Politically Responsive, Learning Regulator," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(4), pages 613-631, November.
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Bernauer, Thomas & Caduff, Ladina, 2004. "In Whose Interest? Pressure Group Politics, Economic Competition and Environmental Regulation," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 99-126, May.
    10. Tim Büthe & Walter Mattli, 2011. "The New Global Rulers: The Privatization of Regulation in the World Economy," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9470.
    11. Denzau, Arthur T. & Munger, Michael C., 1986. "Legislators and Interest Groups: How Unorganized Interests Get Represented," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(1), pages 89-106, March.
    12. Mary K. Olson, 1997. "Firm Characteristics and the Speed of FDA Approval," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(1), pages 377-401, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Lowery & Virginia Gray, 2004. "Bias in the Heavenly Chorus," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(1), pages 5-29, January.
    2. Josh Ederington & Jenny Minier, 2003. "Is environmental policy a secondary trade barrier? An empirical analysis," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 137-154, February.
    3. Oleh Pasko, 2018. "Theories of Regulation in the Context of Modern Practice of Accounting Regulation," Oblik i finansi, Institute of Accounting and Finance, issue 2, pages 37-46, June.
    4. Thomas P. Lyon & John W. Maxwell, 2004. "Astroturf: Interest Group Lobbying and Corporate Strategy," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(4), pages 561-597, December.
    5. Daniel Carpenter, 2014. "Accounting for Financial Innovation and Borrower Confidence in Financial Rule Making: Analogies from Health Policy," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(S2), pages 331-349.
    6. Ginés de Rus & Javier Campos & Daniel Graham & M. Pilar Socorro & Jorge Valido, 2020. "Evaluación Económica de Proyectos y Políticas de Transporte: Metodología y Aplicaciones. Parte 1: Metodología para el análisis coste-beneficio de proyectos y políticas de transporte," Working Papers 2020-11, FEDEA.
    7. Rebecca Slayton & Aaron Clark‐Ginsberg, 2018. "Beyond regulatory capture: Coproducing expertise for critical infrastructure protection," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 115-130, March.
    8. Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
    9. Emeric Henry & Gianmarco Ottaviano, 2019. "Research and the Approval Process: the Organization of Persuasion," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/1gr6n3t28b9, Sciences Po.
    10. Dapeng Cai & Jie Li, 2020. "Pollution for Sale: Firms’ Characteristics and Lobbying Outcome," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(3), pages 539-564, November.
    11. Justin Rex, 2020. "Anatomy of agency capture: An organizational typology for diagnosing and remedying capture," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 271-294, April.
    12. Schnakenberg, Keith & Turner, Ian R, 2023. "Formal Theories of Special Interest Influence," SocArXiv 47e26, Center for Open Science.
    13. Monica Martinez-Bravo & Leonard Wantchekon, 2021. "Political Economy and Structural Transformation: Democracy, Regulation and Public Investment," Working Papers wp2021_2110, CEMFI.
    14. R. Kenneth Godwin & Edward J. López & Barry J. Seldon, 2006. "Incorporating Policymaker Costs and Political Competition into Rent‐Seeking Games," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(1), pages 37-54, July.
    15. Fabrizio Cafaggi & Katharina Pistor, 2015. "Regulatory capabilities: A normative framework for assessing the distributional effects of regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 95-107, June.
    16. Büthe, Tim & Morgan, Stephen, 2015. "Antitrust Enforcement and Foreign Competition: Special Interest Theory Reconsidered," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205607, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Jack Clark & Gillian K. Hadfield, 2019. "Regulatory Markets for AI Safety," Papers 2001.00078, arXiv.org.
    18. Pablo T. Spiller & Sanny Liao, 2006. "Buy, Lobby or Sue: Interest Groups' Participation in Policy Making - A Selective Survey," NBER Working Papers 12209, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Higgins, Matthew J. & Yan, Xin & Chatterjee, Chirantan, 2021. "Unpacking the effects of adverse regulatory events: Evidence from pharmaceutical relabeling," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    20. Lee, Nathan R., 2020. "When competition plays clean: How electricity market liberalization facilitated state-level climate policies in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:64:y:2020:i:2:p:293-308. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.