Using Benefit-Cost Criteria for Settling Federalism Disputes: An Application to Food Safety Regulation
Federalism disputes arising from state regulations, particularly those pursuing health, safety, and environmental goals, are common in the U.S. political system. Discussion of bases for settling such disputes often focuses on the in- and out-state incidence of benefits and costs, but incidence is a complex concept that has not been systematically analyzed. We discuss five dimensions important to evaluating incidence and present benefit-cost spillover criteria for judging federalism disputes. When applied to a Massachusetts regulation of Alar residues in heat-processed apple products, the criteria reach different conclusions on its appropriateness, highlighting key considerations in evaluating state regulation in a federal system. Copyright 1997, Oxford University Press.
Volume (Year): 79 (1997)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202|
Phone: (414) 918-3190
Fax: (414) 276-3349
Web page: http://www.aaea.org/
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:79:y:1997:i:1:p:24-38. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.