IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v79y1997i1p24-38.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Benefit-Cost Criteria for Settling Federalism Disputes: An Application to Food Safety Regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Julie A. Caswell
  • Jaana K. Kleinschmit v. L.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Julie A. Caswell & Jaana K. Kleinschmit v. L., 1997. "Using Benefit-Cost Criteria for Settling Federalism Disputes: An Application to Food Safety Regulation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 24-38.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:79:y:1997:i:1:p:24-38
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1243940
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Starbird, S. Andrew, 2000. "Designing Food Safety Regulations: The Effect Of Inspection Policy And Penalties For Noncompliance On Food Processor Behavior," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Sinner, Jim, 1999. "Cost-benefit analysis and the SPS Agreement," 1999 Conference (43th), January 20-22, 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand 171901, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Colin A. Carter & K. Aleks Schaefer & Daniel Scheitrum, 2021. "Piecemeal Farm Regulation and the U.S. Commerce Clause," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 1141-1163, May.
    4. Shang, Wenjing & Hooker, Neal H., 2006. "Scales or Stars? Consumer Preferences for Food Quality Signals," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21237, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Neal H. Hooker & Julie A. Caswell, 1999. "A Framework for Evaluating Non‐Tariff Barriers to Trade Related to Sanitary and Phytosanitary Regulation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 234-246, May.
    6. Edwards, Geoff & Fraser, Iain, 2001. "Reconsidering agri-environmental policy permitted by the Uruguay round agreement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 313-326, May.
    7. Caswell, Julie A., 1998. "Valuing the benefits and costs of improved food safety and nutrition," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(4), pages 1-16.
    8. Giraud-Heraud, Eric & Grazia, Cristina & Hammoudi, Abdelhakim, 2007. "Agrifood safety standards, market power and consumer misperceptions," 105th Seminar, March 8-10, 2007, Bologna, Italy 7849, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:oup:ajagec:v:79:y:1997:i:1:p:24-38. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.