IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v83y2001i3p501-512.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Roll Call Analysis of the Endangered Species Act Amendments

Author

Listed:
  • Sayeed R. Mehmood
  • Daowei Zhang

Abstract

Public choice economics view legislative process as a transaction in the political market. Interest groups demand regulation in their favor and lobby lawmakers. The lawmakers analyze an assortment of factors and supply legislation to the winning group, thereby maximizing their rent from the political market. This article examines Endangered Species Act (ESA) amendments from a public choice perspective. Congressional voting on the ESA amendments are assessed using a model based on political incentive and ideology. The results show that the lawmakers' voting behavior is correlated with their party affiliation, ideology, and several characteristics of their home state, such as number of endangered species, proportion of urban population, contribution of the natural resources and construction sectors in gross state product, and geographical location Copyright 2001, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Sayeed R. Mehmood & Daowei Zhang, 2001. "A Roll Call Analysis of the Endangered Species Act Amendments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 501-512.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:83:y:2001:i:3:p:501-512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/0002-9092.00173
    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. Andrew Chupp, B., 2011. "Environmental Constituent Interest, Green Electricity Policies, and Legislative Voting," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 254-266, September.
    2. Goeschl, Timo, 2003. "Hijackers and Hostages in Non-Binding Linked-Issues Referenda: Analysis and an Application," Staff Papers 12625, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    3. Daowei Zhang & David Laband, 2005. "From Senators to the President: Solve the lumber problem or else," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 393-410, June.
    4. Tanger, Shaun M. & Zeng, Peng & Morse, Wayde & Laband, David N., 2011. "Macroeconomic conditions in the U.S. and congressional voting on environmental policy: 1970-2008," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1109-1120, April.
    5. David N. Laband & Michael Nieswiadomy, 2006. "Factors Affecting Species' Risk Of Extinction: An Empirical Analysis Of Esa And Natureserve Listings," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 160-171, January.
    6. Tanger, Shaun M. & Laband, David N., 2009. "An empirical analysis of bill co-sponsorship in the U.S. Senate: The Tree Act of 2007," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 260-265, July.
    7. R. Rawls & David Laband, 2004. "A Public Choice Analysis of Endangered Species Listings," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 263-277, December.
    8. Timo Goeschl, 2005. "Non-binding linked-issues referenda: Analysis and an application," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 124(3), pages 249-266, September.
    9. Zhang, Daowei, 2016. "Payments for forest-based environmental services: A close look," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 78-84.
    10. Sun, Changyou, 2006. "A roll call analysis of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and constituent interests in fire policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 126-138, November.
    11. Sun, Changyou & Liao, Xianchun, 2011. "Effects of litigation under the Endangered Species Act on forest firm values," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 388-398.

    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:83:y:2001:i:3:p:501-512. 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.