IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v18y2021i3p534-568.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Federal Enforcement Threat: The Effect of Overfiling Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline Cecot

Abstract

States and the federal government typically share responsibility for environmental enforcement, with many states acquiring primary authority to enforce federal law. Under most federal environmental statutes, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) retains the right to “overfile,” or file its own enforcement action against a violator in addition to a state enforcement action. This article empirically tests the effect of EPA's ability to overfile on the state's enforcement strategy in the context of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In Harmon Industries v. Browner, 191 F.3d 894 (8th Cir., 1999 the Harmon decision), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the EPA does not have the authority to overfile under RCRA. Other circuits, particularly the 10th Circuit, have disagreed with the Eighth Circuit's conclusion, holding that the EPA retains such authority, and the Supreme Court has never resolved this issue. This article predicts that states within the Eighth Circuit with preferences for lower environmental enforcement would impose more lenient penalties after the Harmon decision, and it tests this prediction using several proxies for state environmental enforcement preferences. I find that states in the Eighth Circuit with Republican governors were more likely to lower the final penalty amount from the proposed penalty amount after the Harmon decision. In other estimations, I also find that states in the Eighth Circuit with Republican governors collected less, on average, in final penalty amount per enforcement action after the Harmon decision. Other proxies for lower enforcement preferences, however, were not associated with consistent statistically significant effects. Because the governor arguably has the strongest influence on state enforcement policy, the results provide some support for the model's preference‐based predictions. Overall, the results suggest that the existence of a specific and relatively infrequent type of federal enforcement action—EPA's ability to overfile—could have a substantial effect on overall environmental enforcement through its ability to affect the enforcement efforts of certain states. These findings shed light on how federal enforcement efforts might matter in the context of cooperative federalism.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline Cecot, 2021. "The Federal Enforcement Threat: The Effect of Overfiling Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 534-568, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:18:y:2021:i:3:p:534-568
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12295
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12295
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12295?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. Gary S. Becker, 1974. "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," NBER Chapters, in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 1-54, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Chang, Howard F. & Sigman, Hilary & Traub, Leah G., 2014. "Endogenous decentralization in federal environmental policies," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-50.
    3. Kleit, Andrew N & Pierce, Meredith A & Hill, R Carter, 1998. "Environmental Protection, Agency Motivations, and Rent Extraction: The Regulation of Water Pollution in Louisiana," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 121-137, March.
    4. Kennedy, Peter E, 1981. "Estimation with Correctly Interpreted Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations [The Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations]," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(4), pages 801-801, September.
    5. Eric Helland, 1998. "The Enforcement Of Pollution Control Laws: Inspections, Violations, And Self-Reporting," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 141-153, February.
    6. Sigman, Hilary, 2005. "Transboundary spillovers and decentralization of environmental policies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 82-101, July.
    7. Magali A. Delmas & Michael W. Toffel, 2008. "Organizational responses to environmental demands: opening the black box," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(10), pages 1027-1055, October.
    8. Wayne B. Gray & Jay P. Shimshack, 2011. "The Effectiveness of Environmental Monitoring and Enforcement: A Review of the Empirical Evidence," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(1), pages 3-24, Winter.
    9. Halvorsen, Robert & Palmquist, Raymond, 1980. "The Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 474-475, June.
    10. Robert Innes & Arnab Mitra, 2015. "Parties, Politics, And Regulation: Evidence From Clean Air Act Enforcement," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 53(1), pages 522-539, January.
    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. Zach Raff & Dietrich Earnhart, 2020. "The effect of environmental enforcement on labor: environmental workers and production workers," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 118-133, April.
    2. Dietrich Earnhart & Lana Friesen, 2021. "Enforcement Federalism: Comparing the Effectiveness of Federal Punishment versus State Punishment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(2), pages 227-255, February.
    3. Zach Raff & Dietrich Earnhart, 2018. "Effect Of Cooperative Enforcement Strategies On Wastewater Management," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(2), pages 1357-1379, April.
    4. Alm, James & Shimshack, Jay, 2014. "Environmental Enforcement and Compliance: Lessons from Pollution, Safety, and Tax Settings," Foundations and Trends(R) in Microeconomics, now publishers, vol. 10(4), pages 209-274, December.
    5. Raff, Zach & Earnhart, Dietrich, 2019. "The effects of Clean Water Act enforcement on environmental employment," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 1-17.
    6. Aaron A. Elrod & Serkan Karadas & Katherine C. Theyson, 2019. "The effect of gubernatorial political parties on monitoring and enforcement of federal environmental regulation: evidence from the Clean Water Act," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(2), pages 171-202, April.
    7. Lucija Muehlenbachs & Stefan Staubli & Mark A. Cohen, 2016. "The Impact of Team Inspections on Enforcement and Deterrence," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(1), pages 159-204.
    8. Gonzalez, Fidel & Leipnik, Mark & Mazumder, Diya, 2013. "How much are urban residents in Mexico willing to pay for cleaner air?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 354-379, June.
    9. Millimet, Daniel L., 2013. "Environmental Federalism: A Survey of the Empirical Literature," IZA Discussion Papers 7831, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Earnhart, Dietrich & Friesen, Lana, 2017. "The Effects of Regulated Facilities' Perceptions About the Effectiveness of Government Interventions on Environmental Compliance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 282-294.
    11. Rousseau Sandra, 2007. "The Impact of Sanctions and Inspections on Firms’ Environmental Compliance Decisions," Energy, Transport and Environment Working Papers Series ete0704, KU Leuven, Department of Economics - Research Group Energy, Transport and Environment.
    12. Muehlenbachs, Lucija & Staubli, Stefan & Cohen, Mark A., 2013. "The Effect of Inspector Group Size and Familiarity on Enforcement and Deterrence," RFF Working Paper Series dp-13-36, Resources for the Future.
    13. Júlia Gallego Ziero Uhr & André Luis Squarize Chagas, Daniel de Abreu Pereira Uhr, Renan Porn Peres, 2017. "A study on environmental infractions for Brazilian municipalities: a spatial dynamic panel approach," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2017_13, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    14. Tihitina Andarge & Erik Lichtenberg, 2020. "Regulatory compliance under enforcement gaps," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 181-202, June.
    15. Anna Rita Germani & Pasquale Scaramozzino & Andrea Morone & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2017. "Discretionary enforcement and strategic interactions between enforcement agencies and firms: a theoretical and laboratory investigation," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 255-284, December.
    16. Michael W. Toffel & Jodi L. Short, 2011. "Coming Clean and Cleaning Up: Does Voluntary Self-Reporting Indicate Effective Self-Policing?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(3), pages 609-649.
    17. Blundell, Wesley, 2020. "When threats become credible: A natural experiment of environmental enforcement from Florida," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    18. Neal D. Woods, 2022. "Regulatory competition, administrative discretion, and environmental policy implementation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 486-511, July.
    19. Sarah Stafford, 2013. "How predictable are environmental compliance inspections?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 361-388, December.
    20. Andarge, Tihitina & Lichtenberg, Erik, 2018. "Regulated Firm Strategy under Uncertainty about Regulatory Status," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274420, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:empleg:v:18:y:2021:i:3:p:534-568. 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)1740-1461 .

    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.