IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jpamgt/v18y1999i2p303-326.html

Revealed preferences of a state bureau: Case of New Mexico's underground storage tank program

Author

Listed:
  • Robert P. Berrens

    (Department of Economics, University of New Mexico)

  • Alok K. Bohara

    (Department of Economics, University of New Mexico)

  • Amy Baker

    (Department of Economics, University of New Mexico)

  • Ken Baker

    (Department of Economics, University of New Mexico)

Abstract

Leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) are a pervasive national environmental problem. Cleanup of leaking USTs is largely publicly financed and under the control of state agencies. In the transition to new compliance standards, individual states have taken advantage of provisions in federal regulations to implement their own programs. This raises the policy question of environmental federalism and the appropriate locus of government control. The objectives of this study are to examine the revealed preferences of a state UST bureau. New Mexico was one of the first state programs to use risk assessments in setting funding priorities. We analyze the statistical determinants of funding decisions and find strong evidence that risk information is used. Although our case study provides a measure of support for state control, the argument is strengthened if public financing is limited to the cleanup of historical pollution, rather than a means for providing insurance for prospective pollution. ©1999 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert P. Berrens & Alok K. Bohara & Amy Baker & Ken Baker, 1999. "Revealed preferences of a state bureau: Case of New Mexico's underground storage tank program," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 303-326.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:18:y:1999:i:2:p:303-326
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199921)18:2<303::AID-PAM6>3.0.CO;2-F
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shreekant Gupta & George Van Houtven & Maureen Cropper, 1996. "Paying for Permanence: An Economic Analysis of EPA's Cleanup Decisions at Superfund Sites," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(3), pages 563-582, Autumn.
    2. Benjamin M. Simon & Craig S. Leff & Harvey Doerksen, 1995. "Allocating scarce resources for endangered species recovery," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 415-432.
    3. Boyd, James & Kunreuther, Howard, 1995. "Retroactive Liability and Future Risk: The Optimal Regulation of Underground Storage Tanks," RFF Working Paper Series dp-96-02, Resources for the Future.
    4. Daniel McFadden, 1975. "The Revealed Preferences of a Government Bureaucracy: Theory," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 6(2), pages 401-416, Autumn.
    5. Andrew Metrick & Martin L. Weitzman, 1996. "Patterns of Behavior in Endangered Species Preservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 1-16.
    6. James T. Hamilton, 1995. "Testing for environmental racism: Prejudice, profits, political power?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 107-132.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew B. Whitford, 2007. "Competing Explanations for Bureaucratic Preferences," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 19(3), pages 219-247, July.

    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. Andrew B. Whitford, 2007. "Competing Explanations for Bureaucratic Preferences," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 19(3), pages 219-247, July.
    2. Alejandro M. Bellon, 2019. "Does animal charisma influence conservation funding for vertebrate species under the US Endangered Species Act?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(3), pages 399-411, July.
    3. Dyar, Julie A. & Wagner, Jeffrey, 2003. "Uncertainty and species recovery program design," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2, Supple), pages 505-522, March.
    4. Ando, Amy, 1998. "Delay on the Path to the Endangered Species List: Do Costs and Benefits Matter," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-43-rev, Resources for the Future.
    5. Ariane Amin & Johanna Choumert, 2015. "Development and biodiversity conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa: A spatial analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(1), pages 729-744.
    6. Langpap, Christian & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2002. "Success Or Failure? Ordered Probit Approaches To Measuring The Effectiveness Of The Endangered Species Act," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19713, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Adam Eckerd & Andrew Keeler, 2012. "Going green together? Brownfield remediation and environmental justice," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(4), pages 293-314, December.
    8. Maresova, Jana & Frynta, Daniel, 2008. "Noah's Ark is full of common species attractive to humans: The case of boid snakes in zoos," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 554-558, January.
    9. Kerkvliet, Joe & Langpap, Christian, 2007. "Learning from endangered and threatened species recovery programs: A case study using U.S. Endangered Species Act recovery scores," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 499-510, August.
    10. Christian Langpap & Joe Kerkvliet, 2010. "Allocating Conservation Resources Under The Endangered Species Act," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(1), pages 110-124.
    11. Ariane Manuela Amin & Johanna Choumert, 2013. "Development and biodiversity conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa: A spatial analysis," CERDI Working papers halshs-00799175, HAL.
    12. Landry, Joel R., 2021. "The political allocation of green pork and its implications for federal climate policy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    13. Cai, Jingjing & De Silva, Dakshina G. & Slechten, Aurelie, 2021. "Effects of oil booms on the local environment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    14. Hausman, Catherine & Stolper, Samuel, 2021. "Inequality, information failures, and air pollution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    15. Martin L. Weitzman, 1998. "The Noah's Ark Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(6), pages 1279-1298, November.
    16. Susan L. Cutter & Danika Holm & Lloyd Clark, 1996. "The Role of Geographic Scale in Monitoring Environmental Justice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 517-526, August.
    17. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2004. "Comparative Public Support for Conserving Reptile Species is High: Australian Evidence and its Implications," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 51412, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    18. Andrew Metrick & Martin L. Weitzman, 1998. "Conflicts and Choices in Biodiversity Preservation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 21-34, Summer.
    19. Wolverton Ann, 2009. "Effects of Socio-Economic and Input-Related Factors on Polluting Plants' Location Decisions," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-32, March.
    20. Takalo, Tuomas & Tanayama, Tanja & Toivanen, Otto, 2008. "Evaluating innovation policy: a structural treatment effect model of R&D subsidies," Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers 7/2008, Bank of Finland.

    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:jpamgt:v:18:y:1999:i:2:p:303-326. 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: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home .

    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.