On the Economics and the Politics of Environmental Protection

Abstract

Abstract. TWO loci of discussion respecting national policies for environmental protection are synthesized. Most economic discussions are couched in terms of analytical measurements of the social benefits and costs of different policies. But most political science discussions are couched in terms of the procedural obstacles to implementation erected by special interest groups. The standard tool of marginal cost/benefit analysis is applied to reveal how the redistribution of real income among distinct special interest groups determines the extent to which those groups align themselves politically. Many of the apparent conflicts among policy objectives in the area of environmental protection, full employment, and an acceptable distribution of income, can be mitigated by means of a carefully designed program of selective law enforcement and tax‐financed subsidies.

Using Multiple Criteria To Evaluate Public Policies

“…Elkin and Cook (1985), Mantell (1985), and Kelman ( 1981 ) have all pondered why it is that the market incentives approach in environmental policy (i.e., a tax on pollution) is not adopted by government when most analysts regard it as theoretically the most efficient means of reducing pollution. They conclude that at the present time this approach is not only technically difficult, but politically infeasible.'…”

“…They can be divided into (1) attempts at classifying policies into different categories (i.e. distributive, redistributive, and regulatory as in Lowi 1964;Salisbury 1968;Uslaner 1985); (2) quantitative analyses of factors related to policy expenditures and other outputs across cities, school districts, states, and nations (as in Cnudde and McCrone 1969;Hofferbert 1966;Lewis-Beck 1977;Lineberry and Fowler 1967;Sharkansky and Hofferbert 1969;Rossell and Crain 1982;Rossell 1990aRossell , 1990b; (3) qualitative case studies of one or more policy areas (as in Kirp 1982;Elkin and Cook 1985;Mantell 1985;Kelman 1981;Edmonds and Reilly 1985;Wilson 1984;Hochschild 1984;Rodgers 1986;Levitan 1985;Marmor 1983;Cochran et al 1990;Heidenheimer, Heclo, and Adams 1990); (4) case studies of the implementation of public policies and analyses of the factors likely to lead to successful implementation (as in Pressman and Wildavsky 1973;Mazmanian and Sabatier 1989); (5) theories of the policy process that describe policy subsystems and institutional frameworks in universal terms that can be applied to different policy areas (as in Hofferbert 1977;Kingdon 1984, Kiser and Ostrom 1982;Sabatier 1991b); (6) theoretical works on the field itself (as in Bobrow and Dryzek 1987;Sabatier 1991a) and critical assessments of its important concepts (most recently, Stone 1988); and (7) a host of studies of the policy-making process that differ little from what used to be called poli...…”

Environmental policy indicators: A systems model

“…The second variable within the SWM PRESSURE model is a measure of the percent change in population size over the time period -1985. The figure used to denote the change in population is computed by subtracting the 1980 population figure from the 1985 figure, then dividing this sum by the 1980 (base) figure.…”

“…The SWM PRESSURE model's proposed indicators (independent variables) per state are: (1) the average number of pounds of waste generated per square mile of land area (GARVBOL), (2) the percent change in population over the time span -1985, and (3) the degree of urbanization (URBAN). Two SWM policy output measures (dependent variables) are used in order to assess the model's usefulness in indicating different conceptualizations of SWM policy.…”