Policy Influence and Policy Responsiveness in State Pollution Control

Abstract

This article develops an integrated theory of state policy influence and responsiveness, then operationalizes this theory to account for variations in the strength and scope of state water pollution control and hazardous waste management programs. The analysis finds that economic, ideological, interest group, and political system characteristics act in concert to affect state policymaking, and that the influences behind policymaking vary systematically and predictably across policy areas within environmental protection.

Integrating core concepts from the institutional analysis and development framework for the systematic analysis of policy designs: An illustration from the US National Organic Program regulation

“…Meier, 1987;Rinquist, 1994). In the case of a voluntary program, however, a balance must be struck between consistently enforcing regulatory standards and accommodating reasonable behavioral deviations, as program administrators are concerned with participant defection in the face of overly strict regulation (Potoski and Prakash, 2004).…”

“…Other approaches to the analysis of policy design seek within-type design comparisons based on one or more dimensions, such as stringency (Lester et al, 1983;Meier, 1987;Rinquist, 1994). For example, Koski (2007) assesses various environmental regulatory policy designs by the scope of activities they pertain to, regulatory stringency, and the level of prescription a design exhibits toward policy agents and targets.…”

Climate policy innovation in the South – Domestic and international determinants of renewable energy policies in developing and emerging countries

“…Environmental studies discuss environmental and resource pressures (Lester et al, 1983;Ringquist, 1994); developmentalists argue that socio-economic factors determine the scope of policy outputs and outcomes that are possible; institutionalist approaches posit that the political institutions and organizations in the country structure such policy decisions; public choice theory emphasizes the role of preferences and interests of different actors; sociological perspectives and policy diffusion theories underscore the role of formal and informal relationships and networks within and outside the political system (John, 1998), including the processes of emulation, learning, coercion and competition described in Section 1. In the following, we draw from these theories for outlining our hypotheses regarding domestic and external determinants of policy adoption.…”

“…The severity of these problems is expected to influence environmental policy-making (Huang et al, 2007;Ringquist, 1994;Sapat, 2004;Vachon and Menz, 2006). In the energy field, increased energy demand and volatile or rising fossil fuel prices may make governments more willing to promote RE due to energy security concerns, especially if they rely on fuel or electricity imports (Bird et al, 2005;Marques et al, 2010).…”

The Factors of Local Energy Transition in the Seoul Metropolitan Government: The Case of Mini-PV Plants

“…Lee et al [34] attributed the success of OLNPP of SMG as the product of firm actions from the mayor. The effect of partisanship is still debatable in the literature, but it has been argued that liberal states and communities with democratic political orientations tend to welcome government intervention to deal with air pollution [50][51][52], be more active on local climate action [10,14] and have more households heated with solar energy [46]. For instance, Daley and Garand [42] found an insignificant correlation between determining patterns of state hazardous waste policies and political variables, including party control of state institutions and liberal citizenries.…”