The Air Bag/Seat Belt Controversy: How the States Voted

Robert Kneuper and Bruce Yandle
Additional contact information
Robert Kneuper: US Federal Trade Commission
Bruce Yandle: Clemson University

Eastern Economic Journal, 1996, vol. 22, issue 2, 147-160

Abstract: In the late 1980s, a frustrated effort by federal regulators to require auto producers to mandate air-bag equipped cats, the Secretary of Transportation called on the states to settle the issue. The states were told to establish mandatory seat belt laws. If state voters failed to provide seat-belt protection for two-thirds of the nation's population, passive restraints (air bags) would be mandated. The resulting votes provide an opportunity to examine two Public Choice theories. Conventional theory claims that economic interests will prevail in determining outcomes. The newer theory of expressive voting claims that voters will support popular icons, like auto safety, instead of voting on narrow economic grounds. This article examines the votes and tests these two theories. The conventional interpretation is the most robust.

Keywords: Protection; Voter; Votes (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: D18 D72 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1996
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://web.holycross.edu/RePEc/eej/Archive/Volume22/V22N2P147_160.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eej:eeconj:v:22:y:1996:i:2:p:147-160

Access Statistics for this article

Eastern Economic Journal is currently edited by Cynthia A. Bansak, St. Lawrence University and Allan A. Zebedee, Clarkson University

More articles in Eastern Economic Journal from Eastern Economic Association Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Victor Matheson, College of the Holy Cross ().