Using Benefit-Cost Criteria for Settling Federalism Disputes: An Application to Food Safety Regulation

Julie Caswell () and Jaana K. Kleinschmit v. L.

American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1997, vol. 79, issue 1, 24-38

Abstract: Federalism disputes arising from state regulations, particularly those pursuing health, safety, and environmental goals, are common in the U.S. political system. Discussion of bases for settling such disputes often focuses on the in- and out-state incidence of benefits and costs, but incidence is a complex concept that has not been systematically analyzed. We discuss five dimensions important to evaluating incidence and present benefit-cost spillover criteria for judging federalism disputes. When applied to a Massachusetts regulation of Alar residues in heat-processed apple products, the criteria reach different conclusions on its appropriateness, highlighting key considerations in evaluating state regulation in a federal system. Copyright 1997, Oxford University Press.

Date: 1997
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (8)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1243940 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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:oup:ajagec:v:79:y:1997:i:1:p:24-38

Access Statistics for this article

American Journal of Agricultural Economics is currently edited by Madhu Khanna, Brian E. Roe, James Vercammen and JunJie Wu

More articles in American Journal of Agricultural Economics from Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().