IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/coecpo/v24y2006i1p172-187.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

State Adoption Of Environmental Audit Initiatives

Author

Listed:
  • SARAH L. STAFFORD

Abstract

This article examines the factors that affect state adoption of environmental audit legislation and self‐policing policies. The results of both a cross‐section probit and a Weibull proportional hazard model suggest that political context and state–federal relationships are key factors in adoption decisions while environmental conditions are less significant and institutional capacity is the least important. Overall, the results for audit privilege and immunity legislation are very similar, but several explanatory factors affect adoption of audit legislation and self‐policing policies in opposite ways. Finally, these results also suggest that EPA opposition to audit legislation has had a significant deterrent effect. (JEL D78, Q28, K32)

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah L. Stafford, 2006. "State Adoption Of Environmental Audit Initiatives," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 172-187, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:coecpo:v:24:y:2006:i:1:p:172-187
    DOI: 10.1093/cep/byj010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/cep/byj010
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1093/cep/byj010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mishra, Birendra K. & Paul Newman, D. & Stinson, Christopher H., 1997. "Environmental regulations and incentives for compliance audits," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 187-214.
    2. Kaplow, Louis & Shavell, Steven, 1994. "Optimal Law Enforcement with Self-Reporting of Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(3), pages 583-606, June.
    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. Khanna Madhu & Widyawati Diah, 2011. "Fostering Regulatory Compliance: The Role of Environmental Self-Auditing and Audit Policies," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 125-160, May.
    2. Amy Ando & Wallapak Polasub, 2009. "The political economy of state-level adoption of natural resource damage programs," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 312-330, June.
    3. Inwon Kang & Hae Seok Jee & Matthew Minsuk Shin, 2018. "Affective Policy Performance Evaluation Model: A Case of an International Trade Policy Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Motta, Alberto & Burlando, Alfredo, 2007. "Self reporting reduces corruption in law enforcement," MPRA Paper 5332, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 23 Jun 2007.
    5. Evans, Mary F. & Liu, Lirong & Stafford, Sarah L., 2015. "Standardization and the impacts of voluntary program participation: Evidence from environmental auditing," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 10-21.
    6. Haiyan Lu & Yanqiang Wei & Suchang Yang & Yunwei Liu, 2020. "Regional spatial patterns and influencing factors of environmental auditing for sustainable development: summaries and illuminations from international experiences," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 3577-3597, April.

    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. Carmen Arguedas, 2013. "Pollution standards, technology investment and fines for non-compliance," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 156-176, October.
    2. Guerrero, Santiago & Innes, Robert, 2008. "Statutory Rewards to Environmental Self-Auditing: Do They Reduce Pollution and Save Regulatory Costs? Evidence from a Cross-State Panel," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6204, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Sarah L. Stafford, 2006. "Self-Policing in a Targeted Enforcement Regime," Working Papers 26, Department of Economics, College of William and Mary.
    4. Sang-Hyun Kim, 2015. "Time to Come Clean? Disclosure and Inspection Policies for Green Production," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 1-20, February.
    5. Sarah L. Stafford, 2008. "Self‐Policing in a Targeted Enforcement Regime," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 74(4), pages 934-951, April.
    6. James J. Murphy & John K. Stranlund, 2005. "An Investigation of Voluntary Discovery and Disclosure of Environmental Violations Using Laboratory Experiments," Working Papers 2005-7, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
    7. Friesen, Lana, 2006. "The social welfare implications of industry self-auditing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 280-294, May.
    8. Motta, Massimo & Polo, Michele, 2003. "Leniency programs and cartel prosecution," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 347-379, March.
    9. Inés Macho-Stadler, 2008. "Environmental regulation: choice of instruments under imperfect compliance," Spanish Economic Review, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, March.
    10. Gärtner, D.L. & Zhou, J., 2012. "Delays in Leniency Application : Is There Really a Race to the Enforcer’s Door?," Other publications TiSEM cbb8fac0-0cd7-4a0c-a6d4-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Häckner, Jonas & Herzing, Mathias, 2017. "The effectiveness of environmental inspections in oligopolistic markets," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 83-97.
    12. Sverre Grepperud, 2005. "Medical Errors: Mandatory Reporting, Voluntary Reporting, or Both?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 99-112, July.
    13. Matthew Plosser & João A. C. Santos, 2014. "Banks' incentives and the quality of internal risk models," Staff Reports 704, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    14. Ulrich Blum & Nicole Steinat & Michael Veltins, 2008. "On the rationale of leniency programs: a game-theoretical analysis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 209-229, June.
    15. Shouqiang Wang & Peng Sun & Francis de Véricourt, 2016. "Inducing Environmental Disclosures: A Dynamic Mechanism Design Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(2), pages 371-389, April.
    16. Haitao Yin & Alex Pfaff & Howard Kunreuther, 2011. "Can Environmental Insurance Succeed Where Other Strategies Fail? The Case of Underground Storage Tanks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 12-24, January.
    17. Buccirossi, Paolo & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2006. "Leniency policies and illegal transactions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(6-7), pages 1281-1297, August.
    18. Agnar Sandmo, 2002. "Efficient Environmental Policy with Imperfect Compliance," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 85-103, September.
    19. Macho-Stadler, Ines & Perez-Castrillo, David, 2006. "Optimal enforcement policy and firms' emissions and compliance with environmental taxes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 110-131, January.
    20. Charles Angelucci & Antonio Russo, 2022. "Petty Corruption And Citizen Reports," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 63(2), pages 831-848, May.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • K32 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Energy, Environmental, Health, and Safety Law

    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:bla:coecpo:v:24:y:2006:i:1:p:172-187. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.html .

    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.