IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v35y2005i1p87-114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Promises and Pitfalls of Devolution: Water Pollution Policies in the American States

Author

Listed:
  • John A. Hoornbeek

Abstract

This article investigates state reactions to the relatively decentralized federal policy structures that are now in place for non-point source water pollution control and assesses the extent to which state policies are living up to the promises of the policy devolution agenda. It develops and presents measures of state non-point source policy activism for all fifty states and analyzes the likely sources of variation in state policies. In so doing, it finds evidence that the “promises of devolution” are not being fulfilled across all states. The analysis also yields insights that can contribute to the development of new and more flexible federal-state policy arrangements in a policy area that has been characterized by command-and-control regulation. Copyright 2005, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • John A. Hoornbeek, 2005. "The Promises and Pitfalls of Devolution: Water Pollution Policies in the American States," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 35(1), pages 87-114, Winter.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:35:y:2005:i:1:p:87-114
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pji005
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luke Fowler & Chris Birdsall, 0. "Does the Primacy System Work? State versus Federal Implementation of the Clean Water Act," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(1), pages 131-160.
    2. Neal D. Woods, 2024. "Structuring Bureaucratic Performance? Assessing the Policy Impact of Environmental Agency Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-11, August.

    More about this item

    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:oup:publus:v:35:y:2005:i:1:p:87-114. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    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.