IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rje/randje/v19y1988ispringp102-113.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revealed Bureaucratic Preference: Priorities of the Consumer Product Safety Commission

Author

Listed:
  • Lacy Glenn Thomas

Abstract

In June 1977, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced priorities for those projects to be executed during subsequent fiscal years. I use conditional logit techniques to analyze random orderings to estimate the Commission's preference functions among projects. I show that the Commission overselects both projects with large safety benefits but even larger consumer costs and projects that require mandatory standards.

Suggested Citation

  • Lacy Glenn Thomas, 1988. "Revealed Bureaucratic Preference: Priorities of the Consumer Product Safety Commission," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(1), pages 102-113, Spring.
    • Handle: RePEc:rje:randje:v:19:y:1988:i:spring:p:102-113
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0741-6261%28198821%2919%3A1%3C102%3ARBPPOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H&origin=repec
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.
    ---><---

    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. John C. Moorehouse, 2001. "Does Information on the Internet Weaken the Case for Consumer Protection Regulation?," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 16(Spring 20), pages 138-160.
    2. Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Introduction to the Political Economy of Environmental Regulation," Working Paper Series rwp04-004, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    3. Ando, Amy, 1998. "Delay on the Path to the Endangered Species List: Do Costs and Benefits Matter," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-43-rev, Resources for the Future.
    4. Metrick, Andrew & Weitzman, Martin L., 1994. "Patterns of behavior in biodiversity preservation," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1358, The World Bank.
    5. Layton, David F., 2000. "Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 21-36, July.
    6. Ando, Amy Whritenour, 1999. "Waiting to Be Protected under the Endangered Species Act: The Political Economy of Regulatory Delay," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 29-60, April.
    7. Andrew B. Whitford, 2007. "Competing Explanations for Bureaucratic Preferences," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 19(3), pages 219-247, July.
    8. Guilherme S. Bastos & Erik Lichtenberg, 2001. "Priorities in Cost Sharing for Soil and Water Conservation: A Revealed Preference Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 533-547.

    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:rje:randje:v:19:y:1988:i:spring:p:102-113. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.rje.org .

    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.