IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea06/21212.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Rent-Seeking in Noxious Weed Regulations: Evidence from US States

Author

Listed:
  • Min, He
  • Gopinath, Munisamy
  • Buccola, Steven T.
  • McEvoy, Peter B.

Abstract

Many non-native insect, disease, and weed pests of food, fiber, and nursery crops pose threats to the U.S. environment, agricultural production, and exports. In this study we focus on regulations controlling the spread of noxious weeds, especially the regulatory differences among US states and investigate the determinants of such regulations. With a simple game-theoretic framework, we derive cross-state regulatory congruence as a function of ecological and agronomic characteristics and stakeholder lobbying through political contributions. Empirical results suggest ecological and agronomic dissimilarities drive large cross-state differences in noxious weed regulation across states. However, evidence of stakeholder interests in shaping these regulations is found to be statistically significant. In particular, the seed industry appears to favor more uniform regulations among US states.

Suggested Citation

  • Min, He & Gopinath, Munisamy & Buccola, Steven T. & McEvoy, Peter B., 2006. "Rent-Seeking in Noxious Weed Regulations: Evidence from US States," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21212, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea06:21212
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.21212
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/21212/files/sp06go01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.21212?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. John C. Beghin & Jean-Christophe Bureau, 2017. "Quantitative Policy Analysis Of Sanitary, Phytosanitary And Technical Barriers To Trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 3, pages 39-62, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. John C. Beghin & Jean-Christophe Bureau, 2001. "Quantification of Sanitary, Phytosanitary, and Technical Barriers to Trade for Trade Policy Analysis," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 01-wp291, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    3. Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2004. "Trade, Growth, and the Environment," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(1), pages 7-71, March.
    4. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    5. Giovanni Maggi & Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg, 1999. "Protection for Sale: An Empirical Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1135-1155, December.
    6. Mark E. Eiswerth & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2002. "Uncertainty, Economics, and the Spread of an Invasive Plant Species," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1317-1322.
    7. Chad Settle & Jason E Shogren, 2002. "Modeling Native-Exotic Species within Yellowstone Lake," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1323-1328.
    8. Gary S. Becker, 1983. "A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(3), pages 371-400.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Cassing, James H. & Long, Ngo Van, 2021. "Trade in trash: A political economy approach," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    2. Olson, Lars J., 2006. "The Economics of Terrestrial Invasive Species: A Review of the Literature," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 178-194, April.
    3. Deniz Igan & Prachi Mishra & Thierry Tressel, 2012. "A Fistful of Dollars: Lobbying and the Financial Crisis," NBER Macroeconomics Annual, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(1), pages 195-230.
    4. Tomaso Duso, 2005. "Lobbying and regulation in a political economy: Evidence from the U.S. cellular industry," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 251-276, March.
    5. William Pyle & Laura Solanko, 2013. "The composition and interests of Russia’s business lobbies: testing Olson’s hypothesis of the “encompassing organization”," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 155(1), pages 19-41, April.
    6. William R. Kerr & William F. Lincoln & Prachi Mishra, 2014. "The Dynamics of Firm Lobbying," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 343-379, November.
    7. Ferrier, Peyton, 2014. "The Effects of Phytosanitary Regulations on U.S. Imports of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables," Economic Research Report 176199, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Didier Laussel & Michel Le Breton, 2005. ""Favors" for Sale: Strategic Analysis of a Simple Menu Auction with Adverse Selection," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 6(1), pages 53-73, May.
    9. Wang, Jue-Shyan & Koo, Hui-wen & Chen, Tain-Jy, 2006. "Resource rivalry and endogenous lobby," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 488-511, December.
    10. Michael Blanga-Gubbay & Paola Conconi & Mathieu Parenti, 2020. "Globalization for Sale," RSCAS Working Papers 2020/25, European University Institute.
    11. Martimort, David, 2019. ""When Olson Meets Dahl": From Inefficient Groups Formation to Inefficient Policy-Making," CEPR Discussion Papers 13843, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Margolis, Michael & Shogren, Jason F. & Fischer, Carolyn, 2005. "How trade politics affect invasive species control," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 305-313, February.
    13. Pokrivcak, Jan, 2007. "Economics and Political Economy of Regional Trade Agreements," Working Papers 7286, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    14. Irina Slinko & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya & Evgeny Yakovlev, 2005. "Laws for Sale: Evidence from Russia," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 7(1), pages 284-318.
    15. Olson, Lars J. & Roy, Santanu, 2010. "Dynamic sanitary and phytosanitary trade policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 21-30, July.
    16. Etienne Farvaque & Gael Lagadec, 2009. "Electoral Control when Policies are for Sale," CESifo Working Paper Series 2522, CESifo.
    17. Philip I. Levy, 2003. "Non-Tariff Barriers as a Test of Political Economy Theories," Working Papers 852, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    18. Kishore Gawande & Pravin Krishna & Michael J. Robbins, 2006. "Foreign Lobbies and U.S. Trade Policy," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(3), pages 563-571, August.
    19. Lofgren, Hans & Robinson, Sherman, 2004. "Public Spending, Growth, and Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Dynamic General Equilibrium Analysis," Conference papers 331292, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    20. Matilde Bombardini & Francesco Trebbi, 2020. "Empirical Models of Lobbying," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 391-413, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:aaea06:21212. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.