Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Home | Support RFF | Join E-mail List | Contact
RFF Logo
Skip navigation links
RESEARCH TOPICS
CENTERS
PUBLICATIONS
NEWS
EVENTS
RESEARCHERS
ABOUT RFF
 

 

 
Join E-mail List
Please provide your e-mail address to receive periodic newsletters and invitations to public events
 
 

About the Commentary

Series Editor: Joshua Linn
Managing Editor: Felicia Day
Assistant Editors: John Anderson and Adrienne Foerster

Welcome to the RFF Policy Commentary, which is meant to provide an easy way to learn about important policy issues related to environmental, natural resource, energy, urban, and public health problems.

Views expressed are those of the author. RFF does not take institutional positions on legislative or policy questions.

To receive the RFF Policy Commentary by email, or to submit comments and feedback, contact comments@rff.org.

Issues of the Day

Free for Download
Issues of the Day:
100 Commentaries on
Climate, Energy, the
Environment, Transportation,
and Public Health Policy
Ian W.H. Parry and
Felicia Day, Editors

This Week's Commentary  Previous Commentaries  Future Commentaries  Objectives
 

Environmental Federalism
Wallace E. Oates
September 21, 2009

This commentary discusses the pros and cons of setting environmental policies at the state and local level, as opposed to the federal level. It draws on several examples and evidence on the claim that competition among state governments will result in insufficient environmental protection.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The basic principles of economics make a compelling case for environmental regulation because of the excessive use of our freely available, but scarce, environmental resources under a system of free marketsor, in the jargon of economics, as a result of externalities. But in a federal system, with several levels of government, the next question involves the locus of regulatory authority: which level of government should undertake a specific regulatory responsibility? 

A cursory look at U.S. policy on this issue reveals some puzzling anomalies. Under the Clean Air Act in 1970, the U.S. Congress instructed the newly formed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set standards for ambient air quality in the form of maximum permissible concentrations of pollutants applicable to every jurisdiction in the country. Only two years later, under the Clean Water Act (1972), the states were assigned the responsibility for setting standards for water quality within their own boundaries. It is not at all clear why standards for air quality should be centrally set and uniform across the nation, while determining standards for water quality is left to the states.

Economics, as it turns out, can provide some guidance on this issue. From an economic perspective, standards for environmental quality should be tightened so long as the benefits from incremental cleanup exceed the additional costs. However, the geographical setting for applying this principle varies among different forms of pollution. In some instances, such as carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global climate change, all that matters is the aggregate level of emissionsthe precise location of their emission into the atmosphere doesnt matter (at least for purposes of global climate change). For pollutants of this kind, what we need is a national (or, really, a global) program to restrict emissions.

In contrast, the variation in both the benefits of cleanup activities and costs of certain other forms of pollution can vary dramatically across different jurisdictions. This, for example, can be the case for various forms of air and water pollution, where one size doesnt fit all. An efficient outcome in such a setting requires different standards for environmental quality depending on how damaging the effects are and how costly it is to control the polluting activity.

A particularly interesting and provocative case in point arose in the waning days of the Clinton administration in 2000, when EPA introduced a new measure to reduce the permissible level of arsenic in U.S. drinking water by 80 percent. The arsenic rule applied to all jurisdictions in the nation. Careful analysis of the new provision revealed that it promised only a minuscule reduction in health risk on a national scale. EPA estimated that the tough new standard could save approximately 20 to 30 statistical lives per year (the value of a “statistical” life is typically understood by economists to be the cost of reducing the average number of deaths by one). But this estimate was subject to sufficient uncertainty that it is not unreasonable to believe that no lives would be saved under the standard.    

   
Wallace E. Oates is professor of economics at the University of Maryland. He specializes in public finance (with a focus on fiscal federalism and state-local finance) and environmental economics (with a focus on economic incentives for environmental management).

Of special interest in this case was the enormous variation across the country in the cost per household of meeting the arsenic standard. Huge economies of scale exist in the treatment of drinking water such that the new measure could be met in a large water district like New York City for under $1 per year per household. In fact, many large districts were already in compliance with the new standard. But in very small water districts, largely in rural areas, the cost of meeting the new standard was in excess of $300 per household per annum, dwarfing any prospective gains. Indeed, far greater health benefits could be achieved if such sums were used for other public (or private) health measures, such as increasing the frequency of mammograms, colon screenings, or a host of other procedures. One size certainly didnt fit all in this case: the arsenic rule may have made sense for large water districts, but it was economically wasteful for smaller districts.

Critics of this approach to environmental federalism contend that it overlooks the fact that municipalities compete for new business investment and jobs. If we leave important matters of environmental regulation to state or local governments, we can set in motion a competitive race to the bottom, with officials setting lax environmental standards as a means of reducing the cost to new (and existing) businesses. Consequently, the critics argue, it is necessary to centralize the setting of standards to avoid a competitive depreciation of environmental quality.

However, a closer look suggests that both in theory and in practice the case for a race to the bottom is not very compelling. A standard theoretical model in which government seeks to maximize the well-being of its citizenry reveals no such race. People care about the quality of the environmentand a government that fails to respond to these concerns is unlikely to stay in office. Moreover, the existing evidence provides little support for this view. Under the Reagan administration in the 1980s, several measures were introduced that effectively moved the responsibility for environmental management on a number of fronts back to the states, creating a favorable setting for a race to the bottom. Three empirical studies have carefully examined this episode, however, and none found any evidence of a competitive reduction in environmental standards. On the contrary, increased state spending on environmental programs and improvements in environmental quality continued unabated through this period. 

Basic economics thus suggests an important principle for the structure of environmental regulation: polluting activities that degrade environmental quality in a local jurisdiction should therefore be a local responsibility (including the setting of standards). This way, regulatory measures can be tailored to the specific circumstances of each jurisdiction. In contrast, those forms of pollution that reach beyond state or local borders require a national approach to the setting of standards. This does not, incidentally, imply that there is no role for a centralized agency with regard to local environmental issues. An agency like EPA can provide critical information and guidance on the potential damages from various forms of pollution and on the costs of pollution control. State or local jurisdictions would then be in a position, either through their own officials or, perhaps, through some kind of referendum, to establish standards and a regulatory framework that address the particular circumstances of local environmental issues    

The appropriate use of decentralized environmental decisionmaking can have further benefits. In a federal system, state and local governments have the opportunity to introduce new and innovative regulatory measures. They can serve as laboratories in which to conduct experiments that can provide valuable lessons on the potential of new approaches to public policy. Under the Clean Air Act, for example, many state and local governments introduced a variety of emissions-trading systems that both demonstrated their effectiveness and exposed certain problems in their design. I doubt that the United States would have introduced the very successful national cap-and-trade program in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to control sulfur emissions to reduce acid rain without the invaluable earlier experience with this policy approach at state and local levels.

 

Further Reading:

Oates, Wallace E. 2002. A Reconsideration of Environmental Federalism. In Recent Advances in Environmental Economics, edited by J. List and A. De Zeeuw. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar, 132.

Oates, Wallace E. 2002. The Arsenic Rule: A Case for Decentralized Standard Setting? Resources 147 (Spring): 16–18.

Oates, Wallace E. and Robert M. Schwab. 1988. Economic Competition Among Jurisdictions: Efficiency-Enhancing or Distortion-Inducing? Journal of Public Economics (April): 333354.

RFF Home | RFF Press: An Imprint of Routledge Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Notice
1616 P St. NW, Washington, DC 20036 · 202.328.5000 Feedback | Contact Us