scholarly journals Patchwork Policies, Spillovers, and the Search for Oil and Gas

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 380-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Lewis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Natural Experiment ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Spillover Effects ◽  
The United States ◽  
Lower Probability ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Federal Land

The United States has a complex patchwork of mineral ownership, where rights to oil and gas may be owned by the federal government, state governments, or private agents. I show why the policies imposed by one owner have theoretically ambiguous spillover effects on the drilling and production outcomes of neighboring plots of land. Exploiting a natural experiment in Wyoming with exogenous ownership assignment, I find significant spillovers: federal land close to state land has a lower probability of drilling than federal land far from state land. (JEL H82, L71, P14,Q35, Q38)

Comment

1980 ◽  
Vol 2 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 108-109
Author(s):  
Mark Kesselman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Local Government ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Local Autonomy ◽  
Fundamental Change ◽  
Local Expenditures

Acentral ingredient of democracy in the United States, according to Tocqueville, was local autonomy – yet the data presented by Professor Austin suggests a fundamental change in the United States since Tocquevilles time. Most local expenditures are now provided by the federal and state governments, most “local” programs are not local at all, for many (if not most) purposes the local government has become an extension of the federal government, and it is often replaced altogether by federally created field agencies (what the French call deconcentrated administration).

Towards a Theory of Taxation

1984 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-173
Author(s):  
J. R. Lucas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Multinational Corporations ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
State Governments ◽  
The Cost ◽  
George Iii

“Towards a Theory of Taxation” is a proper theme for an Englishman to take when giving a paper in America. After all it was from the absence of such a theory that the United States derived its existence. The Colonists felt strongly that there should be no taxation without representation, and George III was unable to explain to them convincingly why they should contribute to the cost of their defense. Since that time, understanding has not advanced much. In Britain we still maintain the fiction that taxes are a voluntary gift to the Crown, and taxing statutes are given the Royal Assent with the special formula, “La Reine remercie ses bons sujets, accepte leur benevolence, et ainsi le veult” instead of the simple “La Reine le veult,” and in the United States taxes have regularly been levied on residents of the District of Columbia who until recently had no representation in Congress, and by the State of New York on those who worked but did not reside in the State, and so did not have a vote. Taxes are regularly levied, in America as elsewhere, on those who have no say on whether they should be levied or how they should be spent. I am taxed by the Federal Government on my American earnings and by state governments on my American spending, but I should be hard put to it to make out that it was unjust. Florida is wondering whether to follow California in taxing multinational corporations on their world-wide earnings.

Over Water

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott M. Moore
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
River Basin ◽  
River Basins ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Tennessee Valley ◽  
Governance Institutions ◽  
American Legal System

The preceding chapters have emphasized the often unappreciated extent to which subnational jurisdictions engage in behaviors that resemble those of sovereign nation-states with respect to shared water resources. The United States, the world’s first modern federation, provides perhaps the clearest illustration of how institutional arrangements create the conditions for such behavior to be exercised. Even in comparison to other federal systems, the U.S. Constitution grants an unusual degree of power to state governments. This asymmetry is codified in the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, which assigns all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the states instead. The greater power of American states, even relative to their counterparts in other federal systems, is also reflected in the fact that they maintain not only independent executive and legislative bodies but also judiciaries, a feature that has resulted in the uniquely complicated American legal system wherein different states recognize different bodies of law, especially in the case of water rights (Watts 2008). Despite this fundamental asymmetry, the power of the federal government relative to the states has grown over time, especially following the expansion of federal authority during the New Deal era (Sharansky 1970; Elazar 1984; Zimmerman 2011). The United States also lacks several of the mechanisms that ensure a greater degree of coordination and cooperation between states in other federal systems. In particular, the United States lacks the prominent intergovernmental organizations, like the Council of Australian Governments, that are a feature of many other federal systems and that help to address interjurisdictional issues like water resource management. Hydropolitics in the United States presents a twofold puzzle. First, unlike the other countries examined in this book, the United States features a notable diversity of institutional models for governing its river basins. While many American river basins, including the Colorado, are governed either by a patchwork of institutions or by none at all, organizations like the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) represent some of the most powerful river basin governance institutions in the world (Delli Priscoli 2007).

scholarly journals Why Pandemics Matter to the History of U.S. State Development

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-333
Author(s):  
Stephen Colbrook
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
World War I ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Governments ◽  
World War ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
History Of

When a new strain of influenza circled the globe in the fall and winter of 1918, it swept through the United States at terrifying speed, infecting at least 25 million Americans—roughly one-quarter of the population—over the next two years. Based on any metric, the pandemic was the country's largest mass-mortality episode of the twentieth century, killing approximately 675,000 Americans and surpassing the death toll of World War I. Even as the virus struck the United States with unprecedented ferocity, however, the federal government left most public health decisions to the states, producing a disjointed and hyper-localized approach to a crisis that was national and global in scope. In the absence of a strong federal role, state governments carved out their own policy paths, adopting widely divergent strategies to stem the spread of the disease. This preventive playing field was wildly uneven. Some states were well-equipped with robust public health infrastructures; others lacked the tools to manage the disease's rampant spread.

Financing Community Resilience Before Disaster Strikes: Lessons From the United States

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte L. Kirschner ◽  
Akheil Singla ◽  
Angie Flick
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Community Resilience ◽  
The United States ◽  
Disaster Resilience ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Ex Ante ◽  
State And Local

As more and more of the population moves to areas prone to natural hazards, the costs of disasters are on the rise. Given that these events are an eventuality, governments must aid their communities in promoting disaster resilience, enabling their communities to reduce their susceptibility to natural hazards, and adapting to and recovering from disasters when they occur. The federal system in the United States divides these responsibilities among national, state, and local governments. Local and state governments are largely responsible for the direct provision of services to their communities, and the Stafford Act of 1988 provides that the federal government will pay at least 75% of all eligible expenses once a presidential major disaster declaration has been made. As a result, state and local governments have become largely reliant on transfers from the federal government to pay for disaster relief and recovery efforts. This system encourages state and local governments to ignore the risks they face and turn to the federal government for aid after a disaster. This system also seems to underemphasize an important mechanism that can bolster disaster resilience: financing the costs of disasters in advance through ex ante budgeting. Four tools for budgeting ex ante—intergovernmental grants, disaster stabilization funds, the municipal bond market, and hazard insurance—are described and examples of their use provided. Despite limited use by state governments, these tools provide governments the opportunity to build community resilience to disasters by budgeting ex ante for them.

Federalism, Government Liberalism, and Union Weakness in America

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 428-450
Author(s):  
David Darmofal ◽  
Nathan J. Kelly ◽  
Christopher Witko ◽  
Sarah Young
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Spillover Effects ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Liberal State ◽  
Business Investment ◽  
The Future ◽  
Union Decline ◽  
Subnational Governments

Unlike most other countries, in the United States, subnational governments (states) have substantial authority over collective bargaining and union organization laws. Because states compete for business investment and union (dis)organization likely has spillover effects beyond state borders, weak unions in one state may affect union organization in other states. We examine how union decline in one state is associated with union decline in neighboring states, and whether the presence of prounion (left-leaning) governments may limit the spread of union decline. Examining a period of major union decline (1983–2014), we find that union weakness in one state is associated with union weakness in nearby states. We observe that Democratic power in Congress is associated with higher unionization rates, but that liberal state governments have been relatively powerless to stop union decline in this period. These findings have important implications for understanding the historical and contemporary weakness of American unions and for the future of union strength in the United States.

Shale, Quakes, and High Stakes: Regulating Fracking-Induced Seismicity in Oklahoma, USA and Lancashire, UK

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Miriam R. Aczel ◽  
Karen E. Makuch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Seismic Activity ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Oil And Gas Industry ◽  
High Volume ◽  
The United States ◽  
Horizontal Drilling ◽  
Induced Seismic Activity

High-volume hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling has “revolutionized” the United States’ oil and gas industry by allowing extraction of previously inaccessible oil and gas trapped in shale rock [1]. Although the United States has extracted shale gas in different states for several decades, the United Kingdom is in the early stages of developing its domestic shale gas resources, in the hopes of replicating the United States’ commercial success with the technologies [2, 3]. However, the extraction of shale gas using hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling poses potential risks to the environment and natural resources, human health, and communities and local livelihoods. Risks include contamination of water resources, air pollution, and induced seismic activity near shale gas operation sites. This paper examines the regulation of potential induced seismic activity in Oklahoma, USA, and Lancashire, UK, and concludes with recommendations for strengthening these protections.

“The Greatest Nation on Earth”

2017 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah K.M. Rodriguez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Manifest Destiny ◽  
The United States ◽  
Northern Mexico ◽  
Texas Revolution

Between 1820 and 1827 approximately 1,800 U.S. citizens immigrated to northern Mexico as part of that country’s empresario program, in which the federal government granted foreigners land if they promised to develop and secure the region. Historians have long argued that these settlers, traditionally seen as the vanguard of Manifest Destiny, were attracted to Mexico for its cheap land and rich natural resources. Such interpretations have lent a tone of inevitability to events like the Texas Revolution. This article argues that the early members of these groups were attracted to Mexico for chiefly political reasons. At a time when the United States appeared to be turning away from its commitment to a weak federal government, Mexico was establishing itself on a constitution that insured local sovereignty and autonomy. Thus, the Texas Revolution was far from the result of two irreconcilable peoples and cultures. Moreover, the role that these settlers played in the United States’ acquisition of not just Texas, but ultimately half of Mexico’s national territory, was more paradoxical than inevitable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document