Skip to main content
Log in

On and Off the Liability Bandwagon: Explaining State Adoptions of Strict Liability in Hazardous Waste Programs

  • Published:
Journal of Regulatory Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We test a model of states' adoption of the hazardous waste liability regime (negligence, strict liability) providing greater net benefits. The likelihood of adopting strict liability increases in a state's number of chemical-intensive manufacturing plants, decreases in the number of large mining establishments. Also predictive: severity of state's hazardous waste problem, effectiveness of other state environmental programs, and political climate. States may view strict liability as better for industrial than mining pollution, and may be partly motivated by "precaution targeting" and "deep pockets" mentality. Non-adopters may wish not to discourage business or have other programs that substitute for strict liability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barnett, Harold. 1994. Toxic Debts and the Superfund Dilemma. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain, Gary. 1980. “Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data,” Review of Economic Studies 47:225-238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropper, Maureen, William N. Evans, Stephen J. Berardi, Maria M. Ducla-Soares, and Paul R Portney. 1992. “The Determinants of Pesticide Regulation: A Statistical Analysis of EPA Decision Making.” Journal of Political Economy 100(1):175-198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Law Institute. 1993. “An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study. 1993 Update.” Prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December.

  • Environmental Law Institute. 1995. “An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study. 1995 Update.” Prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December.

  • Fogleman, Valerie M. 1992. Hazardous Waste Cleanup, Liability, and Litigation. Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, Shreekant, George Van Houtven, and Maureen Cropper. 1996. “Paying for Permanence: An Economic Analysis of EPA's Cleanup Decisions at Superfund Sites.” RAND Journal of Economics 27:563-582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Bob, and Mary Lee Kerr. 1992. The 1991–92 Green Index. Covelo, CA: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, Nick, Jason F. Shogren, and Ben White. 1997. Environmental Economics In Theory and Practice. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, Richard K., and Stephen C. Adams. 1996. “CERCLA and Deep Pockets: Market Response to the Superfund Program.” Contemporary Economic Policy 14:107-113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, Thomas (forthcoming), “The Effect of State Policies on the Location of Manufacturing: Evidence from State Borders.” Journal of Political Economy.

  • King, Susan M. 1988. “Lenders Liability for Environmental Law.” Environmental Law 18:241-291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddala, G. S. 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magat, Wesley A., Alan J. Krupnick, and Winston Harrington. 1986. Rules in the Making. A Statistical Analysis of Regulatory Agency Behavior. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Probst, Katherine N., Don Fullerton, Robert E. Litan, and Paul R. Portney. 1995. Footing the Bill for Superfund Cleanups: Who Pays and How? Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringleb, Al H., and Steven N. Wiggins. 1990. “Liability and Large-Scale, Long-Term Hazards.” Journal of Political Economy 98(3):574-595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rinquist, Evan J. 1993. Environmental Protection at the State Level. Politics and Progress in Controlling Pollution. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietenberg, Tom H. 1989. “Indivisible Toxic Torts: The Economics and Joint and Several Liability.” Land Economics 65(4): 305-319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolley, George, Donald Kenkel, and Robert Fabian, eds. 1994. Valuing Health for Policy: An Economic Approach. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 1989. “An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study.” Washington, D.C.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 1990. “An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study. 1990 Update.” Washington, D.C.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 1991. “An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study. 1991 Update.” Washington, D.C.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 1995. 1987–1993 Toxics Release Inventory CD-ROM. Washington, D.C.

  • Viscusi, W. Kip. 1993. Fatal tradeoffs, Public & Private Responsibilities for Risk. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alberini, A., Austin, D. On and Off the Liability Bandwagon: Explaining State Adoptions of Strict Liability in Hazardous Waste Programs. Journal of Regulatory Economics 15, 41–64 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008096808038

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008096808038

Keywords

Navigation