Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The fiscal pit and the federalist pendulum: Explaining differences between US States in protecting health and the environment

  • Published:
Environmentalist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The US federal government has deliberately shifted a great deal of responsibility for protecting public health and the environment to the 50 US States. Some States are able and willing to assume control, but many others cannot or will not. It is argued that the American federal government should be prepared to intervene in those States that do not place health and environment on their agenda.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Cancer Society. 1984.Cancer Facts and Figures — 1984. American Cancer Society, Atlanta.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Cancer Society. 1989.Cancer Facts and Figures — 1989. American Cancer Society, Atlanta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conlan, T. 1986. Federalism and competing values in the Reagan Administration.Publius: The Journal of Federalism,16 (Winter), 29–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conservation Foundation. 1984.State of the Environment: An assessment at mid-decade. Conservation Foundation, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costle, D. 1987. Improving our regulatory tools.Environment, Science and Technology,21 (10), 952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crotty, P. 1987. The new federalism game: Primary implementation of environmental policy.Publius: The Journal of Federalism 17 (Spring), 53–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, J. 1984. Environmental institutions and the Reagan Administration. In: Vig, N. and Kraft, M. (eds),Environmental Policy in the 1980s: Reagan's New Agenda, pp.143–169. Congressional Quarterly, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, C. and Lester, J. 1987. Decentralizing federal environmental policy: A research note.Western Political Quarterly,40 (September), 555–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duerksen, C. 1983.Environmental regulation of industrial plant siting: how to make it work better. Conservation Foundation, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eads, G. and Fix, M. 1984.Relief or reform: Reagan's Regulatory Dilemma. Urban Institute, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frech, H. 1988.Health care in America: the political economy of hospitals and health insurance. Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, V. 1983. Politics and policy in the American States. In: Gray, V., Jacob, H. and Vines, K. (eds),Politics in the American States: a comparative analysis. Little, Brown, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, M. 1989. State Attorneys General move in: Filling the deregulatory vacuum.The Nation,249(13), 441; 458–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, M. and Amer, S. 1989. Self-interest and direct legislation: public support of a hazardous waste bond issue in New Jersey,Political Geography Quarterly,8 67–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, M. 1987a. The changing geography of major causes of death among middle aged white Americans, 1939–1981.Socio-Economic Planning Science,21(4), 223–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, M. (ed.) 1987b.Public Health and the Environment. Guilford Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hays, S. 1987.Beauty, Health and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955–1985. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester, J. 1986. New Federalism and environmental policy.Publius: The Journal of Federalism,17 (Winter), 149–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liner, E. (ed.) 1989.A Decade of Devolution: Perspectives on State—Local Relations. Urban Institute, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, D., Hornback, K. and Warner, W. 1972. The environmental movement: Some preliminary observations and predictions. In: Burch, W. Jr and Cheeks, N. Jr (eds),Social Behavior, Natural Resources, and the Environment. pp.259–279. Harper and Row, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, R. and Doolittle, F. 1984. The untold story of Reagan's "New Federalism".The Public Interest,77 (Fall), 96–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, R.et al. 1983.The Consequences of Cuts: The Effects of the Reagan Domestic Program on State and Local Governments. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Health Policy Project of George Washington University. 1984.Fifty-State Profile of State Legislated Actions Affecting Cancer Prevention. National Institutes of Health, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passell, P. 1989. Making a risky life bearable: better data, clearer choices.New York Times, May 9, A1 and C13.

  • Piven, F and Cloward, R. 1971.Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare. Vintage Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poe, E. 1904.The Pit and the Pendulum, pp.5–27 inThe Works of Edgar Allan Poe, 6. Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, F. 1989. Balancing environment and land-use.The Environmental Forum,6(4), 19; 24–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portney, P. 1986. Environmental evolution.Resources,85 (Fall), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portney, P. 1988. Reforming environmental regulation: three modest proposals.Issues in Science and Technology,4(2), 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Public Citizen Health Research Group. 1988. Ranking of State Medicaid programs, cited in theHealth Letter of the Public Citizen Health Research Group,4(1), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regens, J and Rycroft, R. 1983. Intergovernmental issues in managing Sunbelt growth. In: Ballard, S. and James, T. (eds),The Future of the Sunbelt: Managing Growth and Change. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridley, S. and Piltz, R. 1989.State of the States. Renew America, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, R. 1985. Diffusion research traditions and the spread of policy innovations in a federal system.Publius: The Journal of Federalism,15 (Fall), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, R. 1988. Environmental federalism.Resources,88 (Summer). 6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R., Alexander, R. and Wolman, M. 1987. Water quality trends in the nation's rivers.Science,235, 1607–1615.

    Google Scholar 

  • State Government News, 1985. States name top priorities for 1985. 27, February, 13.

  • Strickland, C. 1989. Toxic politics in Louisiana: Something stinks in Morgan City.The Nation,249(13), 448–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suro, R. 1989. Grass-roots groups show power battling pollution close to home.New York Times July 2, A1, A18.

  • US Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining. 1983. Proposed Revisions to the Permanent Program Regulations Implementing Section 501(b) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Final Environmental Statement, Vol. I, January. Government Printing Office, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Environmental Protection Agency. 1986.Summary of the 1987 Budget. Government Printing Office, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. 1969. Diffusion of innovations among the American States.The American Political Science Review,63, 880–899.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, H. 1990. Dumping on us.The Nation,250(3), 76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welbom, D. 1988. Conjoint federalism and environmental regulation in the United States.Publius: The Journal of Federalism,18 (Winter), 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rutgers State University of New Jersey, 08903, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA

    Michael R. Greenberg, Frank J. Popper & Bernadette M. West

Authors
  1. Michael R. Greenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frank J. Popper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bernadette M. West
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Dr. Michael Greenberg is Professor of the School of Urban and Regional Policy at Rutgers as well as being an Advisory Board member to this journal. Prof. Frank Popper chairs the Department of Urban Studies and Community Health at Rutgers University. He has written extensively about land use issues and the American Great Plains. Bernadette West is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Urban Planning and Policy Development, Rutgers University. Her thesis concerns scientific and political issues in developing cancer research centers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Greenberg, M.R., Popper, F.J. & West, B.M. The fiscal pit and the federalist pendulum: Explaining differences between US States in protecting health and the environment. Environmentalist 11, 95–104 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01266629

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01266629

Keywords

Search

Navigation