Special Interest Capture of Regulatory Agencies
A Ten-Year Analysis of Voting Behavior on Regional Fishery Management Councils
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 6329635 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Craig W Thomas (0000-0003-0530-8058, University of Washington, autor de correspondencia), A Soule (United States Coast Guard, autor de correspondencia), A Bradley Soule, Tyler Blake Davis (University of Washington, autor de correspondencia) |
| Año | 2010 |
| Volumen | 38 |
| Número | 3 |
| Páginas | 447-464 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2010-09-11 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | Sí |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Policy Studies Journal (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 0190-292X • E-ISSN: 1541-0072 |
| Editorial | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00369.x |
| OpenAlex | W2151656702 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 5 |
| Referencias citadas | 25 |
This article tests capture theory by analyzing voting behavior on U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils. Some seats on the councils are reserved for state and federal agency representatives; others, for political appointees. The political appointees primarily represent special interests (specifically, commercial and recreational fishing interests); a smaller number of appointees represent public interests. We use logistic regression to model the vote of state and federal agency representatives on the councils as a function of the votes of commercial interests, recreational interests, and public interests. We find evidence that some state agencies are captured by special interests from their states, but not systematic evidence across all states. We find that state agency representatives voted with commercial interests from their own state in five of the sixteen states in our sample; with recreational interests in three states; and with both special interests in two states. These ten states support the capture hypothesis; the other six states do not. We find no evidence that federal agencies were captured on the councils. We conclude that the gubernatorial-driven appointment process leads to capture at the state level by promoting voting blocs among state agency representatives and special interests from those states. Federal agency representatives, by contrast, are better able to maintain their distance from state-level politics on the councils, and thereby enhance their ability to vote independently on fishery management measures
Agency (philosophy · Business · Federalism · Political science · Politics · Recreation · Sociology · State (computer science · Voting · Law · Policy Transfer and Learning · Political Influence and Corporate Strategies · Public Administration · Regulation and Compliance Studies
Increasing industry involvement in international tuna fishery negotiations
An expanded evaluation of global fisheries management organizations on the high seas
Uber Über regulation? Regulatory change following the emergence of new technologies in the taxi market
Anatomy of agency capture
Public Choice and the EPA, 20 Years Later
Governing the Commons
Regulating Business by Independent Commission
Regulatory Capture
Regulatory Capture, Public Interest, and the Public Agenda
The Theory of Economic Regulation
Governing the Commons
The Political Economy of Regulation
Social movements and regulatory agencies
Hierarchical Controls, Professional Norms, Local Constituencies, and Budget Maximization
In and Out of the Revolving Door
Credibility and Relevance in Environmental Policy
Politics versus Professionalism
Regulatory Compliance and the Ethos of Quality Enhancement
Contingent Professionalism
Co-operation or capture? The paradox of co-management and community participation in natural resource management and environmental policy-making
Excessive Regulation
Big Fish, Little Fish
A Fishery in Transition
| Obras citantes distintas | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 0,42 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2014 - 2025 (12) |
| Velocidad de citación | recent |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 5 |