Costs and Benefits of Pollution Control in Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey, 1840-1906

Bibliographic Data

ID4486816
AuthorsChristine Meisner Rosen (corresponding author)
Year1998
Volume88
Issue2
Pages219
Publication date1998-04-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueGeographical Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0016-7428 • E-ISSN: 1931-0846
PublisherJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/215802
OpenAlexW4237083854
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited15

Judges in Pennsylvania saw the costs and benefits of protecting people from industrial pollution quite differently from judges in New York and New Jersey between 1840 and 1906. Not only did they invoke balancing doctrine more than did judges in New York and New Jersey; but when costs and benefits were considered, Pennsylvania judges almost always concluded that the price of pollution abatement was too high to justify enjoining polluting industries. New York and New Jersey judges commonly did the reverse, acknowledging great social value and little cost to making businesses alleviate pollution. Judicial interpretation of the notions of cost and benefit mirrored the political, economic, and social conditions in each state, conditions that differed across time and place

Business · Control (management · Doctrine · Economic cost · Economics · Management · Microeconomics · Natural resource economics · Political science · Politics · Social cost · State (computer science · Value (mathematics · American Environmental and Regional History · American History and Culture · Law · Pollution

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub