Differences Between State and Federal Public Forest Management
The Importance of Rules
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6375529 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Tomas M Koontz (0000-0002-3607-6272, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1997 |
| Volume | 27 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 15-38 |
| Publication date | 1997-01-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Publius The Journal of Federalism (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0048-5950 • E-ISSN: 1747-7107 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a029892 |
| OpenAlex | W2065134342 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
In United States federalism, public policy responsibilities belong to multiple jurisdictions. This article compares state with federal public forest management. Data come from four cases, each comprising two forests sharing similar physical characteristics but under the authority of different governments. Systematic comparisons suggest that officials in the national forest agency face greater statutory, regulatory, and planning constraints than do state agency officials. These constraints require more public input and higher levels of environmental protection. Outcomes reflect these differences: federal officials provide less limber, at lower net profit, than do state officials, and they transfer less revenue to local governments. Concurrently, federal officials make greater environmental protection efforts
Agency (philosophy · Business · Clean Water Act · Economics · Federal state · Federalism · Political science · Politics · Public economics · Revenue · Revenue sharing · State (computer science · Statutory law · Economic and Environmental Valuation · Forest Management and Policy · Law · Political Influence and Corporate Strategies · Public Administration · Finance
| Citations per year | 0.19 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 1999 - 2015 (17) |
| Highly cited | No |