IS EFFECTIVE REGULATION ALWAYS OXYMORONIC - THE STATES AND AMBIENT AIR-QUALITY

Objective. Popular perception and scholarly assessments generally converge around the idea that regulatory policy is ineffective. This article adds to the literature on policy outcomes by evaluating the effectiveness of state air pollution control programs. Methods. Data from the Environmental Protection Agency's National Air Data Branch are used to develop three measures of change in average state ambient air quality from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s. Multiple regression and path analysis are used to assess the effects of changes in industrial activity, fossil fuel use, and various regulatory efforts on air quality in the states. Results. Contrary to previous studies, states with stronger regulatory programs have, all other things equal, experienced greater reductions in atmospheric concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Moreover, these effects exceed the impact of nonregulatory factors in explaining changes in state air quality. Conclusions. First, regulatory policy is not always ineffective or counterproductive; strong regulatory programs have improved air quality. Second, a federal approach to regulation has some advantages. Allowing states to go beyond federal minimum standards in environmental protection has provided significant environmental benefits for citizens in those states that have chosen to surpass these standards.