|
Abstract:
|
"The question of appropriate jurisdictions for various government activities is a fundamental issue in American politics and policy. In the realm of natural resource policy, initiatives to transfer certain responsibilities between the national and the local or state level are often debated. This paper compares state and national policy in the context of public forest management. Data for this part of the study come from two cases, each comprising two forests sharing similar physical characteristics but governed by different levels of government. Systematic comparisons suggest several important differences between Federal and state policies and outcomes. Officials in the national agency (the U.S. Forest Service) face greater statutory, regulatory, and planning constraints affecting their activities than do state forestry agency officials. These constraints require more public input and higher levels of environmental protection. Outcomes reflect these differences: national officials provide less timber, at higher expense, than do state officials. Concurrently, national officials undertake greater efforts to provide non-timber environmental benefits than do state forestry officials."
|