Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 126, Issue 1–2, pp 45–73 | Cite as

Consumer capture of regulatory institutions: The creation of public utility consumer advocates in the United States

  • Guy L. F. Holburn
  • Richard G. Vanden Bergh
Article

Abstract

We examine the conditions under which state legislatures in the United States organized public utility consumers during the 1970s and 1980s by creating independent consumer advocates with resources and authority to intervene in public utility rate-making procedures. While economic factors, notably utility fuel cost increases, were important predictors, state political conditions were estimated to have a larger impact on the probability of implementation. We find that the pattern of adoption is consistent with the hypothesis that legislatures deploy institutions as a mechanism for insulating regulatory policies against future reform: in general, Democrat-controlled governments were significantly more likely to implement consumer advocates when they were less certain about being re-elected to office during this period. We find also that the effect of political re-election expectations was particularly acute for the creation of advocates representing solely residential consumers, a relatively disorganized interest group. Our results suggest that legislatures organize and publicly fund interest groups to protect supportive but vulnerable groups against adverse future political environments.

Keywords

Public Finance Interest Group Economic Factor Regulatory Policy Vulnerable Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baldwin, R. E. (1989). The political economy of trade policy. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3, 119–35.Google Scholar
  2. Bawn, K. (1995). Political control versus expertise: Congressionalchoices about administrative procedures. American PoliticalScience Review, 89, 62–73.Google Scholar
  3. Bawn, K. (1997). Choosing strategies to control the bureaucracy:Statutory constraints, oversight, and the committee system. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 13, 101–126.Google Scholar
  4. Brainard, S. L., & Verdier, T. (1994). Lobbying and adjustment indeclining industries. European Economic Review, 38, 586–95.Google Scholar
  5. Besley, T., & Coate, S. (2003). Elected versus appointedregulators: Theory and evidence. Journal of the EuropeanEconomic Association, 1, 1176–1206.Google Scholar
  6. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Jones, B. S. (1997). Time is of theessence: Event history models in Political Science. AmericanJournal of Political Science, 41, 1414–1461.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, J. L. (1988). Nuclear power and the contradiction of U. S. Policy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, C., Fanara, P., & Gorman, R. F. (1987). Abandonment decisions and the market value of the firm: The case of nuclear power project abandonment. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 6, 185–197.Google Scholar
  9. Coate, S., & Morris, S. (1999). Policy persistence. American Economic Review, 89, 1327–1336.Google Scholar
  10. Costello, K. W. (1984). Electing regulators: The case of publicutility commissioners. Yale Journal on Regulation, 2, 83–105.Google Scholar
  11. De Figueiredo, R. J. (2003) Endogenous budget institutions andpolitical insulation: Why states adopt the item veto. Journalof Public Economics, 87, 2677–2701.Google Scholar
  12. De Figueiredo, R. J., & Vanden Bergh, R. G. (2004). Thepolitical economy of state-level administrative procedure acts.Journal of Law and Economics, 47, 569–588.Google Scholar
  13. De Figueiredo, R. J., Spiller, P. T., & Urbiztondo, S. (1999). Aninformational perspective on administrative procedures. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 15, 283–305.Google Scholar
  14. Energy information administration (1997). U. S. Department of theenvironment, State Energy Price and Expenditure Report.Google Scholar
  15. Epstein, D., & O'Halloran, S. (1994). Administrative procedures,information, and agency discretion. American Journal ofPolitical Science, 38, 697–722.Google Scholar
  16. Epstein, D., & O'Halloran, S. (1996). Divided government and thedesign of administrative procedures: A formal model and empiricaltest. The Journal of Politics, 58, 373–397.Google Scholar
  17. Enholm, G. B., & Malko, J. B. (1995). eds., Reinventingelectric utility regulation. Public utilities reports, Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Gormley, W. T. (1981). Public advocacy in public utility commissionproceedings. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17, 446–462.Google Scholar
  19. Gormley, W. T. (1983). The politics of public utilityregulation. University of Pittsburgh press, Pittsburgh, Pa.Google Scholar
  20. Harris, M. C., & Navarro, P. (1983). Does electing public utilitycommissioners bring lower electric rates?. Public UtilitiesFortnightly, 112, 23–88.Google Scholar
  21. Holburn, G. L. F., & Spiller, P. T. (2002). Interest grouprepresentation in administrative institutions: The impact ofconsumer advocates and elected commissioners on regulatory policyin the United States. POWER working paper 002, University ofCalifornia at Berkeley.Google Scholar
  22. Joskow, P. L. (1974). Inflation and environmental concern:structural change in the process of public utility priceregulation. Journal of Law and Economics, 17, 291–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Joskow, P. L. (1989). Regulatory failure, regulatory reform, andstructural change in the electrical power industry. BrookingsPapers: Microeconomics.Google Scholar
  24. Joskow, P. L., & Schmalansee, R. (1986). Incentive regulation forelectric utilities. Yale Journal on Regulation, 4, 1–49.Google Scholar
  25. Kalt, J. P., & Zupan, M. A. (1984). Capture and ideology in theeconomic theory of politics. American Economic Review, 74, 279–300.Google Scholar
  26. Kiefer, R. (1988). “Economic duration data and hazard functions.” Journal of Economic Literature, 26, 646–678.Google Scholar
  27. McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1987).Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 3, 243–277.Google Scholar
  28. McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G. & Weingast, B. R. (1989). Structureand process, politics and policy: Administrative arrangements andthe political control of agencies. Virginia Law Review, 75, 431–508.Google Scholar
  29. McCubbins, M. D., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversightoverlooked: Police patrols vs. fire alarms. American Journalof Political Science, 28, 165–179.Google Scholar
  30. Moe, T. (1990). The politics of structural choice: Toward a theoryof public bureaucracy. In organizational theory from ChesterBarnard to the present and beyond, edited by Oliver E. Williamson.Google Scholar
  31. Nelson, R. A. (1982). An empirical test of the Ramsey theory andStigler-Peltzman theory of public utility pricing. EconomicInquiry, 20, 277–190.Google Scholar
  32. Nelson, R. A., & Roberts, M. J. (1989). Ramsey numbers and therole of competing interest groups in electric utility regulation. Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 29, 21–42.Google Scholar
  33. Newey, W. K., & West, K. D. (1987). A simple, positivesemi-definite, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistentcovariance matrix. Econometrica, 55, 703–708.Google Scholar
  34. Peltzman, S. (1976). Towards a more general theory of regulation. Journal of Law and Economics, 19, 211–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Petersen, T. (1991). The statistical analysis of event histories.Sociological Methods and Research, 19, 211–248.Google Scholar
  36. Primeaux, W., & Mann, P. (1986). Regulator selection methods andelectricity prices. Land Economics, 63, 1–13.Google Scholar
  37. Rausser, G. C. (1992). Predatory versus productive government: Thecase of U. S. agricultural policies. Journal of EconomicPerspectives, 6, 133–57.Google Scholar
  38. Rodrik, D. (1991). Policy uncertainty and private investment indeveloping countries. Journal of Development Economics, 36, 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ross, T. W. (1985). Extracting regulators' implied welfare weights:Some further developments and applications. Quarterly Reviewof Economics and Business, 25, 72–84.Google Scholar
  40. Spiller, P. T., & Tiller, E. H. (1997). Decision costs and thestrategic design of administrative process and judicial review. The Journal of Legal Studies, XXVI, 347–370.Google Scholar
  41. Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. BellJournal of Economics, 2, 3–19.Google Scholar
  42. Tiller, E. H. (1998). Controlling policy by controlling process: Judicial influence on regulatory decision making. Journal ofLaw, Economics and Organization, 14, 114–135.Google Scholar
  43. Woroch, G. (1989). Dividing a sunk cost: A bargaining approach toregulatory treatment of power plant cancellations. Unpublishedmanuscript, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  44. Yamaguchi, K. (1991). Event history analysis. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guy L. F. Holburn
    • 1
  • Richard G. Vanden Bergh
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.University of VermontVermontU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations