Abstract

Because of the transboundary nature of most environmental problems, environmental policy often lies at the intersection of domestic and international forces. Yet, because domestic and international issues are usually examined with different sets of theories and models, we tend to explain the policy process and outcome by emphasizing only one arena. Analysis of domestic policy is often dominated by process models, whereas scholars of international relations tend to apply rational models to explain state behavior. We apply Kingdon's ‘policy windows’ model of agenda setting and Brams's dynamic game theory framework to the development of acid-rain legislation enacted by the USA in the Clean Air Act of 1990. We compare the explanations of these theories with the work of other analysts, as well as with perceptions of policymakers by using data from interviews of policymaking elites in Canadian and US government, industry, and interest groups. It is demonstrated that process models and models of strategic interaction can complement each other, providing improved explanations of policy outcomes.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.