1999
DOI: 10.1016/s0921-8009(98)00056-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Power distribution, the environment, and public health: A state-level analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
76
0
3

Year Published

2003
2003
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 141 publications
(82 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
3
76
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…In sum, the study by Boyce et al (1999) provides empirical support for the hypothesis that greater power inequality leads to weaker environmental policies, and that weaker policies in turn lead to greater environmental degradation. This suggests that inequalities in the distribution of power operate not only to the detriment of specific groups, but also to the detriment of environmental quality in the state as a whole.…”
mentioning
confidence: 74%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In sum, the study by Boyce et al (1999) provides empirical support for the hypothesis that greater power inequality leads to weaker environmental policies, and that weaker policies in turn lead to greater environmental degradation. This suggests that inequalities in the distribution of power operate not only to the detriment of specific groups, but also to the detriment of environmental quality in the state as a whole.…”
mentioning
confidence: 74%
“…The second hypothesis derived from the power-weighted social decision rule -that inequalities in the distribution of power affect the total magnitude of environmental degradation -has been tested in a study of the United States by Boyce et al (1999), using cross-sectional data from the 50 states. As a unit of analysis, the state is attractive in that while all 50 states operate within the same overall U.S. political framework, the state governments play a major role in the formulation and enforcement of environmental protection policies, with considerable state-to-state variations.…”
Section: Inequality and Environmental Quality: Evidence From The Unitmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further empirical support for the hypothesis that power disparities have an adverse impact on environmental quality comes from a cross-sectional study of the 50 U.S. states by Boyce et al (1999). The authors derived a power-distribution index from state-level data on voter participation, tax fairness, access to health care, and educational attainment.…”
Section: (Ii) Power Disparities and The Environmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a statistical test of the second hypothesis, Boyce et al (1999) found that among the 50 U.S. states, those with more equitable distributions of power (measured by voter participation, educational attainments, tax fairness and Medicaid access) tend to have stronger environmental policies and better environmental outcomes. Further evidence in support of this hypothesis comes from a study of the relationship between residential segregation and cancer risks from air pollution in the United States, which found that greater segregation on racial and ethnic lines is correlated with worse environmental and health outcomes for all groups, not only for people of color (Morello-Frosch and Jesdale 2006).…”
Section: More Inequality More Harm?mentioning
confidence: 99%