水力压裂、联邦制和私人治理

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
A. Leiter
{"title":"水力压裂、联邦制和私人治理","authors":"A. Leiter","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2407102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The United States is in the midst of a natural gas boom, made possible by advances in drilling and extraction technologies. There is considerable disagreement about the relative benefits and costs of the boom, but one thing is certain: it has caught governments flat-footed. The federal government has done little more than commission a study of some associated public health and environmental risks. States have moved faster to address natural gas risks, but with little consistency or transparency. Numerous private organizations are beginning to fill the resulting governance gaps with information-gathering and standards-setting efforts. This Paper documents these efforts and then uses a concrete policy proposal — the development of sustainable shale gas credits — to argue that these private entities are well positioned to facilitate the development and horizontal and vertical diffusion of innovative public governance strategies. In other words, these entities are fulfilling the experimentation function once assigned to states in so-called “laboratory federalism.” The Paper ends on a cautionary note, however. Private governance efforts often suffer from a lack of openness, balance, and accountability. Worse, there is reason to fear that familiar procedural reforms aimed at fixing those problems for public agencies may work far less well in the private context.","PeriodicalId":45668,"journal":{"name":"Harvard Environmental Law Review","volume":"09 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2014-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fracking, Federalism, and Private Governance\",\"authors\":\"A. Leiter\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2407102\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The United States is in the midst of a natural gas boom, made possible by advances in drilling and extraction technologies. There is considerable disagreement about the relative benefits and costs of the boom, but one thing is certain: it has caught governments flat-footed. The federal government has done little more than commission a study of some associated public health and environmental risks. States have moved faster to address natural gas risks, but with little consistency or transparency. Numerous private organizations are beginning to fill the resulting governance gaps with information-gathering and standards-setting efforts. This Paper documents these efforts and then uses a concrete policy proposal — the development of sustainable shale gas credits — to argue that these private entities are well positioned to facilitate the development and horizontal and vertical diffusion of innovative public governance strategies. In other words, these entities are fulfilling the experimentation function once assigned to states in so-called “laboratory federalism.” The Paper ends on a cautionary note, however. Private governance efforts often suffer from a lack of openness, balance, and accountability. Worse, there is reason to fear that familiar procedural reforms aimed at fixing those problems for public agencies may work far less well in the private context.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45668,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Harvard Environmental Law Review\",\"volume\":\"09 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Harvard Environmental Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2407102\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard Environmental Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2407102","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

由于钻探和开采技术的进步,美国正处于天然气繁荣时期。对于经济繁荣的相对收益和成本,人们存在相当大的分歧,但有一点是肯定的:它让政府措手不及。联邦政府所做的不过是委托对一些相关的公共健康和环境风险进行研究。各州在解决天然气风险方面行动更快,但缺乏一致性和透明度。许多私人组织正开始通过信息收集和标准设置工作来填补由此产生的治理空白。本文记录了这些努力,然后使用一个具体的政策建议——可持续页岩气信贷的发展——来论证这些私营实体在促进创新公共治理战略的发展和横向和纵向扩散方面处于有利地位。换句话说,这些实体正在履行在所谓的“实验室联邦制”中曾经分配给各州的实验职能。然而,《澎湃新闻》在结尾处发出了警告。私人治理工作经常受到缺乏公开性、平衡性和问责制的影响。更糟糕的是,我们有理由担心,为公共机构解决这些问题而进行的熟悉的程序改革,可能在私人机构中效果会差得多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fracking, Federalism, and Private Governance
The United States is in the midst of a natural gas boom, made possible by advances in drilling and extraction technologies. There is considerable disagreement about the relative benefits and costs of the boom, but one thing is certain: it has caught governments flat-footed. The federal government has done little more than commission a study of some associated public health and environmental risks. States have moved faster to address natural gas risks, but with little consistency or transparency. Numerous private organizations are beginning to fill the resulting governance gaps with information-gathering and standards-setting efforts. This Paper documents these efforts and then uses a concrete policy proposal — the development of sustainable shale gas credits — to argue that these private entities are well positioned to facilitate the development and horizontal and vertical diffusion of innovative public governance strategies. In other words, these entities are fulfilling the experimentation function once assigned to states in so-called “laboratory federalism.” The Paper ends on a cautionary note, however. Private governance efforts often suffer from a lack of openness, balance, and accountability. Worse, there is reason to fear that familiar procedural reforms aimed at fixing those problems for public agencies may work far less well in the private context.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
15.40%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Harvard Environmental Law Review is published semiannually by Harvard Law School students. Views expressed in the Review are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of HELR members. Editorial Policy: HELR has adopted a broad view of environmental affairs to include such areas as land use and property rights; air, water, and noise regula-tion; toxic substances control; radiation control; energy use; workplace pollution; science and technology control; and resource use and regulation. HELR is interested in developments on the local, state, federal, foreign, or international levels.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信