Meetings with Costly Participation: An Empirical Analysis

Using data from the Mid-Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog fishery, we find that firms with a preference for extreme, rather than moderate, policies are much more likely to participate in public meetings where regulation is determined. We also find that participation rates are higher for larger, cl...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Review of Economic Studies
Main Authors: Turner, Matthew, Weninger, Quinn
Format: Text
Language:English
Published: Oxford University Press 2005
Subjects:
Online Access:http://restud.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/1/247
https://doi.org/10.1111/0034-6527.00331
id fthighwire:oai:open-archive.highwire.org:restud:72/1/247
record_format openpolar
spelling fthighwire:oai:open-archive.highwire.org:restud:72/1/247 2023-05-15T17:52:18+02:00 Meetings with Costly Participation: An Empirical Analysis Turner, Matthew Weninger, Quinn 2005-01-01 00:00:00.0 text/html http://restud.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/1/247 https://doi.org/10.1111/0034-6527.00331 en eng Oxford University Press http://restud.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/1/247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0034-6527.00331 Copyright (C) 2005, Review of Economic Studies Ltd Original Articles TEXT 2005 fthighwire https://doi.org/10.1111/0034-6527.00331 2016-11-16T18:32:56Z Using data from the Mid-Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog fishery, we find that firms with a preference for extreme, rather than moderate, policies are much more likely to participate in public meetings where regulation is determined. We also find that participation rates are higher for larger, closer, and more influential firms. These results: (1) improve our understanding of a very common institution for resource allocation, “meetings with costly participation”, (2) they refine our intuition about regulatory capture, (3) they provide broad confirmation of the recent theoretical literature predicting that polarization and bipartisanship should emerge under a variety of democratic institutions, and finally, (4) they may help to explain management problems in U.S. fisheries. Text Ocean quahog HighWire Press (Stanford University) Review of Economic Studies 72 1 247 268
institution Open Polar
collection HighWire Press (Stanford University)
op_collection_id fthighwire
language English
topic Original Articles
spellingShingle Original Articles
Turner, Matthew
Weninger, Quinn
Meetings with Costly Participation: An Empirical Analysis
topic_facet Original Articles
description Using data from the Mid-Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog fishery, we find that firms with a preference for extreme, rather than moderate, policies are much more likely to participate in public meetings where regulation is determined. We also find that participation rates are higher for larger, closer, and more influential firms. These results: (1) improve our understanding of a very common institution for resource allocation, “meetings with costly participation”, (2) they refine our intuition about regulatory capture, (3) they provide broad confirmation of the recent theoretical literature predicting that polarization and bipartisanship should emerge under a variety of democratic institutions, and finally, (4) they may help to explain management problems in U.S. fisheries.
format Text
author Turner, Matthew
Weninger, Quinn
author_facet Turner, Matthew
Weninger, Quinn
author_sort Turner, Matthew
title Meetings with Costly Participation: An Empirical Analysis
title_short Meetings with Costly Participation: An Empirical Analysis
title_full Meetings with Costly Participation: An Empirical Analysis
title_fullStr Meetings with Costly Participation: An Empirical Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Meetings with Costly Participation: An Empirical Analysis
title_sort meetings with costly participation: an empirical analysis
publisher Oxford University Press
publishDate 2005
url http://restud.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/1/247
https://doi.org/10.1111/0034-6527.00331
genre Ocean quahog
genre_facet Ocean quahog
op_relation http://restud.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/72/1/247
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0034-6527.00331
op_rights Copyright (C) 2005, Review of Economic Studies Ltd
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1111/0034-6527.00331
container_title Review of Economic Studies
container_volume 72
container_issue 1
container_start_page 247
op_container_end_page 268
_version_ 1766159686364561408