Using Benefit‐Cost Criteria for Settling Federalism Disputes: An Application to Food Safety Regulation
提出效益成本溢出标准用于评判联邦制下州级监管争议，并以马萨诸塞州对苹果加工品中Alar残留的监管为例，展示不同标准如何得出不同结论，帮助理解州级监管的合理性评估。
Abstract Federalism disputes arising from state regulations, particularly those pursuing health, safety, and environmental goals, are common in the U.S. political system. Discussion of bases for settling such disputes often focuses on the in‐ and out‐state incidence of benefits and costs, but incidence is a complex concept that has not been systematically analyzed. We discuss five dimensions important to evaluating incidence and present benefit‐cost spillover criteria for judging federalism disputes. When applied to a Massachusetts regulation of Alar residues in heat‐processed apple products, the criteria reach different conclusions on its appropriateness, highlighting key considerations in evaluating state regulation in a federal system.