Rent-Seeking in Noxious Weed Regulations: Evidence from US States



Table 2. Estimates of Cross-State Weed Regulatory Congruence, 1997

Slope Coefficients a

Sign of
Dissimilarity

List 1
NWS

List 2
NWS Prohibited

List 3
NWS Restricted

List 4

NW

I1. Average Temperature

Negative

4.9813

84.4727**

-21.3807**

6.1407

.

(3.2738)

.

(4.4132)

.

(3.4548)

.

(7.1744)

Positive

-97.3581**

-42.5648**

-79.4742**

-44.4595**

(4.7132)

(7.0742)

(5.0572)

(9.1408)

I2. Average Precipitation

Negative

10 5249**

7 3781**

5 1682**

13 8153**

.

(0.6986)

.

(0.8859)

.

(0.7147)

.

(1.3309)

Positive

-22.7889**

-19.4822**

-32.4031**

6.8839

(1.9501)

(2.7352)

(2.1169)

(3.9889)

I3. Variance of Temperature

Negative

0 0018

-0 0054

0 0074

-2 6872**

.

(0.0037)

.

(0.0038)

.

(0.0040)

.

(0.5272)

Positive

-6.9931**

-4.6264*

-6.1663**

-11.0265**

(1.5677)

(2.2303)

(1.6542)

(2.6504)

I4. Variance of Precipitation

Negative

0 0001*

-0 0000

0 0001**

-0 0250*

.

(0.0000)

.

(0.0000)

.

(0.0000)

.

(0.0114)

Positive

-6.64113**

-16.6602**

-5.91907**

-8.7547**

(1.51491)

(2.17302)

(1.59267)

(2.89615)

I5. Land Share Index

Negative

0.0377

0.0294

0.0122

0.0368

(0.0245)

(0.0358)

(0.0229)

(0.0189)

Positive

-0.0057

0.0581

-0.0163

-0.0665*

(0.0293)

(0.0430)

(0.0274)

(0.0334)

I6. Water Share Index

Negative

0 2186

0 3907*

0 1230

0 3155

.

(0.1413)

.

(0.1844)

.

(0.1629)

.

(0.4434)

Positive

-0.2210

-0.6354**

-0.1177

-0.3793

(0.1140)

(0.1531)

(0.1319)

(0.3691)

I7. Soil Share Index

Negative

0 0203

-0 2286

0 1888

-0 7390

.

(0.1952)

.

(0.2656)

.

(0.2135)

.

(0.4173)

Positive

-0.0570

0.4465

-0.3991*

0.1713

(0.1679)

(0.2289)

(0.1816)

(0.3871)

A1. Field Crop Land Share

Negative

3 8381**

7 9762**

4 8898**

2 9998

.

(1.4170)

.

(1.9874)

.

(1.4321)

.

(1.9787)

Positive

-13.3076**

1.0805

-15.4310**

-18.7375**

(2.6138)

(3.7531)

(2.8232)

(4.3266)

A2. Irrigated Land Share

Negative

0 0151

-0 0455**

0 0631**

0 0287

.

(0.0122)

.

(0.0176)

.

(0.0131)

.

(0.0183)

Positive

-6.8743**

-3.6522

-3.6564*

-5.2978*

(1.4686)

(2.0594)

(1.5625)

(2.5443)

ωc: Lobby of Consumer

Negative

0.0230

0.0107

0.3081**

-0.3546**

.

(0.0697)

.

(0.0913)

.

(0.0834)

.

(0.1143)

Positive

-5.6111**

-2.9029

-4.0133*

0.6874

(1.6113)

(2.2071)

(1.6983)

(2.7670)

ωs: Lobby of Seed Industry

Negative

-0.0387

0.0162

-0.0436

0.0465

.

(0.0259)

.

(0.0306)

.

(0.0294)

.

(0.0588)

Positive

-0.0484

2.1991

1.5123

-3.69253

(1.4357)

(2.0100)

(1.5100)

(2.4161)

ωm: Lobby of Commodity

Negative

0.0708

-0.1074

0.2051*

-0.5762**

Producer

(0.0764)

(0.0902)

(0.0828)

(0.1407)

Positive

0.3841

0.3476

-0.6256

1.9280*

(0.5914)

_________(0.7400)

_________(0.6747)

(0.9482)

** and * denote significance at the 1% and 5% level, respectively; number in parenthesis is standard error.

aI1 through I7 indicate ecological dissimilarity indexes, A1 and A2 are agronomic dissimilarity indexes, and ωk,
k=c,s,m, denote lobbying dissimilarity indexes.

28



More intriguing information

1. Who is missing from higher education?
2. Psychological Aspects of Market Crashes
3. Notes on an Endogenous Growth Model with two Capital Stocks II: The Stochastic Case
4. Workforce or Workfare?
5. The name is absent
6. Labour Market Institutions and the Personal Distribution of Income in the OECD
7. Foreword: Special Issue on Invasive Species
8. Housing Market in Malaga: An Application of the Hedonic Methodology
9. Indirect Effects of Pesticide Regulation and the Food Quality Protection Act
10. The name is absent