The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Political Institutions and Pollution Control
Abstract
This paper models the selection of environmental policies under authoritarian and democratic regimes, and tests the hypothesis that political institutions systematically affect the enactment of environmental regulations. The results support the contention that political institutional arrangements, rather than resource endowments, largely determine policies concerning environmental regulation. Copyright 1992 by MIT Press.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Pollution Abatement Costs and Foreign Direct Investment Inflows to U.S. States
Keller, W., & Levinson, A. (2002) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/003465302760556503 · Cited by 508
Democracy and Environmental Degradation
LI, Q., & REUVENY, R. (2006) · International Studies Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2006.00432.x · Cited by 495
Preferences over Prosperity and Pollution: Environmental Valuation based on Happiness Surveys
Welsch, H. (2002) · Kyklos · doi:10.1111/1467-6435.00198 · Cited by 323
Metadata
- Authors
- Congleton, R. D.
- Venue
- The Review of Economics and Statistics
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1992-08
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 412
- ISSN
- 0034-6535 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2076867596
- Cited by
- 518
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Political Institutions and Pollution Control. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2109485
- The paper
- Congleton, R. D. (1992). Political Institutions and Pollution Control. The Review of Economics and Statistics. https://doi.org/10.2307/2109485
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
