State Government Officials\u27 Role in U.S./Mexico Transboundary Resource Issues

Analyses state roles in foreign policy by examining the broader picture of policymaking concerning US/Mexico transboundary resource issues and what roles states have to play in the policymaking process. Observers of natural resources issues on the US/Mexico border have been warning for some time that the seriousness of problems concerning such issues is escalating. Institutional and political capacity to deal successfully with these problems has not kept pace. This paper examines the nature of these issues, the incentives for and factors influencing the negotiation of binational settlements, and the role of state decisionmakers in that negotiation process. It also takes a closer look at the domestic US policymaking process concerning transboundary resource issues and examines state government officials' roles at the different stages of the process from initial agenda setting to implementation. Specific examples from case studies are cited and shortcomings of the existing decision processes are summarized. -from Autho

A WILLINGNESS TO PLAY: ANALYSIS OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Economic analysis shows that the Central Arizona Project will be a poor investment from the point of view of individual farmers. Yet farmers support the Project. In this study of the economics and politics of the CAP, farmers are questioned as to their information, perceptions and motivations. Farmers are willing to play – not necessarily to pay.Resource /Energy Economics and Policy,

States, Markets and beyond: Governance of Transboundary Water Resources

This article focuses on a comparison of states and markets in the management of transboundary water. Borders are often harbingers of change and areas of innovation. Nation states have struggled mightily to overcome problems of shared river basins and aquifers. Today, the state-centric model is losing its hegemony. Once the article has established the limitations of states as governing institutions, its attention turns to an alternative offered by public choice scholars. Proposals for functional, overlapping, and competing jurisdictions are subjected to critical scrutiny and found wanting. Both of these conceptual frameworks have serious flaws. While the state-centered model poorly captures the emerging complexities of intermestic politics, the market approach fails to incorporate institutions that foster intersectoral cooperation and communication. The article concludes that effective governance of fluid resources is increasingly and necessarily founded on the cooperative interrelationships of various institutions that represent the variety of complementing logics and functions within the transnational water arena