Political opposition to transboundary cooperation in the Greater Yellowstone Area

Pahre, Robert

Many environmental problems straddle political boundaries and require transboundary coordination (TBC) among political leaders—but successful, deep cooperation is rare. Most of the literature attributes such failures to weaknesses in the political process, without examining how the process may itself be politicized. This study examines the conflicts of interest over changes in the transboundary policy process in the Greater Yellowstone Area. TBC effectively brings together two or more smaller units into a larger unit. Larger units will internalize some externalities, such as environmental values. This advantages stakeholders who care the most about negative externalities, and disadvantages those who produce them. TBC will also encompass a more heterogenous set of players, which tends to reduce the importance of local economic interests. The changing political process also affects agencies differently, depending on their own mandates. National park concerns for preservation and tourism will be privileged. Preservationist elements of the US Forest Service mandate will also be privileged, while other parts of that mandate will be disadvantaged. Finally, alongside this general pattern, certain forms of TBC can succeed because they achieve at lower cost goals on which everyone agrees. There is no conflict of interest in these cases, such as data collection, visitor education, and noxious weed control.