Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-01T04:21:20.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Finance, Special Interests, and Direct Wine Shipping Laws in the United States*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2012

Omer Gokcekus  and
Dennis Nottebaum
Omer Gokcekus*
Affiliation:
Omer Gokcekus: John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton Hall University, USA, omer.gokcekus@shu.edu
Dennis Nottebaum
Affiliation:
Dennis Nottebaum: Centre for Interdisciplinary Economics (CIW), University of Münster, Germany, nottebaum@wwu.de
*
For all correspondence: Omer Gokcekus, John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ 07079, USA; tel.: 973-313-6272, fax: 973-275-2519, e-mail: omer.gokcekus@shu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study develops thirteen criteria to detail diverging direct shipping laws of the U.S. states. It also investigates why some states have prohibitive laws by utilizing a logit regression model. Regression results provide strong support for public finance and special interest arguments: It appears that states concerned about incurring losses in tax revenues, that is, that are heavily dependent on federal aid and have low state revenues, and protecting the wholesalers and retailers that benefit from the three-tier system (at the expense of wineries and wine drinkers) are most likely to have a prohibitive law. (JEL Classification: D72, H71, Q18)

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Wine Economics , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , May 2012 , pp. 35 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © American Association of Wine Economists 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The authors thank Andrew Fargnoli, Adam Godet, Justin Myzie, Ryan Kane, Nicolas Reinhart, Edward Tower, and Daniel Verderosa, participants in the 2008 American Association of Wine Economists Meeting in Portland, two anonymous referees, and Karl Storchmann for their comments and suggestions.

References

Adams Beverage Group (2005). The Adams Wine Handbook 2005, Norwalk, CT.Google Scholar
Baldwin, R. and Magee, C. (2000). Is trade policy for sale? Congressional voting on recent trade bills. Public Choice, 105, 79–101.Google Scholar
Bruce, D., Fox, W.F. and Luna, L. (2009). State and local government sales tax revenue losses from electronic commerce. State Tax Notes, 52(7), 537–558.Google Scholar
Colman, T. (2008). Wine Politics: How Governments, Environmentalists, Mobsters, and Critics Influence the Wines We Drink, Berkeley, University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fennemore, G.A. and Nelson, J.P. (2001). Western rangelands reform: An analysis of the 1996 Senate vote on federal grazing fees. Contemporary Economic Policy, 19, 322–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gokcekus, O., Phillips, J. and Tower, E. (2004). School choice: Money, race and congressional voting behavior. Public Choice, 119(1–2), 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, W.H. (2003). Econometric Analysis, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (1994). Protection for sale. American Economic Review, 84, 833–850.Google Scholar
Grossman, G.M. and Helpman, E. (2001). Special Interest Politics, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hillman, A.L. (1982). Declining industries and political–support protectionist motives. American Economic Review, 72, 1180–1187.Google Scholar
Longley, N. (2003). Modeling the legislator as an agent for the party: The effects of strict party discipline on legislator voting behavior. Contemporary Economic Policy, 21, 490–499.Google Scholar
Neilson, A. (2006). Good history, good law (and by coincidence, good policy too): Granholm v. Heald, 125 S. Ct. 1885 (2005). Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 29(2), 743–758.Google Scholar
McCoy, E. (2005). The Emperor of Wine: The Rise of Robert M. Parker, Jr., and the Reign of American Taste, New York, Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
Ohlhausen, M.K. and Luib, G.P. (2008). Moving sideways: Post-Granholm developments in wine direct shipping and their implications for competition. Antitrust Law Journal, 75(2), 505–546.Google Scholar
Riekhof, G.M. and Sykuta, M.E. (2004). Regulating wine by mail. Regulation, 27(3), 30–36.Google Scholar
Riekhof, G. M. and Sykuta, M.E. (2005). Politics, economics, and the regulation of direct interstate shipping in wine industry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(2), 439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlan, M.A. (2009). Use tax history and its implications for electronic commerce. Information Society, 25(3), 220–225.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau (2008). Statistics of U.S. Businesses 2005, www.census.gov (accessed May 27, 2008).Google Scholar
Wiseman, A.E. and Ellig, J. (2004). Interstate trade barriers and potential regulatory competition: The case of Virginia's direct wine shipping ban. Journal of Private Enterprise, 19(2), 26–42.Google Scholar
Wiseman, A.E. and Ellig, J. (2007). The politics of wine: Trade barriers, interest groups, and the commerce clause. Journal of Politics, 69(3), 859–875.Google Scholar