INTRODUCTION

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its implementation are at the center of some of the most controversial and divisive debates concerning the role of the federal government in environmental protection and in the regulation of the use of natural resources (Bornemeier 1995; Mann 1995; Metrick and Weitzman 1998; Stevens 1995). The controversy surrounding the act raises fundamental questions about a wide variety of social, political, legal, scientific, and ethical considerations that face government policy makers, regulators, and the public.

Recent concerns about the implementation of the ESA and the current debate over reauthorization have provided the impetus for this research. Critics from a variety of different perspectives, for example, have raised questions about the divergence between stated priorities and standards and actual patterns of allocation of resources for species protection (General Accounting Office 1988; Metrick and Weitzman 1996b, 1998; Simon, Leff, and Doerksen 1995). In addition, despite the heavy reliance in the statute on the use of scientific research in guiding the process of species identification and recovery, it is clear that at least some aspects of implementation are not appropriately informed by scientific research as prescribed by law (Clark, Reading, and Clarke 1994; General Accounting Office 1988; Minta and Kareiva 1994; National Research Council 1995; Metrick and Weitzman 1998). Furthermore, from an economic perspective, analyses of spending patterns for recovery efforts suggest an absence of cost-effective resource allocation which reflect both potentially counterproductive departures from official and mandated spending priority systems, and a system which itself has potential flaws (Metrick and Weitzman 1996b, 1998; Simon et al. 1995; Yaffee 1982).