The diffusion of policy innovations -an experimental investigation

What causes a government to adopt a new program or policy? Despite a large number of empirical studies available to date, the relative importance of various determinants remains obscure because of difficulties of statistical identification. We present an experimental setting to study the diffusion of policy innovations in the laboratory. Our approach discriminates between experimentation, experience, and emulation as determinants of policy adoption. The policy innovation we study is an internalization tax to mitigate a local market externality. Our results demonstrate the importance of information about innovations in other states in the diffusion of policy innovations.

[1]  R. L. Savage.  Diffusion Research Traditions and the Spread of Policy Innovations in a Federal System , 1985 .

[2]  Harvey S. Rosen,et al.  Budget spillovers and fiscal policy interdependence: Evidence from the states , 1993 .

[3]  Helen F. Ladd.  Mimicking of Local Tax Burdens Among Neighboring Counties , 1992 .

[4]  William D. Berry,et al.  State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis , 1990, American Political Science Review.

[5]  Koleman S. Strumpf,et al.  Does Government Decentralization Increase Policy Innovation? , 1999 .

[6]  S. Page,et al.  Political Institutions and Sorting in a Tiebout Model , 1997 .

[7]  B. Heyndels,et al.  TAX MIMICKING AMONG BELGIAN MUNICIPALITIES , 1998, National Tax Journal.

[8]  A. Ciccone,et al.  Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty: Comment , 2004 .

[9]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[10]  C. Mooney.  Modeling Regional Effects on State Policy Diffusion , 2001 .

[11]  L. Baum,et al.  Patterns of Adoption of Tort Law Innovations: An Application of Diffusion Theory to Judicial Doctrines , 1981, American Political Science Review.

[12]  Gregory A. Caldeira.  The Transmission of Legal Precedent: A Study of State Supreme Courts , 1985, American Political Science Review.

[13]  Charles R. Plott,et al.  Externalities and Corrective Policies in Experimental Markets , 1983 .

[14]  Thomas R. Palfrey,et al.  Experimental foundations of political science , 1993 .

[15]  Lars P. Feld.  Exit, voice and income taxes: The loyalty of voters , 1997 .

[16]  John H. Miller,et al.  Decentralization and the Search for Policy Solutions , 2000 .

[17]  Confusion, Diffusion, and Innovation. , 1977 .

[18]  Alan Richards,et al.  Variations in Elite Perceptions of American States as Referents for Public Policy Making , 1975, American Political Science Review.

[19]  D. Rodrik,et al.  Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty , 1991 .

[20]  Virginia Gray,et al.  Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study , 1973, American Political Science Review.

[21]  William D. Berry,et al.  Specifying a Model of State Policy Innovation , 1991, American Political Science Review.

[22]  Mathew D. McCubbins,et al.  The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? , 1998 .

[23]  G. Harrison.  COASIAN SOLUTIONS TO THE EXTERNALITY PROBLEM IN EXPERIMENTAL MARKETS , 1987 .

[24]  Frances S. Berry.  Sizing Up State Policy Innovation Research , 1994 .

[25]  S. Welch,et al.  The Impact of Federal Incentives on State Policy Innovation , 1980 .

[26]  Vernon L. Smith,et al.  Competitive Market Institutions: Double Auctions vs. Sealed Bid-Offer Auctions , 1982 .

[27]  Scott P. Hays,et al.  Innovation and Reinvention in State Policymaking: Theory and the Evolution of Living Will Laws , 1991, The Journal of Politics.

[28]  Paul D. Allison,et al.  Event History Analysis : Regression for Longitudinal Event Data , 1984 .

[29]  Edward J. Mccaffery.  Cognitive Theory and Tax , 1994 .

[30]  T. Besley.  Political Institutions and Policy Competition , 2005 .

[31]  Michael Mintrom,et al.  Policy Networks and Innovation Diffusion: The Case of State Education Reforms , 1998, The Journal of Politics.