The Political Structure of Policy Diffusion: Political Structure of Policy Diffusion

Unlike the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions include provisions for regulating and legislating specific policy issues. Embedding policy proscriptions in state constitutions may impact the rate and likelihood of policy diffusion. To examine how the amendment process influences diffusion resulting from geographic competition, we estimate a well-known policy diffusion model, using state-sponsored lotteries as a case study. Our mixed model of survival analysis separately estimates amendments and lottery adoptions allowing for different covariates and baseline hazards in each model. We find that there are different diffusion effects for constitutional amendments and policy adoptions, that the two-step process requires a more professionalized legislature, and that amending the state constitution influences the timing of the adoption process. Once we take into consideration the two-step process of lottery diffusion, we find a conditional diffusion effect that is over twice as large as previous estimates, and an overall diffusion that is larger than estimates from event-history estimation, suggesting that the constitutional hurdle is an important determinant of policy adoption. These effects occur over the entire policy adoption phase (1961–2009), over multiple specifications of the baseline hazard, for alternate measures of diffusion, and for alternate model specifications, thereby suggesting that the constitutional hurdle is an important element of state policy, and it should be empirically considered in future models of policy diffusion.

[1]  Sean Nicholson-Crotty The Politics of Diffusion: Public Policy in the American States , 2009, The Journal of Politics.

[2]  John B. Willett,et al.  It’s About Time: Using Discrete-Time Survival Analysis to Study Duration and the Timing of Events , 1993 .

[3]  Fabrizio Gilardi,et al.  Who Learns from What in Policy Diffusion Processes , 2010 .

[4]  Jack L. Walker The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States , 1969, American Political Science Review.

[5]  A. Lupia,et al.  Why State Constitutions Differ in their Treatment of Same-Sex Marriage , 2010 .

[6]  Charles R. Shipan,et al.  Bottom-Up Federalism: The Diffusion of Antismoking Policies from U.S. Cities to States , 2006 .

[7]  Donald P. Haider-Markel,et al.  Policy Diffusion as a Geographical Expansion of the Scope of Political Conflict: Same-Sex Marriage Bans in the 1990s , 2001, State Politics & Policy Quarterly.

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

[9]  W. Hauck,et al.  Two-part survival models applied to administrative data for determining rate of and predictors for maternal-child transmission of HIV. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  William D. Berry,et al.  Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the U.S. States: A Re-appraisal , 2010, State Politics & Policy Quarterly.

[11]  Charles R. Shipan,et al.  Policy Diffusion: Seven Lessons for Scholars and Practitioners , 2012 .

[12]  Charles R. Shipan,et al.  The mechanisms of policy diffusion , 2008 .

[13]  Christopher W. Hammons Was James Madison Wrong? Rethinking the American Preference for Short, Framework-Oriented Constitutions , 1999, American Political Science Review.

[14]  J. Mullahy Specification and testing of some modified count data models , 1986 .

[15]  William D. Berry,et al.  Tax Innovation in the States: Capitalizing on Political Opportunity , 1992 .

[16]  Charles R. Shipan,et al.  When the smoke clears: expertise, learning and policy diffusion , 2014, Journal of Public Policy.

[17]  William D. Berry,et al.  A Strategic Theory of Policy Diffusion via Intergovernmental Competition , 2011 .

[18]  E. Blanch Lotteries and Pools , 1949 .

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

[20]  Charles R. Shipan,et al.  The Diffusion of Policy Diffusion Research in Political Science , 2012, British Journal of Political Science.

[21]  Todd Makse,et al.  The Role of Policy Attributes in the Diffusion of Innovations , 2011 .

[22]  F. Boehmke,et al.  State Policy Innovativeness Revisited , 2012, State Politics & Policy Quarterly.

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

[24]  J. Pacheco,et al.  The Social Contagion Model: Exploring the Role of Public Opinion on the Diffusion of Antismoking Legislation across the American States , 2012 .

[25]  C. Mooney,et al.  Morality Policy Reinvention: State Death Penalties , 1999 .

[26]  Donald S. Lutz Toward a Theory of Constitutional Amendment , 1994, American Political Science Review.

[27]  M. Mintrom,et al.  Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation , 1997 .

[28]  Marcia L. Godwin,et al.  Policy Diffusion and Strategies for Promoting Policy Change: Evidence From California Local Gun Control Ordinances , 2000 .

[29]  Stephen P. Jenkins,et al.  Easy Estimation Methods for Discrete-Time Duration Models , 1995 .

[30]  Michael M. Ting,et al.  A Formal Model of Learning and Policy Diffusion , 2008, American Political Science Review.

[31]  Christopher W. Larimer,et al.  The Determinants of Policy Introduction and Bill Adoption: Examining Minimum Wage Increases in the American States, 1997–2006 , 2012 .

[32]  C. Volden,et al.  States as Policy Laboratories: Emulating Success in the Children's Health Insurance Program , 2006 .