The Diffusion of Policy Innovations

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

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

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

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

[6]  R. McDermott.  EXPERIMENTAL METHODS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE , 2003 .

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

[8]  Edward J. McCaffery.  Cognitive Theory and Tax , 1994 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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