Many political scientists maintain that public policies diffuse across states and that proximate states, in particular, influence one another's policy activities. Using state-funded merit aid for college as its case, this article takes a new approach to the study of the diffusion phenomenon, leaving behind conventional techniques used by generations of innovation/diffusion scholars, and asks policy makers themselves to what they attribute state policy adoption. The authors' findings suggest that merit aid programs diffuse as a function of competition among neighboring states not only for students but also for revenue and ideas. Close policy communities and personal contacts among state policy makers and agency staff also condition policy adoption by spreading information about, and assessments of, educational innovations.
Berry, F.S. (1994). Sizing up state policy innovation research. Policy Studies Journal, 22(3), 442-456.
2.
Berry, F.S., & Baybeck, B. (2005). Using geographic information systems to study interstate competition. American Political Science Review , 99(4), 505-519.
3.
Berry, F.S., & Berry, W.D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review , 84(2), 395-415.
4.
Berry, F.S., & Berry, W.D. (1992). Tax innovation in the states: Capitalizing on political opportunity. American Journal of Political Science , 36(3), 715-742.
5.
Canon, B.C., & Baum, L. (1981). Patterns of adoption of tort law innovations: An application of diffusion theory to judicial doctrines. American Political Science Review, 75(4), 975-987.
6.
Carlson, R.O. (1965). Adoption of educational innovations. Eugene, OR: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration.
7.
Clark, J. (1985). Policy diffusion and program scope: Research directions . Publius, 15(4), 61-70.
8.
Coburn, C.E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170.
9.
Coburn, C.E. (2005). The role of nonsystem actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 23-52.
10.
Copp, J.H., Sill, M.L., & Brown, E.J. (1958). The function of information sources in the farm practice adoption process. Rural Sociology, 23, 146-157.
11.
Cornwell, C., & Mustard, D.B. (2002). HOPE, the brain drain, and diversity: The impact of the scholarship on high achievers and African Americans. Policy Notes, 3(4), 1-2.
12.
Domhoff, G.W. (1978). Who really rules? New Haven and community power re-examined. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
13.
Dye, T.R. (1978). Oligarchic rendencies in national policymaking: The role of the private policy planning organizations. Journal of Politics, 40(2), 309-331.
14.
Dye, T.R. (1990). American federalism: Competition among governments . Lexington, MA: Lexington Books .
15.
Dynarski, S. (2002). The consequences of merit aid. KSG Research Reports Online. Retrieved July 15, 2004, from http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf
16.
Eisenhart, M.A., & Howe, K.R. (1992). Validity in educational research. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 643-680). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
17.
Fetterman, D.M. (1989). Ethnography step by step. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18.
Glick, H.R., & Hays, S.P. (1991). Innovation and reinvention in state policymaking: Theory and the evolution of living will laws. Journal of Politics , 53(3), 835-850.
19.
Gray, V. (1973). Innovations in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review, 67, 1174-1191.
20.
Gray, V. (1994). Competition, emulation, and policy innovation . In L. C. Dodd & C. Jillson (Eds.), New perspectives on American politics (pp. 230-248). Boulder, CO: Westview .
21.
Hearn, J.C., & Griswold, C. (1994). State-level centralization and policy innovation in U. S. postsecondary education. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(2), 161-190.
22.
Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment . In A. King (Ed.), The new American political system (pp. 87-124). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
23.
Heller, D. E., & Marin, P. (Eds.). (2004). State merit scholarship programs and racial inequality. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
24.
Knoke, D. (1990). Political networks: The structural perspective . New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Knoke, D., & Kuklinski, J.H. (1991). Network analysis: Basic concepts. In G. Thompson, J. Frances, R. Levacic, & J. Mitchell (Eds.), Markets, hierarchies and networks (pp. 173-182). London: Sage.
26.
McLendon, M.K. (2003a). The politics of higher education: Toward an expanded research agenda. Educational Policy, 17(1), 165-191.
27.
McLendon, M.K. (2003b). State governance reform of higher education: Patterns, trends, and theories of the public policy process. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 18, pp. 57-144). London : Kluwer.
28.
McLendon, M.K., Heller, D.E., & Young, S. (2005). State postsecondary education policy innovation: Politics, competition, and the interstate migration of policy ideas. Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 363-400.
29.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Mintrom, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation . American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 738-770.
31.
Mintrom, M. (2000). Policy entrepreneurs and school choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
32.
Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. Journal of Politics, 60(1), 126-148.
33.
Mooney, C.Z. (2001). Modeling regional effects on state policy diffusion . Political Research Quarterly, 54(1), 103-124.
34.
Mooney, C.Z., & Lee, M.-H. (1995). Legislative morality in the American states: The case of pre-Roe abortion regulation reform. American Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 599-627.
35.
Morgan, D.R., & Watson, S.S. (1991). Political culture, political systems characteristics, and public policies among theAmerican states. Publius, 21(2), 31-43.
36.
Nice, D.C. (1994). Policy innovation in state government. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
37.
Office of Program, Policy Analysis, and Government Accountability. (2003). Program review (Report No. 03-17): Bright Futures contributes to improved college preparation, affordability, and enrollment. Retrieved September 12, 2004, from http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/monitor/reports/pdf/0317rpt.pdf
38.
Pierce, P.A., & Miller, D.E. (1999). Variations in the diffusion of state lottery adoptions: How revenue dedication changes morality politics. Policy Studies Journal, 27(4), 696-706.
39.
Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusions of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
40.
Sabatier, P.A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences , 21, 129-168.
41.
Savage, R.L. (1985). Diffusion research traditions and the spread of policy innovations in a federal system. Publius, 15, 1-27.
42.
Schneider, M., Scholz, J., Lubell, M., Mindruta, D., & Edwardsen, M. (2003). Building consensual institutions: Networks and the national estuary program. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 143-158.
43.
Southern Regional Education Board. (n.d.). State-funded merit-based scholarship programs: Why are they popular? Can they increase participation in higher education? Retrieved May 11, 2005, from http://www.sreb.org/main/Publications/MeritBased/MeritBasedScholarshiasp
44.
Sridhar, D.J. (2001). Postsecondary enrollment effects of merit-based financial aid: Evidence from Georgia's HOPE scholarship program. Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia. Retrieved July 30, 2005, from ProQuest Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3025399)
45.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J.M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
46.
United States Census Bureau. (2002). Three-year-average median household income by state: 2000-2002. Retrieved November 16, 2004, from http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income02/statemhi.html
47.
Useem, M. (1979). The social organization of the American business elite and participation of corporate directors in the governance ofAmerican institutes. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 553-572.
48.
Walker, J.L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among theAmerican states. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 880-899.
49.
Walker, J.L. (1981). The diffusion of knowledge, policy communities, and agenda setting: The relationship of knowledge and power. In J. E. Tropman, M. J. Dluhy, and R. M. Lind (Eds.), New strategic perspectives of social policy (pp. 75-96). New York: Pergamon.
50.
Wirt, F.M., & Kirst, M.W. (2001). The political dynamics of American education (2nd ed.). Richmond, CA: McCutchan.
51.
Wong, K.K., & Shen, F.X. (2002). Politics of state-led reform in education: Market competition and electoral dynamics. Educational Policy, 16(1), 161-192.
52.
Yin, R.K. (1989). Case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
53.
Young, T.V., & Miskel, C. (2005, April). Coalitions: Collaboration among interest groups and government officials in state policy issue networks. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
