This article examines the influence of national government activity on the politics of embryonic stem cell research in the American states. Its analysis of bill introduction patterns between 1999 and 2008 suggests that President Bush’s nationally televised address on stem cell research and the debate over the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act increased the probability that officials in a state would introduce stem-cell-related legislation in a given year. National activity also seemed to increase the number of bills that legislators introduced. These results illustrate how political forces can increase the salience of public policies and thereby serve as diffusion mechanisms during the agenda-setting process.
AllenMahally D.PettusCarrieHaider-MarkelDonald P.2004. Making the national local: Specifying the conditions for national government influence on state policymaking. State Politics and Policy Quarterly4:318–44.
2.
BallaSteven J.2001. Interstate professional associations and the diffusion of policy innovations. American Politics Research29:221–45.
3.
BanchoffThomas. 2005. Path dependence and value-driven issues: The comparative politics of stem cell research. World Politics57:200–230.
4.
BeckNathanielKatzJonathan N.TuckerRichard. 1998. Taking time seriously: Time-series–cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable. American Journal of Political Science42:1260–88.
5.
BerryFrances StokesBerryWilliam D.1990. State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review84:395–415.
6.
BerryWilliam D.RingquistEvan J.FordingRichard C.HansonRussell L.1998. Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960–1993. American Journal of Political Science42:327–48.
7.
BibbyJohn F.HolbrookThomas M.1999. Parties and elections. In Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis, 7th ed., ed. GrayVirginiaHansonRussell L.JacobHerbert, 66-112. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
8.
BoehmkeFrederick J.2009. Approaches to modeling the adoption and modification of policies with multiple components. State Politics and Policy Quarterly9:229–52.
9.
BoehmkeFrederick J.WitmerRichard. 2004. Disentangling diffusion: The effects of social learning and economic competition on state policy innovation and expansion. Political Research Quarterly57:39–51.
10.
Box-SteffensmeierJanet M.JonesBradford S.1997. Time is of the essence: Event history models in political science. American Journal of Political Science41:1414–61.
11.
BrattonKathleen A.HaynieKerry L.1999. Agenda setting and legislative success in state legislatures: The effects of gender and race. Journal of Politics61:658–79.
12.
ElkinsZacharySimmonsBeth. 2005. On waves, clusters, and diffusion: A conceptual framework. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science598:33–51.
13.
Guttmacher Institute. 2010. State policies in brief: An overview of state abortion laws. New York: Guttmacher Institute.
14.
Haider-MarkelDonald P.2001. Policy diffusion as a geographical expansion of the scope of political conflict. State Politics and Policy Quarterly1:5–26.
Jones-CorreaMichael. 2000–2001. The origins and diffusion of racial restrictive covenants. Political Science Quarterly115:541–68.
17.
KarchAndrew. 2006. National intervention and the diffusion of policy innovations. American Politics Research34:403–36.
18.
KarchAndrew. 2007. Democratic laboratories: Policy diffusion among the American states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
19.
KingGaryTomzMichaelWittenbergJason. 2000. Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and prediction. American Journal of Political Science44:347–61.
20.
KingdonJohn W.1995. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, 2nd ed.New York: HarperCollins.
21.
KlarnerCarl E.2003. The measurement of the partisan balance of state government. State Politics and Policy Quarterly3: 309–19.
22.
KosminBarry A.MayerEgonKeysarAriela. 2001. American Religious Identification Survey 2001. New York: City University of New York, Graduate Center.
23.
LindblomCharles E.1959. The science of “muddling through.”Public Administration Review19:79–88.
24.
MarshallEliot. 1998. A versatile cell line raises scientific hopes, legal questions. Science282:1014–15.
25.
MenzelDonald C.FellerIrwin. 1977. Leadership and interaction patterns in the diffusion of innovations among the American states. Western Political Quarterly30:528–36.
26.
MintromMichael. 1997. Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science41:738–70.
27.
MintromMichael. 2009. Competitive federalism and the governance of controversial science. Publius39:606–31.
28.
MooneyChristopher Z.1991. Information sources in legislative decision making. Legislative Studies Quarterly16:445–55.
29.
MooneyChristopher Z.LeeMei-Hsien. 1995. Legislative morality in the American states: The case of pre-Roe abortion reform. American Journal of Political Science39:599–617.
30.
NisbetMatthew C.2004. Public opinion about stem cell research and human cloning. Public Opinion Quarterly68:131–54.
31.
NisbetMatthew C.2005. The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research17:90–112.
32.
RohJonghoHaider-MarkelDonald P.2003. All politics is not local: National forces in state abortion initiatives. Social Science Quarterly84:15–31.
33.
SabatierPaulWhitemanDavid. 1985. Legislative decision making and substantive policy information: Models of information flow. Legislative Studies Quarterly10: 395–421.
34.
ShipanCharles R.VoldenCraig. 2006. Bottom-up federalism: The diffusion of antismoking policies from U.S. cities to states. American Journal of Political Science50:825–43.
35.
SkocpolThedaAbend-WeinMarjorieHowardChristopherGoodrichSusan. 1993. Women’s associations and the enactment of mothers’ pensions in the United States. American Political Science Review87:686–701.
36.
SugiyamaNatasha Borges. 2008. Theories of policy diffusion: Social sector reform in Brazil. Comparative Political Studies41:193–216.
37.
ThomasSueWelchSusan. 1991. The impact of gender on activities and priorities of state legislators. Western Political Quarterly44:445–56.
38.
ThomsonJames A.Itskovitz-EldorJosephShapiroSander S.WaknitzMichelle A.SwiergielJennifer J.MarshallVivienne S.JonesJeffrey M.1998. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science282:1145–47.
39.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel. 1982. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. In Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, ed. KahnemanDanielSlovicPaulTverskyAmos, 163–78. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
