We explore the role of partisanship in policy diffusion. Previous studies suggest that partisanship may influence the willingness of public officials to learn from the experience of their peers. Officials’ willingness to consider policies endorsed by copartisans can arise either because party labels are used as informational cues or simply due to copartisan imitation. In the latter case, knowing more about the policy trade-offs should have no effects on politicians’ preferences. Based on two experiments with local public officials where both the party endorsing a policy and the type of information provided were manipulated, we find consistent partisan bias. When a policy is endorsed by copartisans, public officials are more likely to consider pursuing it, and additional policy information does not mitigate this bias. Exploratory analyses of the information-seeking behavior of officials suggest that the partisan bias is not due to differential exposure or attention to policy trade-offs.
AdamsJamesEzrowLawrenceSomer-TopcuZeynep. 2011. “Is Anybody Listening? Evidence That Voters Do Not Respond to European Parties’ Policy Programmes.” American Journal of Political Science55 (2): 370–82.
2.
ArceneauxKevinJohnsonMartin. 2013. Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
3.
BohmeltTobiasEzrowLawrenceLehrerRoniWardHugh. 2016. “Party Policy Diffusion.” American Political Science Review110 (2): 397–410.
4.
Box-SteffensmeierJanet M.ArnoldLaura W.ZornChristopher J. W.1997. “The Strategic Timing of Position Taking in Congress: A Study of the North American Free Trade Agreement.” American Political Science Review91 (2): 324–38.
5.
BroockmanDavid E.ButlerDaniel M.2017. “The Causal Effects of Elite Position-Taking on Voter Attitudes: Field Experiments with Elite Communication.” American Journal of Political Science61 (1): 208–21.
6.
BullockJohn G.2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.” American Political Science Review105 (3): 496–515.
7.
ButlerDaniel M.DynesAdam M.2016. “How Politicians Discount the Opinions of Constituents with Whom They Disagree.” American Journal of Political Science60 (4): 975–89.
8.
ButlerDaniel M.PowellEleanor Neff. 2014. “Understanding the Party Brand: Experimental Evidence on the Role of Valence.” The Journal of Politics76 (2): 492–505.
9.
ButlerDaniel M.VoldenCraigDynesAdamShorBoris. 2017. “Ideology, Learning and Policy Diffusion: Experimental Evidence.” American Journal of Political Science61 (1): 37–49.
10.
CampbellAngusConversePhilip E.MillerWarren E.StokesDonald D.1960. The American Voter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
CohenMartyKarolDavidNoelHansZallerJohn. 2009. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
13.
DanceyLoganSheagleyGeoffrey. 2013. “Heuristics Behaving Badly: Party Cues and Voter Knowledge.” American Journal of Political Science57 (2): 312–25.
14.
DouglasJames H.2012. “A Governor’s View of Policy Diffusion.” Public Administration Review72 (6): 796–97.
15.
DruckmanJamesPetersonErikSlothuusRune. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review107 (1): 57–79.
16.
GilardiFabrizio. 2010. “Who Learns from What in Policy Diffusion Processes?” American Journal of Political Science54 (3): 650–66.
17.
GilardiFabrizioFüglisterKatharinaLuyetStéphane. 2009. “Learning from Others: The Diffusion of Hospital Financing Reforms in OECD Countries.” Comparative Political Studies42 (4): 549–73.
18.
GrahamErinShipanCharles R.VoldenCraig. 2013. “The Diffusion of Policy Diffusion Research in Political Science.” British Journal of Political Science43 (3): 673–701.
19.
GreenDonaldPalmquistBradleySchicklerEric. 2004. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
20.
GrossbackLawrence J.Nicholson-CrottySeanPetersonDavid A. M.2004. “Ideology and Learning in Policy Diffusion.” American Politics Research32 (5): 521–45.
21.
HallRichard L.DeardorffAlan V.2006. “Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy.” American Political Science Review100 (1): 69–84.
22.
IyengarShantoWestwoodSean J.2015. “Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science59 (3): 690–707.
23.
JonasEvaSchulz-HardtStefanFreyDieterThelenNorman. 2001. “Confirmation Bias in Sequential Information Search After Preliminary Decisions: An Expansion of Dissonance Theoretical Research on Selective Exposure to Information.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology80 (4): 557–71.
24.
KarchAndrew. 2007. Democratic Laboratories: Policy Diffusion among the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
LauRichard R.RedlawskDavid P.2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science45:951–71.
27.
LevenduskyMatthew S.2010. “Clearer Cues, More Consistent Voters: A Benefit of Elite Polarization.” Political Behavior32 (1): 111–31.
28.
LevenduskyMatthew S.2013. “Why Do Partisan Media Polarize Viewers?” American Journal of Political Science57 (3): 611–23.
29.
MartinChristian W.2010. “Interdependence and Political Ideology: The Conditional Diffusion of Cigarette Taxation in U.S. States.” World Political Science6 (Article 11).
30.
MummoloJonathanPetersonErik. 2016. “How Content Preferences Limit the Reach of Voting Aids.” American Politics Research45 (2): 159–85.
31.
NickersonRaymond S.1998. “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.” Review of General Psychology2 (2): 175–220.
32.
PetersonErik. 2017. “The Role of the Information Environment in Partisan Voting.” The Journal of Politics79 (4): 1191–1204.
33.
PopkinSamuel L.1991. The reasoning voter communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
34.
PriorMarkus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35.
SchaffnerBrianStrebMatthewWrightGerald. 2007. “A New Look at the Republican Advantage in Nonpartisan Elections.” Political Research Quarterly60 (2): 240–49.
36.
ShefferLiorLoewenPeter J.SorokaStuartWalgraveStefaanSheaferTamir. 2018. “Nonrepresentative Representatives: An Experimental Study of the Decision Making of Elected Politicians.” American Political Science Review112 (2): 302–21.
37.
ShipanCharlesVoldenCraig. 2008. “The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion.” American Journal of Political Science52 (4): 840–57.
38.
ShipanCharlesVoldenCraig. 2012. “Policy Diffusion: Seven Lessons for Scholars and Practitioners.” Public Administration Review72 (6): 788–96.
39.
SimmonsBeth A.ElkinsZachary. 2004. “The Globalization of Liberalization: Policy Diffusion in the International Political Economy.” American Political Science Review98 (1): 171–89.
40.
TausanovitchChrisWarshawChristopher. 2014. “Representation in Municipal Government.” American Political Science Review108 (3): 605–41.
41.
VoldenCraigTingMichael M.CarpenterDaniel P.2008. “A Formal Model of Learning and Policy Diffusion.” American Political Science Review102 (3): 319–32.
42.
WeylandKurt. 2005. “The Diffusion of Innovations: How Cognitive Heuristics Shaped Bolivia’s Pension Reform.” Comparative Politics38 (1): 21–42.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
