Information is a critically important, yet hard to measure, component on policy innovation across state governments. Widespread use of broadband has made it easier for governments to observe other actors, increasing the amount of policy information, while also diversifying the sources of information available to policymakers. This should translate into making governments more innovative over time and quicker to adapt to challenges. At the same time, the Internet may disrupt previous existing flows of information by decreasing the importance of geographic proximity and creating more nationalized or global information networks. We argue that the growth of broadband has made states more innovative over time, while also reducing the reliance on neighboring state adoptions for policy solutions as the information environment becomes both richer and more nationalized. We estimate a pooled event history analysis on hundreds of policies comparing the treatment period (2000–2016) with a control condition (last two decades of the 20th century) and find that states with higher broadband subscriptions are more innovative overall and less reliant on geographic contiguity for policy solutions. The growth of information flows due to digital communications has led to states becoming more innovative while also operating in a more nationalized network.
BallaS. J.2001. “Interstate Professional Associations and the Diffusion of Policy Innovations.” American Politics Research39:221–45.
2.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D.1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BerryF. S.1994. “Sizing up State Policy Innovation Research.” Policy Studies Journal22 (3): 442–56.
4.
BerryF. S.BerryW. D.1990. “State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis.” American Political Science Review84 (2): 395–415.
5.
BerryW. D.BaybeckB.2005. “Using Geographic Information Systems to Study Interstate Competition.” American Political Science Review99 (4): 505–19.
6.
BoehmkeF. J.BrockwayM.DesmaraisB. A.HardenJ. J.LaCombeS.LinderF.WallachH.2020. “SPID: A New Database for Inferring Public Policy Innovativeness and Diffusion Networks.” Policy Studies Journal48 (2): 517–45.
BousheyG.2010. Policy Diffusion Dynamics in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BowenD. C.GreeneZ.2014.” Should we Measure Professionalism With an Index? A Note on Theory and Practice in State Legislative Professionalism Research.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly14 (3): 277–96.
10.
BrickerChristinLaCombeScott. 2020. “The Ties that Bind Us: The Influence of Perceived State Similarity in Policy Diffusion.” Political Research Quarterly.
11.
ButlerD. M.VoldenC.DynesA. M.ShorB.2017. “Ideology, Learning, and Policy Diffusion: Experimental Evidence.” American Journal of Political Science61 (1): 37–49.
12.
CaugheyD.WarshawC.2018. Policy Preferences and Policy Change: Dynamic Responsiveness in the American States, 1936–2014. Cambridge University Press.
13.
ChadwickA.2017. The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
CobbRogerElderCharles D. (1972) 1983. Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Building. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
16.
DesmaraisB. A.HardenJ. J.BoehmkeF. J.2015. “Persistent Policy Pathways: Inferring Diffusion Networks in the American States.” American Political Science Review109 (2): 392–406.
17.
DiMaggioP.BonikowskiB.2008. “Make Money Surfing the Web? The Impact of Internet Use on the Earnings of US Workers.” American Sociological Review73 (2): 227–50.
18.
DobsonJ. E.CampbellJ. S.2014. “The Flatness of US States.” Geographical Review104 (1): 1–9.
19.
DolowitzD.MarshD.1996. “Who Learns What from Whom: A Review of the Policy Transfer Literature.” Political Studies44 (2): 343–57.
20.
DownsAnthony. 1972. “Up and Down with Ecology: The Issue-Attention Cycle.” Public Interest28:38–50.
21.
FeezellJ. T.2018. “Agenda Setting through Social Media: The Importance of Incidental News Exposure and Social Filtering in the Digital Era.” Political Research Quarterly71 (2): 482–94. doi:10.1177/1065912917744895.
22.
GainousJasonWagnerKevin. 2013. Tweeting to Power: The Social Media Revolution in American Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
GarrettK. N.JansaJ. M.2015. “Interest Group Influence in Policy Diffusion Networks.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly15 (3): 387–417.
24.
GilardiF.2016. “Four Ways We Can Improve Policy Diffusion Research.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly16 (1): 8–21.
25.
GrayV.1973. “Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study.” American Political Science Review67 (4): 1174–85.
26.
GrossbackL. J.Nicholson-CrottyS.PetersonD. A.2004. “Ideology and Learning in Policy Diffusion.” American Politics Research32 (5): 521–45.
27.
HaleK.2011. How Information Matters: Networks and Public Policy Innovation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
28.
HindmanM.2008. The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
29.
HopkinsD. J.2018. The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
JonesBryan D.BaumgartnerFrank R.2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
KarchA.Nicholson-CrottyS. C.WoodsN. D.BowmanA. O. M.2016. “Policy Diffusion and the Pro-Innovation Bias.” Political Research Quarterly69 (1): 83–95.
32.
KingdonJohn W.1995. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. 2nd ed.New York: HarperCollins.
33.
KreitzerR. J.BoehmkeF. J.2016. “Modeling Heterogeneity in Pooled Event History Analysis.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly16 (1): 121–41.
34.
LaCombeS.BoehmkeF.2019. “Chapter 20: Learning and Diffusion Models.” In Sage Handbook of Research Methods in Political Science and International Relations.
35.
LelkesY.SoodG.IyengarS.2015. “The Hostile Audience: The Effect of Access to Broadband Internet on Partisan Affect.” American Journal of Political Science61 (1): 5–20.
36.
MaggettiM.GilardiF.2016. “Problems (and solutions) in the Measurement of Policy Diffusion Mechanisms.” Journal of Public Policy36 (1): 87–107.
37.
MallinsonD. J.2020. “The Spread of Policy Diffusion Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, 1990-2018.” APSA Preprints. doi:10.33774/apsa-2020-csnt6.
38.
MallinsonD. J.2021. “Who Are Your Neighbors? The Role of Ideology and Decline of Geographic Proximity in the Diffusion of Policy Innovations.” Policy Studies Journal49:67–88. doi:10.1111/psj.12351.
39.
MintromM.2000. Policy Entrepreneurs and School Choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
40.
MooneyC. Z.2001. “Modeling Regional Effects on State Policy Diffusion.” Political Research Quarterly54 (1): 103–24.
41.
MossbergerK.2000. The Politics of Ideas and the Spread of Enterprise Zones. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
42.
MossbergerK.TolbertC. J.FrankoW.2012. Digital Cities: The Internet and the Geography of Opportunity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43.
MossbergerK.TolbertC. J.LaCombeS.2021. Choosing the Future: Technology and Opportunity for Communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
MossbergerK.TolbertC. J.StansburyM.2003. Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
45.
Nicholson-CrottyS.CarleyS.2018. “Information Exchange and Policy Adoption Decisions in the Context of US State Energy Policy.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly18 (2): 122–47.
46.
NorrisP.2001. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
PachecoJ.2012. “The Social Contagion Model: Exploring the Role of Public Opinion on the Diffusion of Antismoking Legislation across the American States.” The Journal of Politics74 (1): 187–202.
48.
PriorM.2006. “The Incumbent in the Living Room: The Rise of Television and the Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections.” The Journal of Politics68 (3): 657–73.
SchlozmanK.VerbaS.BradyH.2010. “Weapon of the Strong? Participatory Inequality and the Internet.” Perspectives on Politics8 (2): 487–509. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25698614.
51.
ShipanC. R.VoldenC.2006. “Bottom-up Federalism: The Diffusion of Antismoking Policies from US Cities to States.” American Journal of Political Science50 (4): 825–43.
52.
ShipanC. R.VoldenC.2008. “The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion.” American Journal of Political Science52 (4): 840–57.
53.
ShirkyClay. 2008. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. London: Penguin.
54.
SilverNate. 2015. The Signal and the Noise: The Art and Science of Prediction. London: Penguin.
55.
StrömbergDavidSnyderJ. M.2008. “The Media’s Influence on Public Policy Decisions.” In Information and Public Choice. From Media Markets to Policy Making, 17–31. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
56.
SquireP. 2007. “Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly7 (2): 211–27.
57.
SunsteinC. R.2007. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
58.
TomerA.KneeboneE.ShivaramRanjitha. 2017. Signs of Digital Distress: Mapping Broadband Availability and Subscription in American Neighborhoods. Washington, DC: The Bookings Institute.
59.
TrusslerM. J.2019. “The Impact of High Information Environments on Representation in the US House of Representatives.” PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, Nashville.
60.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. “Percentage of Households with Subscription to Any Broadband Service.” American Community Survey. data.census.gov
61.
WalkerJ. L.1969. “The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States.” American Political Science Review63 (3): 880–99.
62.
WestD. M.2004. “E-Government and the Transformation of Service Delivery and Citizen Attitudes.” Public Administration Review64 (1): 15–27.
63.
ZahariadisNikolaos. 2016. “Setting the Agenda on Agenda-Setting: Definitions, Concepts and Controversies.” In Handbook of Public Policy Agenda Setting, edited by ZahariadisNikolaos, 1–24. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
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.
