Scholarly research on the diffusion of policies across state governments focuses predominantly on the pathways of information between the states. Absent from this research is a thorough discussion of the content of the information state governments use when deciding whether or not to adopt an innovative policy. Given the importance of information in decision making, we develop a model that focuses attention on one type of information, namely, the ideological position of previous adopters. Although not the only piece of relevant information, we believe that states look to the previous adopters in an effort to minimize the uncertainty about how issues fit in the liberalconservative policy space. We test this theory in three different policy areas, finding consistent evidence that ideological cues help states learn about policy innovations while replicating important findings from previous research.
Balla, S. J. (2001). Interstate professional associations and the diffusion of policy innovations.American Politics Quarterly, 29, 221-245.
2.
Barrilleaux, C., Holbrook, T., & Langer, L. (2002). Electoral competition, legislative balance, and American state welfare policy. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 415-427.
3.
Beck, N., Katz, J. N., & Tucker, R. (1997). Taking time seriously: Time series cross section analysis with a binary dependent variable. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 1260-1288.
4.
Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. (1999). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In P. A.Sabatier (Ed.), Theoretical lenses on public policy. Boulder, CO: Westview.
5.
Berry, W., & Berry, F. S. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84, 395-415.
6.
Berry, W., & Berry, F. S. (1992). Tax innovation in the states: Capitalizing on political opportunity. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 715-742.
7.
Berry, W., Ringquist, E., Fording, R., & Hansen, R. (1998). Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960-1993. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 327-348.
8.
Cole, G., & Smith, C. (2001). Criminal justice in America. New York: Wadsworth.
9.
Doob, A. (1995). The United States sentencing commission’s guidelines. In C. Clarkson &R. Morgan (Eds.), The politics of sentencing reform. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.
Feeley, M., & Sarat, A. (1980). The policy dilemma: Federal crime policy and the law enforcement assistance administration. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
11.
Fellner, J., & Mauer, M. (1998, October). Losing the vote: The effect of felony disenfranchisement laws in the United States—policy update. The sentencing project. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject.org/pubs_05.cfm
12.
Freed, D. J. (1992). Federal sentencing in thewake of guidelines: Unacceptable limits on the discretion of sentencers. Yale Law Journal, 101, 1681-1754.
13.
Gebelein, R. (2000). The rebirth of rehabilitation: The promise and perils of drug courts.Sentencing and Corrections, 6, 1-8.
14.
Goodstein, L., & Hepburn, J. (1985). Determinate sentencing and imprisonment: A failure of reform. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
15.
Gray, V. (1973). Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review, 67, 1174-1185.
16.
Hill, K. Q., & Klarner, C. (2002). The many faces of elite power in the system of 1896. Journal of Politics, 64, 1115-1136.
17.
Ka, S., & Teske, P. (2002). Ideology and professionalism—electricity regulation and deregulation over time in the American states. American Politics Research, 30, 323-343.
18.
Lillis, J. (1994). Sentencing guidelines determine penalties in 19 systems. Corrections Compendium, 29, 7-14.
19.
Mintrom, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 738-770.
20.
Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1996). Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 24, 420-434.
21.
Mooney, C. Z. (2001). Modeling regional effects on state policy diffusion. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 103-124.
22.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service. (2003). Drug courts: A summary. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.org/drug_courts/summary.html
23.
Parker, R., & Block, J. (1989). Sentencing in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Passantino, G. (2000). Balancing accountability and local control: State takeovers for fiscal and academic stability. Policy study no. 268. Retrieved from http://www.rppi.org/ps268central.html
25.
Peterson, D. A. M., Grossback, L. J., Stimson, J. A., & Gangl, A. (2003). Mandate elections and policy change in Congress. American Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 411-426.
26.
Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting.New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). The diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
28.
Soss, J., Schram, S. F., Vartanian, T. P., & O’Brien, E. (2001). Setting the terms of relief:Explaining state policy choices in the devolution revolution. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 378-396.
29.
Soule, S. A., & Earl, J. (2001). The enactment of state-level hate crime law in the United States.Sociological Perspectives, 44, 281-305.
30.
Tauber, J. (1994). National strategy for the co-funding of coordinated drug court systems.Alexandria, VA: National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
31.
United States Bureau of the Census. (1981-1996). Statistical abstract of the United States.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
32.
Volden, C. (2002). The politics of competitive federalism: A race to the bottom in welfare benefits?American Journal of Political Science, 46, 352-363.
33.
Walker, J. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63, 880-899.
34.
Walker, S. (1993). Taming the system: The control of discretion in the criminal justice system.New York: Oxford University Press.
35.
Wong, K. (1999). Funding public schools. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
