Throughout the 1980s, states developed policies to address the growing problem of abandoned and uncontrolled hazardouswaste sites. Not surprisingly, some states have adopted stringent policies that are similar to the federal Superfund program, whereas others have developed different approaches. In this article, we develop and test empirically a model of the strength of state hazardouswaste programs, which we depict as a function of both internal determinants and external diffusion. For internal determinant explanations we consider the effects of problem severity, internal political factors, interest group pressure, and socioeconomic and demographic variables. We also include variables representing regional and top-down (national) diffusion. Our results indicate the importance of both internal determinants and external diffusion. Strong state hazardous waste programs are a function of state wealth and the severity of internal hazardous waste problems, as well as external determinants, with regional diffusion as a particularly influential factor.
Babbie, E. R. (2001). The practice of social research(9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
2.
Berry, F. S. (1994). Sizing up state policy innovation research. Policy Studies Journal, 22(3), 442-456.
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. (1999). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process(pp. 169-200). Boulder, CO: Westview.
5.
Berry, W. D., Ringquist, E. J., Fording, R. C., & Hanson, R. L. (1998). Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960-93. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 327-348.
6.
Boehmke, F. J.,& Witmer, R. (2004). Disentangling diffusion: The effects of social learning and economic competition on state policy innovation and expansion. Political Research Quarterly, 57(1), 39-51.
7.
Bowman, A. O’M., & Kearney, R. C. (1988). Dimensions of state government capability. Western Political Quarterly, 41(2), 341-363.
8.
Chatterjee, S., Hadi, A. S., & Price, B. (2000). Regression analysis by example(3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
9.
Clingermayer, J. C.,& Feiock, R. C. (1990). The adoption of economic development policies by large cities: A test of economic, interest group, and institutional explanations. Policy Studies Journal, 18(3), 539-552.
10.
Davis, C.,& Feiock, R. (1992). Testing theories of state hazardouswaste regulation: A reassessment of the Williams and Matheny study. American Politics Quarterly, 20(4), 501-511.
11.
Dye, T. R. (1966). Politics, economics, and the public policy outcomes in the American states (American politics research series). Chicago: Rand McNally.
12.
Engel, K. (1997). State environmental standard setting: Is there a race to the bottom?Hastings Law Journal, 48(2), 271-398.
13.
Environmental Law Institute. (1989). An analysis of state superfund programs: 50-state study. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency& Remedial Response Hazardous Site Control Division.
14.
Environmental Law Institute. (1990). An analysis of state superfund programs: 50-state study, 1990 update. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency & Remedial Response Hazardous Site Control Division.
15.
Environmental Law Institute. (1993). An analysis of state superfund programs: 50-state study, 1993 update. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency & Remedial Response Hazardous Site Control Division.
16.
Environmental Law Institute. (1995). An analysis of state superfund programs: 50-state study, 1995 update. Washington, DC: Author.
17.
Environmental Law Institute. (1998). An analysis of state superfund programs: 50-state study, 1998 update. Washington, DC: Author.
18.
Environmental Protection Agency. (1990). Status of state involvement in the superfund program: FY80 to FY89. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
19.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). Final national priorities list (NPL) sites. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/products/index.htm%23reports
20.
Erikson, R., Wright, S. G.,& McIver, J. P. (1989). Political parties, public opinion and state public policy in the United States. American Political Science Review, 83(3), 729-750.
21.
Feiock, R. C.,& West, J. P. (1993). Testing competing explanations for policy adoption: Municipal solid waste recycling programs. Political Research Quarterly, 46(2), 399-419.
22.
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.
23.
Gray, V. (1973). Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review, 67(4), 1174-1185.
24.
Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1996). The population ecology of interest representation: Lobbying communities in the American states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
25.
Gormley, W. T. (1983). The politics of public utility regulation. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
26.
Greene, W. H. (1993). Econometric analysis(2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
27.
Gujarati, D. N. (1995). Basic econometrics(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
28.
Haider-Markel, D. P. (2001). Policy diffusion as a geographical expansion of the scope of political conflict: Same-sex marriage bans in the 1990s. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 1(1), 5-26.
29.
Hall, R., & Kerr, M. L. (1991). 1991-1992 Green Index: A state-by-state guide to the nation's environmental health. Washington, DC: Island Press.
30.
Hofferbert, R. I. (1974). The study of public policy. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
31.
Hwang, S.-D.,& Gray, V. (1991). External limits and internal determinants of state public policy. Western Political Quarterly, 42(2), 277-298.
32.
Jacoby, W. G.,& Schneider, S. K. (2001). Variability in state policy priorities: An empirical analysis. Journal of Politics, 63(2), 544-568.
33.
Kmenta, J. (1986). Elements of econometrics(2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
34.
Lester, J. P. (1995). Federalism and state environmental policy. In J. P. Lester (Ed.), Environmental politics and policy: Theories and evidence(pp. xii-xii, 386-386). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
35.
Lester, J. P., Frank, J., Bowman, A., & Kramer, K. (1983). Hazardous waste, politics and public policy. Western Political Quarterly, 36(2), 257-281.
36.
Liang, K.-Y.,& Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73(1), 13-22.
37.
Lowry, W. (1992). The dimensions of federalism: State governments and pollution control policies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
38.
Mintrom, M. (1997). The state-local nexus in policy innovation diffusion: The case of school choice. Publius—The Journal of Federalism, 27(3), 41-59.
39.
Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. Journal of Politics, 60(1), 126-148.
40.
Mohr, L. (1969). Determinants of innovation in organizations. American Political Science Review, 75, 963-974.
41.
Mooney, C. Z. (2001). Modeling regional effects on state policy diffusion. Political Research Quarterly, 54(1), 103-124.
42.
Potoski, M. (2001). Clean air federalism: Do states race to the bottom?Public Administration Review, 61(3), 335-343.
43.
Regens, J. (1980). State policy responsiveness to the energy issue. Social Science Quarterly, 61, 44-57.
44.
Regens, J. L.,& Reams, M. A. (1988). State strategies for regulating groundwater quality. Social Science Quarterly, 45, 53-68.
45.
Ringquist, E. J. (1993). Testing theories of state policy-making: The case of air quality regulation. American Politics Quarterly, 21(3), 320-342.
46.
Ringquist, E. J. (1994). Policy influence and policy responsiveness in state pollution control. Policy Studies Journal, 22(1), 25-43.
47.
Ringquist, E. J.,& Garand, J. C. (1999). Policy change in the American states. In R. E. Weber& P. Brace (Eds.), American state and local politics: Directions for the 21st century(pp. 268-299). New York: Chatham House.
48.
Savage, R. (1978). Policy innovativeness as a trait of the American states. Journal of Politics, 40, 212-219.
49.
Walker, J. (1969). The diffusion of innovation among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 880-899.
50.
Williams, B. A.,& Matheny, A. R. (1984). Testing theories of social regulation: Hazardouswaste regulation in the American states. Journal of Politics, 46(2), 428-459.
51.
Zeger, S., & Liang, K.-L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics, 42(1), 121-130.
