Hostname: page-component-669899f699-rg895 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T22:00:57.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Geographic Information Systems to Study Interstate Competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2005

WILLIAM D. BERRY  and
BRADY BAYBECK
WILLIAM D. BERRY
Affiliation:
Florida State University
BRADY BAYBECK
Affiliation:
University of Missouri—St. Louis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scholars have proposed two distinct explanations for why policies diffuse across American states: (1) policymakers learn by observing the experiences of nearby states, and (2) states seek a competitive economic advantage over other states. The most common empirical approach for studying interstate influence is modeling an indicator of a state's policy choice as a function of its neighbors' policies, with each neighbor weighted equally. This can appropriately specify one form of learning model, but it does not adequately test for interstate competition: when a policy diffuses due to competition, states' responses to other states vary depending on the size and location of specific populations. We illustrate with two substantive applications how geographic information systems (GIS) can be used to test for interstate competition. We find that lottery adoptions diffuse due to competition—rather than to learning—but find no evidence of competition in state choices about welfare benefits. Our empirical approach can also be applied to competition among nations and local jurisdictions.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 99 , Issue 4 , November 2005 , pp. 505 - 519
Copyright
© 2005 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allard Scott W. 1998. “Revisiting Shapiro: Welfare Magnets and State Residency Requirements in the 1990s.” Publius 28 (Summer): 45– 65.Google Scholar
Allard Scott W., and Sheldon Danziger. 2000. “Welfare Magnets: Myth or Reality?” Journal of Politics 62 (May): 350– 68.Google Scholar
Bailey Michael A. 2005. “Welfare and the Multifaceted Decision to Move.” American Political Science Review 99 (February): 125– 35.Google Scholar
Bailey Michael A., and Mark Carl Rom. 2004. “A Wider Race? Interstate Competition across Health and Welfare Programs.” Journal of Politics 66 (May): 326– 47.Google Scholar
Beck Nathaniel, Jonathan N. Katz, and Richard Tucker 1998. “Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (October): 1260– 88.Google Scholar
Berry Frances Stokes, and William D. Berry. 1990. “State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis.” American Political Science Review 84 (June): 395– 415.Google Scholar
Berry William D., Richard C. Fording, and Russell L. Hanson. 2000. “An Annual Cost of Living Index for the American States, 1960–95.” Journal of Politics 62 (May): 550– 67.Google Scholar
Berry William D., Richard C. Fording, and Russell L. Hanson. 2003. “Reassessing the ‘Race to the Bottom’ in State Welfare Policy: Resolving the Conflict Between Individual-Level and Aggregate Research.” Journal of Politics 65 (May): 327– 49.Google Scholar
Boehmke Frederick J., and Richard Witmer. 2004. “Disentangling Diffusion: The Effects of Social Learning and Economic Competition on State Policy Innovation and Expansion.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (March): 39– 51.Google Scholar
Buckley Jack, and Chad Westerland. 2004. “Duration Dependence, Functional Form, and Correct Standard Errors: Improving EHA Models of State Policy Diffusion.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 4 (Spring): 94– 114.Google Scholar
Cho Wendy K. Tam. 2003. “Contagion Effects and Ethnic Contribution Networks.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (April): 368– 87.Google Scholar
Davidson Russell, and James G. MacKinnon. 1993. Estimation and Inference in Econometrics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Environmental Systems Research Institute. 2004. ArcGIS 9.0. Redlands, CA: ESRI.
Figlio David N., Van W. Kolpin, and William E. Reid. 1999. “Do States Play Welfare Games?” Journal of Urban Economics 46 (November): 437– 54.Google Scholar
Fink Stephen, and Jonathan Rork. 2003. “The Importance of Self-Selection in Casino Cannibalization of State Lotteries.” Economics Bulletin 8 (10): 1– 8.Google Scholar
Gimpel James G., and Jason E. Schuknecht. 2003. “Political Participation and the Accessibility of the Ballot Box.” Political Geography 22 (June): 471– 88.Google Scholar
Glick Henry R., and Scott P. Hays. 1991. “Innovation and Reinvention in State Policymaking: Theory and the Evolution of Living Will Laws.” Journal of Politics 53 (August): 835– 49.Google Scholar
Greene William H. 1995. LIMDEP Version 7.0 User's Manual. Bellport, NY: Econometric Software, Inc.
Grossback Lawrence J., Sean Nicholson-Crotty, and David A. M. Peterson. 2004. “Ideology and Learning in Policy Diffusion.” American Politics Research 32 (September): 521– 45.Google Scholar
Gujarati Damodar N. 1995. Basic Econometrics. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Haines Michael R., and the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. 2005. Historical, Demographic, Economic, and Social Data: The United States 1790–2000 [Computer file] (Study #2896). ICPSR version. Hamilton, NY: Colgate University/ Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producers], 2004. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2005.
Ka Sangjoon, and Paul Teske. 2002. “Ideology and Professionalism: Electricity Regulation and Deregulation Over Time in the American States.” American Politics Research 30 (May): 323– 43.Google Scholar
Mikesell John L. 1987. “The Effect of Maturity and Competition on State Lottery Markets.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 6 (Winter): 251– 53.Google Scholar
Mooney Christopher Z., and Mei-Hsien Lee. 1995. “Legislative Morality in the American States: The Case of Pre-Roe Abortion Regulation Reform.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (August): 599– 627.Google Scholar
Peterson Paul E. 1981. City Limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rom Mark Carl, Paul E. Peterson, and Kenneth F. Scheve Jr. 1998. “Interstate Competition and Welfare Policy.” Publius 28 (Summer): 17– 37.Google Scholar
Rural Policy Research Institute. 2003. “Poverty Rates 1960–2000.” http://circ.rupri.org/animation/povertyrate.html (April 3, 2003).
Saavedra Luz Amparo. 2000. “A Model of Welfare Competition with Evidence from AFDC.” Journal of Urban Economics 47 (March): 248– 79.Google Scholar
Schneider Mark. 1989. The Competitive City: The Political Economy of Suburbia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Schram Sanford F., Lawrence Nitz, and Gary Krueger. 1998. “Without Cause or Effect: Reconsidering Welfare Migration as a Policy Problem.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (January): 210– 30.Google Scholar
Simon Herbert A. 1997. Administrative Behavior. 4th ed. New York: Free Press.
Tomz Michael, Jason Wittenberg, and Gary King. 2003. “CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results.” Version 2.1. Stanford University, University of Wisconsin, and Harvard University. http://gking.harvard.edu (January 5, 2003).
Tweedie Jack. 1994. “Resources Rather than Needs: A State-Centered Model of Welfare Policy-Making.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (August): 651– 72.Google Scholar
United States Bureau of the Census. 2004. “U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates, Archives.” http://www.census.gov/popest/archives (August 13, 2004).
Volden Craig. 2002. “The Politics of Competitive Federalism: A Race to the Bottom in Welfare Benefits?” American Journal of Political Science 46 (June): 352– 63.Google Scholar
Walker Jack L. 1969. “The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States.” American Political Science Review 63 (September): 880– 99.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.