¹ Gray, Virginia, “Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study,” American Political Science Review, 67 (December 1973), 1174–1185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Walker, Jack L., “The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States,” American Political Science Review, 63 (September 1969), 880–899 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ In addition to the Gray and Walker articles, I have found the following useful: Rose, Douglas D., “National and Local Forces in State Politics: The Implications of Multi-Level Policy Analysis,” American Political Science Review, 67 (December 1973), 1162–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Donald C. Menzel, “Scientific and Technological Dimensions of Innovation in the American States,” presented at the 1975 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association; David R. Cameron, Stephanie H. Cameron, and Richard I. Hofferbert, “Non-Incrementalism in Public Policy: The Dynamics of Change,” presented at the 1975 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. I wish also to thank Virginia Gray for the use of her original data, Jack Walker for some helpful suggestions, and two anonymous referees whose comments on an earlier draft have, I hope, improved this paper. I hasten to add that the “confusion” in the title is not a criticism of any of these writers, but is my impression of the collective impact of diffusion research on the unwary reader.

⁴ Gray, , “Innovation in the States,” p. 1179 Google Scholar.

⁵ Walker, , “Diffusion of Innovations,” pp. 892–896 Google Scholar.

⁶ Gray, , “Innovation in the States,” pp. 1175–1176 Google Scholar.

⁷ See the expanded version of Walker's, article, “Innovation in State Politics” in Politics in the American States, 2nd ed., Jacob, Herbert and Vines, Kenneth N., eds. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971), pp. 377–378 Google Scholar, for a discussion of the ACIR as a national clearing house for state innovations.

⁸ Gray, , “Innovation in the States,” pp. 1180–1181 Google Scholar.

⁹ Walker's general explanation of state emulations allows for nonregional factors. See Walker, , “Diffusion of Innovations,” p. 889 Google Scholar. But the expanded version of Walker's article presents evidence showing the persistence of regional patterns of emulation. See Jacob, and Vines, , Politics in the American States, pp. 378–85Google Scholar. Cameron, , Cameron, , and Hofferbert, , Non-Incrementalism in Public Policy, pp. 51–53 Google Scholar, also argue for the existence of regional effects.

¹⁰ Walker, , “Diffusion of Innovations,” p. 882 Google Scholar.

¹¹ Walker, , “Diffusion of Innovations,” p. 882 Google Scholar.

¹² Gray, , “Innovation in the States,” pp. 1180–1181 Google Scholar.

¹³ Ibid., p. 1185.

¹⁴ It might be thought that overlap of diffusion periods was in itself a cause of higher rank-order correlations. For these data the relationship is weak, however – for the 15 entries in Table 2, the product-moment correlation is only +.14.

¹⁵ Including Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

¹⁶ Data are drawn from U.S. Department of Labor, Growth of Labor Law in the United States (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 93–97 Google Scholar.

¹⁷ See Rose, “National and Local Forces in State Politics” for a general discussion of the openness of states to national political influences. Cameron, , Cameron, , and Hofferbert, , “Non-Incrementalism in Public Policy,” p. 10 Google Scholar, also support Rose's nationalization hypothesis. Menzel, , “Scientific and Technological Dimensions of Innovation,” p. 23 Google Scholar, presents examples of informal federal pressure on states.

¹⁸ Menzel generally emphasizes the possibility of innovation by nonlegislative means. Cameron, Cameron, and Hofferbert, p. 55, also argue for the importance of innovation within areas of long-established state action.

¹⁹ U.S. Department of Labor, Growth of Labor Law, pp. 93–97 Google Scholar.