Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:24:46.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interest Group Influence in Policy Diffusion Networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Kristin N. Garrett  and
Joshua M. Jansa
Kristin N. Garrett*
Affiliation:
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Joshua M. Jansa
Affiliation:
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
*
Joshua M. Jansa, Department of Political Science, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 361 Hamilton Hall, CB#3265, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3265, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scholars have suggested that interest groups affect the diffusion of innovations across states by creating a network of information between the states that aids in the spread of policy ideas. Still, the unique role that interest groups play in policy diffusion networks is not fully understood, in large part because the current methodology for studying diffusion cannot parse out interest group influence. We address this problem by analyzing the actual text of legislation, moving away from binary adoption to a more nuanced measure of policy similarity. This allows us to distinguish whether states emulate other states or interest group model legislation. We use text similarity scores in a social network analysis to explore whether early-adopting states or interest groups are more central to the network. We apply this analytical framework to two policies—abortion insurance coverage restrictions and self-defense statutes. Based on this analysis, we find that a fundamentally different picture of policy diffusion networks begins to emerge—one where interest group model legislation plays a central role in the diffusion of innovations.

Keywords

model legislationinterest groupspolicy diffusiontext analysisnetwork analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 15 , Issue 3: Special Issue Title: Regulation in the States , September 2015 , pp. 387 - 417
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2015

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.)

References

Americans United for Life. 2011. “AUL Praises Nebraska Legislature for Passing ‘Opt Out’ Legislation for Health Care Law to Keep Taxpayers out of the Business of Abortion.” May 12. http://www.aul.org/2011/05/aul-praises-nebraska-legislature-for-passing-opt-out-legislation-for-health-care-law-to-keep-taxpayers-out-of-the-business-of-abortion/ (accessed August 26, 2013).Google Scholar
Ardelean, Loana. 2010. “AUL's Federal Abortion Mandate Opt-Out Act Now Available.” Americans United for Life, March 26. http://www.aul.org/2010/03/auls-federal-abortion-mandate-opt-out-act-now-available/ (accessed August 25, 2013).Google Scholar
Balla, Steven J. 2001. “Interstate Professional Associations and the Diffusion of Policy Innovations.” American Politics Research 29 (3): 221–45..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baybeck, Brady, Berry, William D., and Siegel, David A.. 2011. “A Strategic Theory of Policy Diffusion via Intergovernmental Competition.” Journal of Politics 73 (1): 232–47..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Frances Stokes, and Berry, William D.. 1990. “State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis.” American Political Science Review 84 (2): 395–415..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Frances Stokes, and Berry, William D.. 1992. “Tax Innovation by American States.” American Journal of Political Science 36:715–42.Google Scholar
Berry, William D., and Baybeck, Brady. 2005. “Using Geographic Information Systems to Study Interstate Competition.” American Political Science Review 99 (4): 505–19..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960-93.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (1): 327–48..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J. 2009. “Potential Ambiguities in a Directed Dyad Approach to State Policy Emulation.” Journal of Politics 71 (3): 1125–40..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J., and Skinner, Paul. 2012. “State Policy Innovativeness Revisited.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 12 (3): 303–29..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J., and Witmer, Richard. 2004. “Disentangling Diffusion: The Effects of Social Learning and Economic Competition on State Policy Innovation and Expansion.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (1): 39–51..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgatti, Steve P., Everrett, Martin G., and Freeman, Lin C.. 2002. UCINET 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytical Technologies.Google Scholar
Case, Anne C., Hines, James R. Jr., and Rosen, Harvey S.. 1993. “Budget Spillovers and Fiscal Policy Interdependence: Evidence from the States.” Journal of Public Economics 52:285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Jill, and Little, Thomas H.. 2002. “National Organizations as Sources of Information for State Legislative Leaders.” State and Local Government Review 34 (1): 38–44..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desmarais, Bruce, Harden, Jeffrey J., and Boehmke, Frederick J.. 2015. “Persistent Policy Pathways: Inferring Diffusion Networks in the American States.” American Political Science Review 109 (2): 392–406..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Gipson, Andy. 2010. “Gipson Receives Pro-life Recognition.” Andy Gipson 2012 Legislative Successes, August. http://www.andygipson.com/updates.php (accessed August 26, 2013).Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia. 1973. “Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study.” American Political Science Review 67 (4): 1174–85..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Virginia. 1994. “Competition, Emulation and Policy Innovation.” In New Perspectives in American Politics, eds. Dodd, L. C. and Jillson, C.. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 230–48.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, Alan. 2011. “Right-Minded.” Governing 25 (3): 32–36..Google Scholar
Grossback, Lawrence J., Nicholson-Crotty, Sean, and Peterson, David A. M.. 2004. “Ideology and Learning in Policy Diffusion.” American Politics Research 32 (5): 521–45..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grupp, Fred W. Jr., and Richards, Alan R.. 1975. “Variations in Elite Perceptions of American States as Referents for Public Policy Making.” American Political Science Review 69 (3): 850–58..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald P. 2001. “Policy Diffusion as a Geographical Expansion of the Scope of Political Conflict: Same-Sex Marriage Bans in the 1990s.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 1 (1): 5–26..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Richard L., and Miler, Kristina C.. 2008. “What Happens after the Alarm? Interest Group Subsidies to Legislative Overseers.” Journal of Politics 70 (4): 1–16..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanneman, Robert, and Riddle, Mark. 2005. Introduction to Social Network Methods. Riverside, CA: University of California. http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext/ (accessed March 1, 2014).Google Scholar
Hansen, John Mark. 1991. Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby 1919-1981. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Karch, Andrew. 2006. “National Intervention and the Diffusion of Policy Innovations.” American Politics Research 34:403–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karch, Andrew. 2007. Democratic Laboratories: Policy Diffusion among the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karch, Andrew, Nicholson-Crotty, Sean C., Woods, Neal D., and Bowman, Ann O'M.. 2013. “Policy Diffusion and the Pro-innovation Bias.” Paper presented at the 2013 State Politics and Policy Conference, Iowa City, May 24–25.Google Scholar
Kile, Bradley. 2005. “Networks, Interest Groups, and the Diffusion of State Policy.” Electronic theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Florida State University.Google Scholar
Kliff, Sarah. 2010. “The New Health-Care Fight: Abortion Coverage in State Exchanges.” Newsweek, April 12. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/04/12/the-new-health-care-fight-abortion-coverage-in-state-exchanges.html (accessed August 25, 2013).Google Scholar
Krajacic, Zachary S. 2010. “Krajacic: Put a Stop to Tax-Funded Abortion.” The Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/28/put-a-stop-to-tax-funded-abor-tion/ (accessed August 26, 2013).Google Scholar
Madison, James. 1787. “Federalist 10: The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection.” New York Daily Advertiser, November 22. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htmGoogle Scholar
Martin, Isaac. 2001. “Dawn of the Living Wage: The Diffusion of a Redistributive Municipal Policy.” Urban Affairs Review 36 (4): 470–96..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeal, Ramona S., Tolbert, Caroline J., Mossberger, Karen, and Dotterweich, Lisa J.. 2003. “Innovating in Digital Government in the American States.” Social Science Quarterly 84 (1): 52–70..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintrom, Michael. 1997. “Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 738–70..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintrom, Michael. 2000. Policy Entrepreneurs and School Choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Mintrom, Michael, and Vergari, Sandra. 1998. “Policy Networks and Innovation Diffusion: The Case of State Education Reforms.” Journal of Politics 59 (1): 126–48..Google Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2014. “The Term Limited States.” http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/chart-of-term-limits-states.aspx (accessed June 11, 2015).Google Scholar
Pacheco, Julianna. 2012. “The Social Contagion Model: Exploring the Role of Public Opinion on the Diffusion of Antismoking Legislation across the American States.” Journal of Politics 74:187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Mark A. 1993. “National Health Reform and Social Learning: More than Just the Facts.” Unpublished manuscript presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 2–5.Google Scholar
Peterson, Paul E., and Rom, Mark C.. 1990. Welfare Magnets: A New Case for a National Standard. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
Potthast, Martin, Stein, Benno, Eiselt, Andreas, Barron-Cedeno, Alberto, and Rosso, Paolo. 2011. “Overview of the 3rd International Competition on Plagiarism Detection.” Notebook Papers of CLEF 2011 Labs and Workshops, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, September 19–22.Google Scholar
Prell, Christina. 2012. Social Network Analysis: History, Theory, and Methodology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Savage, Robert L. 1985. “When a Policy's Time Has Come: Cases of Rapid Policy Diffusion, 1983-1984.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 15 (3): 111–26..Google Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 2007. “Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7 (2): 211–27..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volden, Craig. 2002. “The Politics of Competitive Federalism: A Race to the Bottom in Welfare Benefits?” American Journal of Political Science 46 (2): 352–63..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volden, Craig. 2006. “States as Policy Laboratories: Emulating Success in the Children's Health Insurance Program.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (2): 294–312..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volden, Craig, Ting, Michael M., and Carpenter, Daniel P.. 2008. “A Formal Model of Learning and Policy Diffusion.” American Political Science Review 102 (3): 319–32..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1969. “The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States.” American Political Science Review 63 (3): 880–99..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1981. “The Diffusion of Knowledge, Policy Communities, and Agenda Setting: The Relationship of Knowledge and Power.” In New Strategic Perspectives on Social Policy, eds. Tropman, J. E., Dluhy, M. J., and Lind, R. M.. New York: Pergamon Press, 75–96.Google Scholar