Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Statistics, Politics and Policy

Editor-in-Chief: Wagschal, Uwe

2 Issues per year

Online
ISSN
2151-7509
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Examining the Policy Learning Dynamics of Atypical Policies with an Application to State Preemption of Local Dog Laws

Michael P. FixORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0466-2207 / Joshua L. MitchellORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6203-7939
Published Online: 2017-12-19 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2017-0009

Abstract

Most of the literature on policy diffusion focuses on palpable issues such as economic or morality policies. As such, we know little about the mechanisms of diffusion for preemption of atypical policies such as animal regulations that lack a clear economic or ideological motivation. In this article, we propose and test a theory of conditional policy learning to explain the diffusion of atypical policies. We posit that a type of policy learning is occurring here, but that states only look to their neighbors when certain policy specific factors are present in their state. His theory is then applied to examine the dynamics of state adoption of laws preempting local Breed Specific Legislation from 1988 to 2014. Using an exponential model, two policy learning and two conditional learning hypotheses are tested. This study finds that policy learning is occurring through both external and internal pathways. This advances the literature by demonstrating that preemption occurs through the learning mechanism, but this learning effect is conditioned on policy relevant factors within the state.

References

  • Alderdice, J. (2013) “Impeding local laboratories: obstacles to Urban Policy Diffusion in Local Government Law” Harvart Law & Policy Review, 7:459.Google Scholar

  • Bailey, M. A. and M. C. Rom (2004) “A Wider Race? Interstate Competition across Health and Welfare Programs,” Journal of Politics, 66(2):326–347.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bandow, J. H. (1996) “Will Breed-Specific Legislation Reduce Dog Bites?” The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 37(8):478.Google Scholar

  • Baum, J. A. and C. Oliver (1996) “Toward an Institutional Ecology of Organizational Foundin,” Academy of Management Journal, 39(5):1378–1427.Google Scholar

  • Berry, F. S. and W. D. Berry (1990) “State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis,” American Political Science Review, 84(2):395–415.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berry, F. S. and W. D. Berry (1992) “Tax Innovation in The States: Capitalizing on Political Opportunity,” American Journal of Political Science, 36(3):715–742.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berry, F. S. and W. D. Berry (2007) “Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research,” In: (Sabatier, P. ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder, Co: Westview, pp. 223–260.Google Scholar

  • Berry, W. D. and B. Baybeck (2005) “Using Geographic Information Systems to Study Interstate Competition,” American Political Science Review, 99(3):505–519.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berry, W. D., Ringquist, E. J., Fording, R. C. and R. L. Hanson (1998) “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960-93,” American Journal of Political Science, 42(1):327–348.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Boehmke, F. J. and R. Witmer (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

  • Bouché, V. and C. Volden (2011) “Privatization and the Diffusion of Innovations,” Journal of Politics, 73(2):428–442.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bowman, A. O. (2004) “Horizontal Federalism: Exploring Interstate Interactions,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(4):535–546.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bowman, A. and R. Kearney (1986) The Resurgence of the States. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

  • Box-Steffensmeier, J. M. and C. J. Zorn (2001) “Duration Models and Proportional Hazards in Political Science,” American Journal of Political Science, 45(4):972–988.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Butler, D. M., C. Volden, A. M. Dynes and B. Shor (2017) “Ideology, Learning, And Policy Diffusion: Experimental Evidence,” American Journal of Political Science, 61(1):37–49.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Butz, A. M., M. P. Fix and J. L. Mitchell (2015) “Policy Learning and the Diffusion of Stand-Your-Ground Laws in U.S. States,” Politics &Policy, 43(3):347–377.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cohen, J. and J. Richardson (2002) “Pit Bull Panic,” Journal of Popular Culture, 36(2):285–317.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Collier, S. (2006) “Breed-Specific Legislation and the Pit Bull Terrier: Are the Laws Justified? Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 1(1):17–22.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • DiMaggio, P. J. (1991) Constructing an Organizational Field as a Professional Project: US, Art Museums, 1920–1940. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Dobbin, F., B. Simmons and G. Garrett (2007) “The Global Diffusion of Public Policies: Social Construction, Coercion, Competition, or Learning?” Annual Review of Sociology 33: 449–472.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Freeman, D. B. (1985) “The Importance of Being First: Preemption by Early Adopters of Farming Innovations in Kenya,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 75(1):17–28.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Godwin, M. L. and J. R. Schroedel (2000) “Policy Diffusion and Strategies for Promoting Policy Change: Evidence from California Local Gun Control Ordinances,” Policy Studies Journal, 28(4):760–776.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Grambsch, P. M. and T. M. Therneau (1994) “Proportional Hazards Tests and Diagnostics Based on Weighted Residuals,” Biometrika, 81(3):515–526.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gray, V. (1973) “Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study,” American Political Science Review, 67(4):1174–1185.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gray, V. and D. Lowery (2000) “Where do Policy Ideas Come from? a Study of Minnesota Legislators and Staffers,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(3): 573–598.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Grossback, L. J., S. Nicholson-Crotty and D. A. Peterson (2004) “Ideology and Learning in Policy Diffusion,” American Politics Research, 32(5):521–545.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hays, S. P. (1996) “Influences on Reinvention during the Diffusion of Innovations,” Political Research Quarterly, 24(3):551–566.Google Scholar

  • Hoffman, C. L., N. Harrison, L. Wolff and C. Westgarth (2014) Is that Dog a Pit Bull? A Cross-Country Comparison of Perceptions of Shelter Workers Regarding Breed Identification,” Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 17(4):322–339.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hsieh, J. Y. (2011) “A Multilevel Growth Assessment of the Diffusion of Management Innovation Nested in State Levels: The Case of Us Local Economic Development Programs,” Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 13(1):2–19.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jensen, J. L. (2004) “A Multipopulation Comparison of the Diffusion of Public Organizations and Policies Across Space and Time,” Policy Studies Journal, 32(1):109–127.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Karch, A. (2006) “National Intervention and the Diffusion of Policy Innovations,” American Politics Research, 34(4):403.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Karch, A. (2007) Democratic Laboratories: Policy Diffusion Among the American States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

  • Karch, A. and A. Rosenthal (2016) “Vertical Diffusion and the Shifting Politics of Electronic Commerce,” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 16(1):22–43.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Karch, A., S. C. Nicholson-Crotty, N. D. Woods and A. O. Bowman (2016) “Policy Diffusion and the Pro-Innovation Bias,” Political Research Quarterly, 69(1):83–95.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lawrence, G., S. Nicholson-Crotty and D. Peterson (2004) Ideology and Learning in Policy Diffusion,” American Politics Research, 32(5):521–545.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Maggetti, M. and F. Gilardi (2016) “Problems (and solutions) in the Measurement of Policy Diffusion Mechanisms,” Journal of Public Policy, 36(1):87–107.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Makse, T. and C. Volden (2011) “The Role of Policy Attributes in the Diffusion of Innovations,” Journal of Politics, 73(1):108–124.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mallinson, D. J. (2015) “Building a Better Speed Trap: Measuring Policy Adoption Speed in the American States,” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 16(1):98–120.Google Scholar

  • Martin, C. W. (2010) “Interdependence and Political Ideology: The Conditional Diffusion of Cigarette Taxation in US States,” World Political Science, 6(1).Google Scholar

  • Mayhew, D. R. (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mintrom, M. (1997) “Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation,” American Journal of Political Science, 41(3):738–770.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mitchell, J. L. (2016) “Examining Media Markets’ Influence on the Diffusion of Antismoking Legislation in US Counties,” Local Government Studies, 42(5):665–688.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mitchell, J. L. and E. Petray (2016) “The March Toward Marriage Equality: Reexamining the Diffusion of Same-Sex Marriage Among States,” Public Policy and Administration, 31(4):283–302.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mitchell, J. L. and B. Toner (2016) “Exploring the Foundations of US State-Level Anti-Sharia Initiatives,” Politics and Religion, 9(4):720–743.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mitchell, J. L. and La Shonda M. Stewart (2014) “Emulation, Learning, or Competition? Examining Inter-County Anti-Smoking Laws in the State of Missouri,” Public Administration Quarterly, 38(3):317–346.Google Scholar

  • Mooney, C. Z. (2001) “Modeling Regional Effects on State Policy Diffusion,” Political Research Quarterly, 54(1):103–124.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mooney, C. Z. and M.-H. Lee (1995) “Legislating Morality in the American States: The Case of Pre-Roe Abortion Regulation Reform,” American Journal of Political Science, 39(3):599–627.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mooney, C. Z. and M.-H. Lee (1999) “The Temporal Diffusion of Morality Policy: The Case of Death Penalty Legislation in the American States,” Policy Studies Journal, 27(4):766–780.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nicholson-Crotty, S. and S. Carley (2016) “Effectiveness, Implementation Capacity, and Policy Diffusion: Or Can We Make that Work for US and Do We Care,” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 16(1):78–97.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pacheco, J. (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(1):187–202.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Patronek, G. J., J. J. Sacks, K. M. Delise, D. V. Cleary and A. R. Marder (2013) “Co-Occurrence of Potentially Preventable Factors in 256 Dog Bite-Related Fatalities in the United States (2000–2009),” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 243(12):1726–1736.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Patronek, G. J., M. Slater and A. Marder (2010) “Use of a Number-Needed-to-Ban Calculation to Illustrate Limitations of Breed-Specific Legislation in Decreasing the Risk of Dog Bite–Related Injury,” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 237(7): 788–792.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pierce, P. A. and D. E. Miller (2004) Gambling Politics: State Government and the Business of Betting. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Riverstone-Newell, L. (2017) “The Rise of State Preemption Laws in Response to Local Policy Innovation,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 47(3):403–425.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rogers, E. M. (2010) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar

  • Rosado, B., S. Garca-Belenguer, M. León and J. Palacio (2007) “Spanish Dangerous Animals Act: Effect on the Epidemiology of Dog Bites,” Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 2(5):166–174.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sabatier, P. A. (2007) Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

  • Sacks, J. J., R. Lockwood, J. Hornreicht and R. W. Sattin (1996) “Fatal Dog Attacks, 1989–1994,” Pediatrics, 97(6):891–895.Google Scholar

  • Shipan, C. R. and C. Volden (2006) “Bottom-Up Policy Federalism: The Spread of Antismoking Laws from U.S. Cities to States,” American Journal of Political Science, 50(4):825–843.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Shipan, C. R. and C. Volden (2008) “The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion,” American Journal of Political Science, 52(4):840–857.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Shipan, C. R. and C. Volden (2012) “Policy Diffusion: Seven Lessons for Scholars and Practitioners,” Public Administration Review, 72(6):788–796.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stone, D. (1999) “Learning Lessons and Transferring Policy across Time, Space and Disciplines,” Politics, 19(1):51–59.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sylvester, S. M. and D. P. Haider-Markel (2015) “Buzz Kill: State Adoption of Dui Interlock Laws, 2005–11,” Policy Studies Journal, 44(4):491–509.Google Scholar

  • Valente, Thomas, W. (1995) Network Models of the Diffusion of Innovations. New Jersey: Hampton Press.Google Scholar

  • Voith, V. L., R. Trevejo, S. Dowling-Guyer, C. Chadik, A. Marder, V. Johnson and K. Irizarry (2013) “Comparison of Visual and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs and Inter-Observer Reliability,” American Journal of Sociological Research, 3(2):17–29.Google Scholar

  • Walker, J. L. (1969) “The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States,”. The American Political Science Review, 63(3):880–899.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Weiland, P. S. (2000) “Federal and State Preemption of Environmental Law: A Critical Analysis,” Harvard Environmental Law Review, 24:237.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-12-19

Published in Print: 2017-12-20


Citation Information: Statistics, Politics and Policy, Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages 223–247, ISSN (Online) 2151-7509, ISSN (Print) 2194-6299, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2017-0009.

Export Citation

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in