Title: Policy Innovation Diffusion

Submitted by: Lora Cohen Vogel & Michael McLendon      
Alternate Names: Innovation Diffusion, Regional Diffusion, Internal Determinants

"Among political scientists generally and state policy scholars in particular, Policy Innovation Diffusion is a well-known contemporary lens for studying public policy, as demonstrated in its inclusion in Paul Sabatier’s Theories of Policy Process (1999a; 2007forthcoming). Over time, the framework has been refined both conceptually and methodologically, and today is used to explain policy innovation or the factors that lead governments to adopt something new.
Everett Rogers (2003), in the fifth edition of Diffusion of Innovations, defines innovation diffusion as the “process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system” (p. 11). Political scientists have adapted Rogers’s definition, viewing the “social system” as consisting of the governments of the 50 American states (McLendon, 2003b).
In political science and policy studies, the primary unit of analysis is governments —local, state, and national. While some political scientists have examined the transfer of policies and programs among local governments (e.g., Clarke, Wilson, Cummings, & Hyland, 1999; Perry & Kraemer, 1979; Samuels & Glantz, 1991) and even cross-nationally (e.g., Collier & Messick, 1975; Dolowitz & Marsh, 1996; Robertson & Waltman, 1993; Rose, 1991), much of their diffusion work has concentrated on state level policy adoption. Here, an innovation is defined as a policy that is new to the state adopting it regardless of its age, whether it exists elsewhere, or how many other states have adopted it (Berry & Berry, 1990; Gray, 1973, 1994; Walker, 1969).
Since Jack Walker’s pioneering work in 1969, state policy innovation research has exploded. Since 1990 alone, over 40 studies have been published testing the explanatory power of the policy innovation diffusion framework (Berry & Berry, 2006). Primarily, scholars have used the framework to identify both intra-state and interstate influences on policy adoption. By studying policy adoption across space and time, they ask “What combination of (1) state political, economic, and socio-demographic factors, and (2) interstate diffusion dynamics account for patterns of policy adoption among the American states?” (McLendon, 2003b).
This two-part question mirrors the two principal explanations offered for whether and when states innovate (Berry & Berry, 1990; Clark, 1985; Mintrom & Vergari, 1998; Nice, 1994; Savage, 1985). The internal determinants explanation argues that state governments innovate when their political, economic, and social environments are favorable (Gray, 1994). Researchers have found that adoption is generally faster among larger, wealthier states (with more resources with which to experiment); among states with more electoral competition, higher turnover in political office, more professional legislatures; and among more urban and educated states (Berry & Berry, 1990; Morgan & Watson, 1991; Walker, 1969). A critical assumption of this model is “that states do not influence one another to any meaningful extent” (McLendon, 2003b, p. 113).
In contrast, diffusion explanations suggest that “policy innovation is ntrinsically intergovernmental in nature; states emulate the policy adoption behavior of their peers” (McLendon, 2003b, p. 113). The regional diffusion model attributes a state’s policy innovation to the policy behaviors of its geographically proximate neighbors. In 1969, Walker documented a regional clustering pattern, and described state policymaking behavior as a “system of emulation” (p. 898). He ascribed regional patterns in policy innovation to the imitation of proximate, bellwether states. In his studies, certain states emerged as opinion leaders within each region of the United States. Once these opinion leaders adopted a new policy or program, other states in their region followed suit."

(Excerpt from McLendon, M., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2008). Understanding educational policy-making in the American states: Lessons from political science. In B.S. Cooper, L. Fusarelli, and J. Cibulka (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Politics and Policy. Oxford, UK: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.)

References:

Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (in press). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In P. Sabatier (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (2nd ed.) Boulder, CO: Westview

Gray, V. (1973). Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review, 67(4),1174-1185.

Gray, V. (1994). Competition, emulation, and policy innovation. In L. Dodd & C. Jillson (Ed.), New Perspectives on American Politics (pp. 230-248). Washington,DC: CQ Press

Mintrom, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41 (3), 738-770

Mooney, C. Z. (2001). Modeling regional effects on state policy diffusion. Political Research Quarterly, 54 (1), 103-124

Nice, D. C. (1994). Policy innovation in state government. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Walker, J. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 67, 1174 – 1185

References applying the framework:

Cohen-Vogel, L. & Ingle, K.+ (2007). When neighbors matter most: Innovation, diffusion and state policy adoption in tertiary education. Journal of Education Policy, 22 (3), 241 – 262.

Cohen-Vogel, L., Ingle, K., Albee, A., & Spence, M. (2008). The “spread” of merit-based college aid: Politics, policy consortia and interstate competition. Educational Policy, 22 (3), 339-362.

Ingle, K.+, Cohen-Vogel, L. & Hughes, R. (2007). The public policy process among Southeastern states: Elaborating theories of regional adoption and hold-out behavior. Policy Studies Journal, 36 (1).

McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Deaton, R. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28 (1), 1 – 24

Mintrom, M. (2000). Policy Entrepreneurs and School Choice. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press

Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. The Journal of Politics, 60 (1), 126 – 148

Mooney, C. Z., & Lee, M. H. (1995). Legislating Morality in the American States: The Case of Pre-Roe Abortion Regulation Reform.