Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:29:10.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making the National Local: Specifying the Conditions for National Government Influence on State Policymaking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Mahalley D. Allen ,
Carrie Pettus  and
Donald P. Haider-Markel
Mahalley D. Allen
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Carrie Pettus
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Donald P. Haider-Markel
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The national government can force or entice state governments to act on policy through a variety of actions, including providing monetary incentives and sanctions. We examine how and under what conditions actions of the national government influence the diffusion of policy across the states. We test our hypotheses on the cases of the diffusion of partial birth abortion laws, truth-in-sentencing laws, and hate crime laws using event history analysis on pooled cross-sectional data from the 50 states. Our results suggest that, in addition to fiscal incentives, the national government can influence state policymaking when it sends strong, clear signals to the states concerning its preferences and the potential for future action. But even national-level signals that are weak and ambiguous may influence state policymaking indirectly.

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , Fall 2004 , pp. 318 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

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

Adams, Greg D. 1997. “Abortion: Evidence of an Issue Evolution.” American Journal of Political Science 41:718–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. 2000. 2000 Hate Crime Laws. New York: Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Beckett, Katherine, and Sasson, Theodore. 2000. The Politics of Injustice: Crime and Punishment in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
Berry, Frances, and Berry, William D.. 1990. “State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis.” American Political Science Review 84:395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Frances Stokes, and Berry, William D.. 1999. “Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research.” In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Sabatier, Paul E.. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google 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 42:327–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohte, John, and Meier, Kenneth J.. 2000. “The Marble Cake: Introducing Federalism to the Government Growth Equation.” Publius 30:35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, Martin B., Green, Norman M., Johnson, Dale E., Lynn, Mac, and McNeil, Lou. 1992. Churches and Church Membership in the United States, 1990. Atlanta, GA: Glenmary Research Center.Google Scholar
Christianity Today. 1997. “States Approving Bans on Partial-Birth Abortion.” Christianity Today, October, A2.Google Scholar
Chubb, John. 1985. “The Political Economy of Federalism.” American Political Science Review 79:994–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Susan A., and Saul, Rebekah. 1998. “The Campaign against ‘Partial-Birth’ Abortion: Status and Fallout.” The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy 1:305–21.Google Scholar
Conklin, Melanie. 1998. “Lights Out on Abortion.” Progressive 62(7):15–7.Google Scholar
Council of State Governments. 1999. The Book of the States, 1998-99. Lexington, KY: The Council of State Governments.Google Scholar
Dubnick, Mel, and Gitelson, Alan. 1981. “Nationalizing State Policies.” In The Nationalization of State Government, ed. Hanus, Jerome J.. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Erickson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eyestone, Robert. 1977. “Confusion, Diffusion, and Innovation.” American Political Science Review 71:441–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Brian J., and Teske, Paul. 2000. “Regulatory Policymaking in the American States: A Review of Theories and Evidence.” Political Research Quarterly 53:849–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goggin, Malcolm L., Bowman, Ann O., Lester, James P., and O'Toole, Laurence J. Jr. 1990. Implementation Theory and Practice: Toward a Third Generation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia. 1973. “Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study.” American Political Science Review 67:1174–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Virginia. 1994. “Competition, Emulation, and Policy Innovation.” In New Perspectives on American Politics, eds. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Jillson, Calvin. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Grogan, Collen M. 1999. “The Influence of Federal Mandates on State Medicaid and AFDC Decision-Making.” Publius 29:1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald P. 1998. “The Politics of Social Regulatory Policy: State and Federal Hate Crime Policy and Implementation Effort.” Political Research Quarterly 51:69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald P. 2000. “Lesbian and Gay Politics in the States: Interest Groups, Electoral Politics, and Public Policy.” In The Politics of Gay Rights, eds. Rimmerman, Craig A., Wald, Kenneth D., and Wilcox, Clyde. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google 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 and Policy Quarterly 1:5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, Christopher, and Wells, Donald T.. 1990. Federalism, Power, and Political Economy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hedge, David M. 1983. “Fiscal Dependency and the State Budget Process.” Journal of Politics 45:198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henshaw, Stanley K., and Vort, Jennifer Van. 1994. “Abortion Services in the United States, 1991 and 1992.” Family Planning Perspectives 26:100–6, 112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hero, Rodney E., and Tolbert, Caroline J.. 1996. “A Racial/Ethnic Diversity Interpretation of Politics and Policy in the States of the U.S.” American Journal of Political Science 40:851–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas M., and Dunk, Emily Van. 1993. “Electoral Competition in the American States.” American Political Science Review 87:955–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, Sung-Don, and Gray, Virginia. 1991. “External Limits and Internal Determinants of State Public Policy.” Western Political Quarterly 44:277–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettl, Donald F. 1983. The Regulation of American Federalism. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Krane, Dale. 1993. “American Federalism, State Governments, and Public Policy: Weaving Together Loose Theoretical Threads.” PS: Political Science and Politics 26:186–91.Google Scholar
Lowry, William. 1992. The Dimensions of Federalism: State Governments and Pollution Control Policies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Madison, James. [1788] 1999. “The Federalist, No. 39.” In American Politics: Classic and Contemporary Readings, eds. Cigler, Allan J. and Loomis, Burdett A.. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Meier, Kenneth J. 1992. “The Politics of Drug Abuse: Laws, Implementation, and Consequences.” Western Political Quarterly 45:41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintrom, Michael. 1997. “Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation.” American Journal of Political Science 41:738–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintrom, Michael. 2000. Policy Entrepreneurs and School Choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z. 2000. “The Decline of Federalism and the Rise of Morality-Policy Conflict in the United States.” Publius 30:171–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mooney, Christopher Z. 2001. “Modeling Regional Effects on State Policy Diffusion.” Political Research Quarterly 54:103–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z., and Lee, Mei-Hsien. 1995. “Legislating Morality in the American States: The Case of Pre-Roe Abortion Regulation Reform.” American Journal of Political Science 39:599–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Art. 1997. “States Approving Bans on Partial-Birth Abortion: Lawmakers Are No Longer Waiting On Federal Bill.” Christianity Today, December, 97.Google Scholar
Moore, Art. 1999. “Partial-Birth Bans Make Little Headway in States.” Christianity Today, April, 18.Google Scholar
Mossberger, Karen. 1999. “State-Federal Diffusion and Policy Learning: From Enterprise Zones to Empowerment Zones.” Publius 29:31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossberger, Karen. 2000. The Politics of Ideas and the Spread of Enterprise Zones. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
National Abortion Rights Action League. Various years. Congressional Record on Choice. Washington, DC: National Abortion Rights Action League.Google Scholar
Nice, David C. 1992. “The States and the Death Penalty.” Western Political Quarterly 45:1037–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrander, Barbara. 2001. “Measuring State Public Opinion with the Senate National Election Study.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1:111–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of Justice Programs. 2001. “Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Program.” Office of Justice Grant Program Description. Washington, DC: United States Printing Office.Google Scholar
Peterson, Paul E., Rabe, Barry G., and Wong, Kenneth K.. 1986. When Federalism Works. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Ringquist, Evan J. 2000. “Environmental Justice: Normative Concerns and Empirical Evidence.” In Environmental Policy, eds. Vig, Norman J. and Kraft, Michael E.. 4th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Risen, James, and Thomas, Judy L.. 1998. Wrath of Angels. New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
Saul, Rebekah. 1998. “Major Developments in the States: 1997.” The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy 1:22–31.Google Scholar
Sollom, Terry. 1997. “State Actions on Reproductive Health Issues in 1996.” Family Planning Perspectives 29:8–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soss, Joe, Schram, Sanford F., Vartanian, Thomas P., and O'Brien, Erin. 2001. “Setting the Terms of Relief: Explaining State Policy Choices in the Devolution Revolution.” American Journal of Political Science 45:378–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stream, Christopher. 1999. “Health Reform in the States: A Model of State Small Group Health Insurance Market Reforms.” Political Research Quarterly 52:499–526.Google Scholar
Taggart, William A., and Winn, Russell G.. 1993. “Imprisonment in the American States.” Social Science Quarterly 74:736–49.Google Scholar
Tompkins, Gary L. 1975. “A Causal Model of State Welfare Expenditures.” Journal of Politics 37:392–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Susan, Greenwood, Peter W., Chen, Elsa, and Fain, Terry. 1999. “The Impact of Truth-in-Sentencing and Three Strikes Legislation: Prisons, State Budgets, and Crime Rates.” Stanford Law and Policy Review 11:75–91.Google Scholar
United States Bureau of the Census. Various years. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: United States Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
United States Department of Justice. 1993. Hate Crime Statistics, 1993. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Information Services Division.Google Scholar
United States Department of Justice. Various years. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
United States General Accounting Office. 1998. Truth in Sentencing: Availability of Federal Influenced Laws in Some States. Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office.Google Scholar
Volden, Craig. 1999. “Asymmetric Effects of Intergovernmental Grants: Analysis and Implications for U.S. Welfare Policy.” Publius 29:51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, Susan, and Thompson, Kay. 1980. “The Impact of Federal Incentives on State Policy Innovation.” American Journal of Political Science 24:715–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, B. Dan. 1992. “Modeling Federal Implementation as a System.” American Journal of Political Science 36:40–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar