Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T13:45:22.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Initiative Process and Policy Innovation in the American States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2021

Scott J. LaCombe Open the ORCID record for Scott J. LaCombe [Opens in a new window]  and
Frederick J. Boehmke
Scott J. LaCombe*
Affiliation:
Department of Government and Statistical and Data Sciences, Smith College, Northampton, MA, USA
Frederick J. Boehmke
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Iowa Social Science Research Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
*
Corresponding Author: Scott J. LaCombe, Department of Government and Statistical and Data Sciences, Smith College, 201 Wright Hall, Northampton, MA01060, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We utilize a new policy adoption database with over 500 policies to test whether the initiative process influences the timing of policy adoption. Prior studies have produced both supportive and null findings of the effect of the initiative, but typically examine policies one policy or a single composite score at a time. Theoretical accounts suggest that the initiative process should have heterogeneous effects on policy outcomes depending on the configuration of public and government preferences. By pooling hundreds of policies we are able to estimate the average effect of the initiative process on state policy adoption more systematically while also evaluating variation in its effect. We find via a pooled event history analysis that the initiative tends to increase innovativeness, but that this effect can be cancelled out by signature and distribution requirements. We find that this effect varies substantially across policies and is more consistently positive on average in states more liberal populations. We also find evidence that the initiative process moderates the effect of ideology on policy adoption, while making the adoption of non-ideological policies more likely on average.

Keywords

initiativeinnovationdiffusionpolicystate politics
Type
Original Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 286 - 305
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

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

Arcenaux, Krevin. 2002. “Direct Democracy and the Link between Public Opinion and State Abortion Policy.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 2 (4): 372–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Frances S., and Berry, William D.. 1990. “State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis.” The American Political Science Review 84 (2): 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J. 2005. The Indirect Effect of Direct Legislation: How Institutions Shape Interest Groups Systems. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J., Brockway, Mark, Desmarais, Bruce, Harden, Jeffrey J., LaCombe, Scott, Linder, Fridolin, and Wallach, Hanna. 2018. “State Policy Innovation and Diffusion (SPID) Database v1.0”.Google Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J., Brockway, Mark, Desmarais, Bruce, Harden, Jeffrey, LaCombe, Scott, Linder, Fridolin, and Wallach, Hanna. 2020. “A New Database for Inferring Public Policy Innovativeness and Diffusion Networks.” Policies Studies Journal 48: 517–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J., Rury, Abigail M., Desmarais, Bruce A., and Harden, Jeffrey J.. 2017. “The Seeds of Policy Change: Leveraging Diffusion to Disseminate Policy Innovations.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 42 (2): 285–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boehmke, Frederick, Osborn, Tracy, and Schilling, Emily. 2015. “Pivotal Politics and Initiative Use in the American States.” Political Research Quarterly 68 (4): 665–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowen, Daniel C., and Greene, Zachary. 2014. “Should We Measure Professionalism with an Index? A Note on Theory and Practice in State Legislative Professionalism Research.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 14 (3): 277–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2004. “Measuring the Effect of Direct Democracy on State Policy: Not All Initiatives are Created Equal.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 4 (3): 345–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline. 1998. Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Jones, Bradford S.. 2004. Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bricker, Christine and LaCombe, Scott J. 2020. “The Ties that Bind Us: The Influence of Perceived State Similarity on Policy Diffusion.” Political Research Quarterly. Published ahead of print, February 29, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920906611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burden, Barry. 2005. “Institutions and Policy Representation in the States.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 5 (4): 373–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camobreco, John. 1998. “Preferences, Fiscal Policies, and the Initiative Process.” The Journal of Politics 60 (3): 819–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caughey, Devin, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2017. “Policy Preferences and Policy Change: Dynamic Responsiveness in the American States, 1936–2014.” American Political Science Review 112 (2): 249–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caughey, Devin, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2018. “Policy Preferences and Policy Change: Dynamic Responsiveness in the American States, 1936–2014.” American Political Science Review 112 (2): 249–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desmarais, Bruce A., Harden, Jeffrey J., and Boehmke, Frederick J.. 2015. “Persistent Policy Pathways: Inferring Diffusion Networks in the American States.” American Political Science Review 109 (02): 392–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1996. “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Haider-Markel, D. P, Querze, Alana, and Lindman, Kara. 2007. “Lose, Win or Draw? A Re-examination of Direct Democracy and Minority Rights.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (2): 304–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, Robert J. 2011. “Comparing Institutional and Policy Explanations for the Adoption of State Constitutional Amendments: The Case of Same-Sex Marriage.” American Politics Research 39 (6): 1097–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Jason. 2003. “Policy Diffusion through Institutional Legitimation: State Lotteries.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13 (4): 521–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klarner, Carl. 2013. “State Partisan Balance Data, 1937–2011.” Harvard Dataverse 1.Google Scholar
Kreitzer, Rebecca J., and Boehmke, Frederick J.. 2016. “Modeling Heterogeneity in Pooled Event History Analysis.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 16 (1): 121–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaCombe, Scott. 2021. “Replication Data for: The Initiative Process and Policy Innovation in the American States.” UNC Dataverse. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.15139/S3/2JN1IR.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lascher, Edward L., Hagen, Michael G., and Rochlin, Steven A.. 1996. “Gun Behind the Door? Ballot Initiatives, State Policies and Public Opinion.” The Journal of Politics 58 (03): 760–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffery, and Phillips, Justin. 2009. “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review 103 (3): 367–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey, and Phillips, Justin. 2012. “The Democratic Deficit in the States.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (1): 148–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leemann, Lucas, and Wasserfallen, Fabio. 2016. “The Democratic Effect of Direct Democracy.” American Political Science Review 110 (4): 750–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Daniel. 2011. “Direct Democracy and Minority Rights: Same-Sex Marriage Bans in the US States.” Social Science Quarterly 92 (2): 364–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, Krupnikov, Yanna, Levine, Adam S., Piston, Spencer, and Hagen-Jamar, Alexander. 2010. “Why State Constitutions Differ in their Treatment of Same-Sex Marriage.” The Journal of Politics 72 (4): 22–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallinson, Daniel J. 2021. “Who Are Your Neighbors? The Role of Ideology and Decline of Geographic Proximity in the Diffusion of Policy Innovations.” Policy Studies Journal 49: 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John. 1995. “Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative: Evidence from the Last Thirty Years.” Journal of Political Economy 103 (3): 587–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John. 2001. “Problems with a Methodology Used to Evaluate the Voter Initiative.” The Journal of Politics 63 (4): 1250–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John. 2004. For the Many or the Few. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John. 2018a. “Public Policy and the Initiative and Referendum: A Survey with Some New Evidence.” Public Choice 127: 107–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John. 2010. “Popular Control of Public Policy: A Quantitative Approaches.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5 (2): 133–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2008. “Direct Democracy and the Executive Branch.” In Direct Democracy’s Impact on American Political Institutions, pp. 115–35. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2018b. “Public Policy and the Initiative and Referendum: A Survey with Some New Evidence.” Public Choice 174 (1–2): 107–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monogan, James, Gray, Virginia, and Lowery, David. 2009. “Public Opinion, Organized Interests, and Policy Congruence in Initiative and Noninitiative U.S. States.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 9 (3): 304–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z. 2001. “Modeling Regional Effects on State Policy Diffusion.” Political Research Quarterly 54 (1): 103–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer, Thomas, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1979. “Bureaucrats Versus Voters: On the Political Economy of Resource Allocation by Direct Democracy.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 93 (4): 563–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schildkraut, Deborah J. 2001. “Official-English and the States: Influences on Declaring English the Official Language in the United States.” Political Research Quarterly 54 (2): 445–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel A., and Fridkin, Dustin. 2008. “Delegating Direct Democracy: Interparty Legislative Competition and the Adoption of the Initiative in the American States.” American Political Science Review 102 (3): 333–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 2007. “Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7 (2): 211–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tausanovitch, Chris, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2014. “Representation in Municipal Government.” American Political Science Review 108 (3): 605–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1969. “The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States.” American Political Science Review 63 (3): 880–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

LaCombe and Boehmke Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.15139/S3/2JN1IR
Link