Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:48:50.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vertical Diffusion and the Shifting Politics of Electronic Commerce

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Andrew Karch  and
Aaron Rosenthal
Andrew Karch*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Aaron Rosenthal
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
*
Andrew Karch, University of Minnesota, 1414 Social Sciences Building, 267 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Email: ajkarch@umn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the late 1990s, Congress and the states have debated how to treat electronic commerce for purposes of sales taxation. Frustrated by their limited progress at the national level, advocates of policy change attempted to generate vertical diffusion by using increasingly aggressive state-level actions to press Congress to act. The state initiatives provided national legislators with an “opportunity to learn,” and a systematic analysis of congressional policymaking suggests that vertical diffusion affected the early stages of the legislative process. State policies influenced the specific options that national officials considered, the rhetoric they employed, and, less consistently, bill cosponsorship patterns. The impact of vertical diffusion receded, however, as the congressional debate continued. Its muted effect during the later stages of the legislative process implies that national officials do not necessarily learn from what occurs in the “laboratories of democracy.” In addition to shedding light on the shifting politics of electronic commerce, this study illustrates the benefits both of studying the impact of vertical diffusion on individual decision-making and of conceptualizing vertical diffusion as a process rather than as an outcome to be explained.

Keywords

policy diffusionpolicy processpublic policyfederalismelectronic commercesales and use taxmarketplace fairness
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 16 , Issue 1: Special Issue Title: Policy Diffusion , March 2016 , pp. 22 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2016

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

Adler, E. Scott, and Lapinski, John S.. 1997. “Demand-Side Theory and Congressional Committee Composition: A Constituency Characteristics Approach.” American Journal of Political Science 41:895–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Mahally D., Pettus, Carrie, and Haider-Markel, Donald P.. 2004. “Making the National Local: Specifying the Conditions for National Government Influence on State Policymaking.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 4:318–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Russell. 1989. House and Senate. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., Gray, Virginia, and Lowery, David. 2009. “Federal Policy Activity and the Mobilization of State Lobbying Organizations.” Political Research Quarterly 62:552–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckelman, Keith. 1992. “The Influence of States on Federal Policy Adoption.” Policy Studies Journal 20:365–75.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 57:39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, James E. 1982. “Cosponsoring Legislation in the U.S. Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 7:415–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CanagaRetna, Sujit M. 2012. “Amazon and the States: New Momentum for States to Recoup Sales Taxes on E-Commerce.” In Book of the States, ed. Audrey, S. Wall Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments, 409–15.Google Scholar
Elkins, Zachary, and Simmons, Beth. 2005. “On Waves, Clusters, and Diffusion: A Conceptual Framework.” ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 598:33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esterling, Kevin M. 2009. “Does the Federal Government Learn from the States? Medicaid and the Limits of Expertise in the Intergovernmental Lobby.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 39:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goolsbee, Austan. 2001. “The Implications of Electronic Commerce for Fiscal Policy (and Vice Versa).” Journal of Economic Perspectives 15:13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Erin R., Shipan, Charles R., and Volden, Craig. 2013. “The Diffusion of Policy Diffusion Research in Political Science.” British Journal of Political Science 43:673–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grier, Kevin B., and Munger, Michael C.. 1993. “Comparing Interest Group PAC Contributions to House and Senate Incumbents.” The Journal of Politics 55:615–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Richard L. 1996. Participation in Congress. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Haskins, Ron. 2008. “Governors and the Development of American Social Policy.” In A Legacy of Innovation: Governors and Public Policy, ed. Sribnick, Ethan G.. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 76–103.Google Scholar
Herian, Mitchel Norman. 2012. “The Intergovernmental Politics of Internet Sales Taxation in the United States.” Policy & Internet 4:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karch, Andrew. 2006. “National Intervention and the Diffusion of Policy Innovations.” American Politics Research 34:403–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karch, Andrew. 2007. Democratic Laboratories: Policy Diffusion among the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karch, Andrew. 2012. “Vertical Diffusion and the Policy-Making Process: The Politics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” Political Research Quarterly 65:48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karch, Andrew, and Cravens, Matthew. 2014. “Rapid Diffusion and Policy Reform: The Adoption and Modification of Three Strikes Laws.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 14:461–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, Daniel, and Krehbiel, Keith. 1996. “Dynamics of Cosponsorship.” American Political Science Review 90:555–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael, and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Prediction.” American Journal of Political Science 44:347–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koger, Gregory. 2003. “Position Taking and Cosponsorship in the U.S. House.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 28:225–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowery, David, Gray, Virginia, and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 2011. “Policy Attention in State and Nation: Is Anyone Listening to the Laboratories of Democracy?” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 41:286–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lunder, Erika K., and Pettit, Carol A.. 2013. “Amazon Laws” and Taxation of Internet Sales: Constitutional Analysis. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Maguire, Steven. 2013. State Taxation of Internet Transactions. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mintrom, Michael. 2000. Policy Entrepreneurs and School Choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Nugent, John D. 2009. Safeguarding Federalism: How States Protect Their Interests in National Policymaking. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, Sheila, Lumibao, Lynly, Pustejovsky, Russell, Hill, Tiffany, and Willhide, Jesse. 2013. State Government Tax Collections Summary Report: 2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
Scheppach, Raymond C., and Shafroth, Frank. 2008. “Intergovernmental Finance in the New Global Economy: An Integrated Approach.” In Intergovernmental Management for the Twenty-First Century, eds. Conlan, Timothy J., and Posner, Paul L.. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 42–74.Google Scholar
Shipan, Charles R., and Volden, Craig. 2006. “Bottom-Up Federalism: The Diffusion of Antismoking Policies from U.S. Cities to States.” American Journal of Political Science 50:825–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipan, Charles R., and Volden, Craig. 2008. “The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion.” American Journal of Political Science 52:840–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, John A., and Hellerstein, Walter. 2005. “The Political Economy of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement.” National Tax Journal 58:605–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volden, Craig. 2006. “States as Policy Laboratories: Emulating Success in the Children's Health Insurance Program.” American Journal of Political Science 50:294–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Jack L. Jr. 1969. “The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States.” American Political Science Review 63:880–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Herbert. 1954. “The Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Role of the States in the Composition and Selection of the National Government.” Columbia Law Review 54:543–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissert, Carol S., and Scheller, Daniel. 2008. “Learning from the States? Federalism and National Health Policy.” Public Administration Review 68:S162–74.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
Weyland, Kurt. 2006. Bounded Rationality and Policy Diffusion: Social Sector Reform in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar