Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:21:10.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Confusion, Diffusion, and Innovation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Robert Eyestone
Robert Eyestone*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The apparent fact that interactive effects are more common in policy innovations taking a long time to diffuse among the states, contrary to the presumed effects of interaction, suggests the existence of alternate diffusion mechanisms. Some policies diffuse directly from a federal model, while others diffuse among states via a segmented pattern of emulations. The order of state adoption of fair employment practices legislation is compared with the adoption order for three labor policies and two civil rights policies. Fair employment practice, by this test, is identified as a civil rights policy and not as a labor policy. State minimum wage legislation is discussed as a case of federal influence in the diffusion process. A first wave of diffusion was followed by a period of federally inspired court rescission. Federal legislation in 1938 began another wave of diffusion. In a third wave of innovations, states with existing laws amended those laws by emulating the new federal legislation.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , June 1977 , pp. 441 - 447
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1977

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

1 Gray, Virginia, “Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study,” American Political Science Review, 67 (December 1973), 1174–1185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Walker, Jack L., “The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States,” American Political Science Review, 63 (September 1969), 880–899 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 In addition to the Gray and Walker articles, I have found the following useful: Rose, Douglas D., “National and Local Forces in State Politics: The Implications of Multi-Level Policy Analysis,” American Political Science Review, 67 (December 1973), 1162–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Donald C. Menzel, “Scientific and Technological Dimensions of Innovation in the American States,” presented at the 1975 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association; David R. Cameron, Stephanie H. Cameron, and Richard I. Hofferbert, “Non-Incrementalism in Public Policy: The Dynamics of Change,” presented at the 1975 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. I wish also to thank Virginia Gray for the use of her original data, Jack Walker for some helpful suggestions, and two anonymous referees whose comments on an earlier draft have, I hope, improved this paper. I hasten to add that the “confusion” in the title is not a criticism of any of these writers, but is my impression of the collective impact of diffusion research on the unwary reader.

4 Gray, , “Innovation in the States,” p. 1179 Google Scholar.

5 Walker, , “Diffusion of Innovations,” pp. 892–896 Google Scholar.

6 Gray, , “Innovation in the States,” pp. 1175–1176 Google Scholar.

7 See the expanded version of Walker's, article, “Innovation in State Politics” in Politics in the American States, 2nd ed., Jacob, Herbert and Vines, Kenneth N., eds. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971), pp. 377–378 Google Scholar, for a discussion of the ACIR as a national clearing house for state innovations.

8 Gray, , “Innovation in the States,” pp. 1180–1181 Google Scholar.

9 Walker's general explanation of state emulations allows for nonregional factors. See Walker, , “Diffusion of Innovations,” p. 889 Google Scholar. But the expanded version of Walker's article presents evidence showing the persistence of regional patterns of emulation. See Jacob, and Vines, , Politics in the American States, pp. 378–85Google Scholar. Cameron, , Cameron, , and Hofferbert, , Non-Incrementalism in Public Policy, pp. 51–53 Google Scholar, also argue for the existence of regional effects.

10 Walker, , “Diffusion of Innovations,” p. 882 Google Scholar.

11 Walker, , “Diffusion of Innovations,” p. 882 Google Scholar.

12 Gray, , “Innovation in the States,” pp. 1180–1181 Google Scholar.

13 Ibid., p. 1185.

14 It might be thought that overlap of diffusion periods was in itself a cause of higher rank-order correlations. For these data the relationship is weak, however – for the 15 entries in Table 2, the product-moment correlation is only +.14.

15 Including Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

16 Data are drawn from U.S. Department of Labor, Growth of Labor Law in the United States (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 93–97 Google Scholar.

17 See Rose, “National and Local Forces in State Politics” for a general discussion of the openness of states to national political influences. Cameron, , Cameron, , and Hofferbert, , “Non-Incrementalism in Public Policy,” p. 10 Google Scholar, also support Rose's nationalization hypothesis. Menzel, , “Scientific and Technological Dimensions of Innovation,” p. 23 Google Scholar, presents examples of informal federal pressure on states.

18 Menzel generally emphasizes the possibility of innovation by nonlegislative means. Cameron, Cameron, and Hofferbert, p. 55, also argue for the importance of innovation within areas of long-established state action.

19 U.S. Department of Labor, Growth of Labor Law, pp. 93–97 Google Scholar.