Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T15:05:22.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Targeted for Diffusion? How the Use and Acceptance of Stereotypes Shape the Diffusion of Criminal Justice Policy Innovations in the American States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

GRAEME BOUSHEY
GRAEME BOUSHEY*
Affiliation:
University of California
*
Graeme Boushey is Assistant Professor, Political Science, University of California, Irvine, 3151 Social Science Plaza, Irvine, CA 92697–5100 (gboushey@uci.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores the diffusion of criminal justice policy in the American states. Drawing on policy design theory, I code newspaper coverage of 44 criminal justice policies adopted across state governments from 1960–2008, identifying the image and power of target populations—the group singled out for special treatment under law. I test whether electoral pressure leads governments to disproportionally emulate innovations that reinforce popular stereotypes regarding who is entitled to policy benefits or deserving of policy burdens. I find strong support for this theory: State governments are more likely to adopt innovations that extend benefits to strong, popular, and powerful target populations or that impose burdens on weak and politically marginalized groups. This bias can be explained by pressures for responsive policy making, as my findings indicate that it is the national salience of the crime problem—but not the competitiveness or timing of state elections—that influences state adoption of popular “law and order” policy innovations.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 110 , Issue 1 , February 2016 , pp. 198 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 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

REFERENCES

Baumgartner, Frank, and Jones, Bryan. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Barrilleaux, Charles, Holbrook, Thomas, and Langer, Laura. 2002. “Electoral Competition, Legislative Balance, and American State Welfare Policy.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (2): 415–27.Google Scholar
Berry, Frances Stokes, and William, D. Berry. 1990. “State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis.” American Political Science Review 84 (2): 395–415.Google Scholar
Berry, William, Ringquist, Evan, Fording, Richard, and Hanson, Russell. 2007. “The Measurement and Stability of State Citizen Ideology.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7: 111–32.Google Scholar
Best, Joel, ed. 1995. Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems, 2nd ed. New Brunswick: Aldine.Google Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J. 2009. “Approaches to Modeling the Adoption and Diffusion of Policies with Multiple Components.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 9 (2): 229–52.Google Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J., and Skinner, Paul. 2012. “State Policy Innovativeness Revisited.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 12 (3): 303–29.Google Scholar
Boushey, Graeme. 2010. Policy Diffusion Dynamics in America. New York: Cambridge 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 Google Scholar
Carter, David B., and Signorino, Curtis S.. 2010. “Back to the Future: Modeling Time Dependence in Binary Data.” Political Analysis 18 (3): 271–92.Google Scholar
Checkel, Jeffrey T. 2001. “Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change.” International Organization 55 (3): 553–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, Roger, and Elder, Charles D.. 1983. Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Setting. Boston: Alynn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Cocca, Carolyn. 2002. “The Politics of Statutory Rape Laws: Adoption and Reinvention of Morality Policy in the States, 1971–1999.” Polity 35 (1): 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbin, Frank, Simmons, Beth, and Garrett, Geoffrey. 2007. “The Global Diffusion of Public Policies: Social Construction, Coercion, Competition, or Learning?” Annual Review of Sociology 33: 449–72.Google Scholar
Donovan, Mark. 2001. Taking Aim: Target Populations and the Wars on AIDS and Drugs. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Enns, Peter K. 2014. “The Public's Increasing Punitiveness and Its Influence on Mass Incarceration in the United States.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (4): 857–72.Google Scholar
Goode, Erich, and Ben-Yehuda, Nachman. 1994. “Moral Panics: Culture, Politics, and Social Construction.” Annual Review of Sociology 20: 149–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottschalk, Marie. 2008. “Hiding in Plain Sight: American Politics and the Carceral State.” Annual Review of Political Science (11): 235–60.Google Scholar
Grossback, Lawrence J., Nicholson-Crotty, Sean, and Peterson, David. 2004. “Ideology and Learning in Policy Diffusion.” American Politics Research 32 (5): 521–45.Google 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 (1): 69–88.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas M., and Van Dunk, Emily. 1993. “Electoral Competition in the American States.” American Political Science Review 87 (4): 955–62.Google Scholar
Ingram, Helen, Schneider, Anne L., and deLeon, Peter. 2007. “Social Construction and Policy Design.” In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Sabatier, Paul A., 2nd ed. Greenwood, CT: Westview Press, 93–126.Google Scholar
Jones, Michael D., and McBeth, Mark K.. 2010. “A Narrative Policy Framework: Clear Enough to Be Wrong?” Policy Studies Journal 38 (2): 329–53.Google Scholar
Karch, Andrew. 2007. Democratic Laboratories: Policy Diffusion among American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V. O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Klarner, Carl. 2013. “Other Scholars' Competitiveness Measures.” Harvard Dataverse, V1, http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/22519 Google Scholar
Lieberman, Robert C. 1995. “Social Construction (Continued).” American Political Science Review (89) 2: 437–41.Google Scholar
Lowery, Wesley. 2015. “The Bipartisan Push for Criminal Justice Gets a Koch Funded Boost.” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/02/19/the-bipartisan-push-for-criminal-justice-gets-a-koch-funded-boost (Accessed April 7, 2015).Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. 1972. “Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice.” Public Administration Review (32) 4: 298–310.Google Scholar
Makse, Todd, and Volden, Craig. 2011. “The Role of Policy Attributes in the Diffusion of Innovations.” Journal of Politics. 73 (1): 108–24.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas E. 1978. Unsafe at Any Margin: Interpreting Congressional Elections. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute Press.Google Scholar
May, Peter. 1992. “Policy Learning and Failure.” Journal of Public Policy 12 (4): 331–54.Google Scholar
McBeth, Mark K., Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Arnell, Ruth J., and Hathaway, Paul L.. 2007. “The Intersection of Narrative Policy Analysis and Policy Change Theory.” Policy Studies Journal 35 (1): 87–108.Google Scholar
Mossberger, Karen. 2000. The Politics of Ideas and the Spread of Enterprise Zones. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2014. “Legislative Sessions with Limited Scope.” http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/legislative-sessions-with-limited-scope.aspx (Accessed June 8, 2014). Google Scholar
Nelson, Barbara 1986. Making an Issue of Child Abuse: Political Agenda Setting for Social Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nicholson-Crotty, Jill, and Nicholson-Crotty, Sean. 2004. “Social Construction and Policy Implementation: Inmate Health as a Public Health Issue.” Social Science Quarterly 85 (2): 240–56.Google Scholar
Nicholson-Crotty, Sean. 2009. “The Politics of Diffusion: Public Policy in the American States.” Journal of Politics 71 (1): 192–205.Google Scholar
Nicholson-Crotty, Sean, Peterson, David A. M., and Ramirez, Mark D.. 2009. “Dynamic Representation(s): Federal Criminal Justice Policy and an Alternative Dimension of Public Mood.” Political Behavior 31 (4): 629–55.Google Scholar
Pacheco, Julianna. 2012. “The social contagion model: Exploring the role of public opinion on the diffusion of antismoking legislation across the American states.” The Journal of Politics 74 (1): 187–202.Google Scholar
Policy Agendas 2012. Gallup's Most Important Problem. http://www.policyagendas.org/page/datasets-codebooks#gallups_most_important_problem (Accessed January 12, 2016).Google Scholar
Reinarman, Craig. 1988. “The Social Construction of an Alcohol Problem.” Theory and Society 17 (1): 91–120.Google Scholar
Roe, Emery.1994. Narrative Policy Analysis: Theory and Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, Everett M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Savage, Robert. 1985. “When a Policy's Time Has Come: Cases of Rapid Policy Diffusion 1983–1984.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 15 (3): 111–26.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1975. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press Google Scholar
Schneider, Anne L. 2006. “Patterns of Change in the Use of Imprisonment in the American States: An Integration of Path Dependence, Punctuated Equilibrium and Policy Design Approaches.” Political Research Quarterly 59 (3): 457–70.Google Scholar
Schneider, Anne L., and Ingram, Helen. 1993. “The Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy,” American Political Science Review 87 (2): 334–47.Google Scholar
Schneider, Anne L., and Ingram, Helen M.. 2005. Deserving and Entitled: Social Constructions and Public Policy. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Anne L., and Sidney, Mara. 2009. “What Is Next for Policy Design and Social Construction Theory?” Policy Studies Journal 37 (1): 103–19Google Scholar
Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Jones, Michael D., and McBeth, Mark K.. 2011. “Policy Narratives and Policy Processes.” Policy Studies Journal 39 (3): 535–61.Google Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1992. “Legislative Professionalization and Membership Diversity in State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17:69–79.Google Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 2007. “Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7 (2):211–227.Google Scholar
Stone, Deborah A. 1989. “Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas.” Political Science Quarterly 104 (2): 281–300.Google Scholar
Stone, Diane. 2001. “Learning Lessons, Policy Transfer and the International Diffusion of Policy Ideas.” CSGR Working Paper No. 69/01. University of Warwick, Coventry.Google Scholar
Strang, David, and Meyer, John W.. 1993. “Institutional Conditions for Diffusion.” Theory and Society 22 (4): 487–511.Google Scholar
Stucky, Thomas D., Heimer, Karen, and Lang, Joseph B.. 2005. “Partisan Politics, Electoral Competition and Imprisonment: An Analysis of States over Time.” Criminology 43 (1): 211–48.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. Statistical Abstract of the United States. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab (Accessed February 22, 2012).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Justice. 2012. Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/ucrdata (Accessed February 22, 2012).Google Scholar
Victor, Jeffrey S. 1998. “Moral Panics and the Social Construction of Deviant Behavior: A Theory and Application to the Case of Ritual Child Abuse.” Sociological Perspectives 41 (3): 541–65.Google Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1969. “The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States.” American Political Science Review 63: 880–99.Google Scholar