Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-d5ftd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-31T19:02:57.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Complexity, resources and text borrowing in state legislatures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2020

Eric R. Hansen Open the ORCID record for Eric R. Hansen [Opens in a new window]  and
Joshua M. Jansa Open the ORCID record for Joshua M. Jansa [Opens in a new window]
Eric R. Hansen*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago 60660, USA
Joshua M. Jansa
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater 74078, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: ehansen4@luc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Do states copy or reinvent language from complex policies as they diffuse, and does this depend on legislative resources? We argue that states will more frequently reinvent more complex policies, but that states with high-resource legislatures will reinvent more than their low-resource counterparts for more complex policies. We test the theory using the bill texts from 18 policies that diffused across the 50 states from 1983 to 2014, measuring reinvention and complexity using text analysis tools. In line with expectations, we find that complex policies are reinvented more than simple policies and that high-resource legislatures reinvent bills more than low-resource legislatures on average. However, we also find that low-resource legislatures reinvent complex policies at about the same rate as high-resource legislatures. The results indicate that even legislatures with limited resources work to adapt complex policies during the diffusion process.

Keywords

diffusionlegislative professionalismreinventionstate politicstext analysis

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 752 - 775
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Benoit, K, Munger, K and Spirling, A (2019) Measuring and explaining political sophistication through textual complexity. American Journal of Political Science, 63(2): 491–508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, FS and Berry, WD (1990) State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84(2): 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, WD and Baybeck, B (2005) Using geographic information systems to study interstate competition. American Political Science Review, 99(4): 505–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, WD, Ringquist, EJ, Fording, RC and Hanson, RL (1998) Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960–93. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1): 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, FJ (2009) Approaches to modeling the adoption and diffusion of policies with multiple components. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 9(2): 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, FJ, Brockway, M, Desmarais, BA, Harden, JJ, LaCombe, S, Linder, F and Wallach, H (2020) SPID: A new database for inferring public policy innovativeness and diffusion networks. Policy Studies Journal, 48(2): 517–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boushey, G (2010) Policy Diffusion Dynamics in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowen, DC and Greene, Z (2014) Should we measure professionalism with an index? A note on theory and practice in state legislative professionalism research. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 14(3): 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaghan, T, Karch, A and Kroeger, M (2020) Model state legislation and intergovernmental tensions over the affordable care act, common core, and the second amendment. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 50(3): 518–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cann, D, Goelzhauser, G and Johnson, K (2014) Analyzing text complexity in political science research. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(3): 663–666.Google Scholar
Carley, S, Nicholson-Crotty, S and Miller, CJ (2017) Adoption, reinvention and amendment of renewable portfolio standards in the american states. Journal of Public Policy, 37 (4): 431–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drutman, L (2015) The Business of America is Lobbying. London: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flesch, R (1948) A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3): 221–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrett, KN and Jansa, JM (2015) Interest group influence in policy diffusion networks. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 15(3): 387–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, HR and Hays, SP (1991) Innovation and reinvention in state policymaking: Theory and the evolution of living will laws. Journal of Politics, 53(3): 835–850.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grossback, LJ, Nicholson-Crotty, S and Peterson, DAM (2004) Ideology and learning in policy diffusion. American Politics Research, 32, 521–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, SP (1996a) Influences on reinvention during the diffusion of innovations. Political Research Quarterly, 49(3): 631–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, SP (1996b) Patterns of reinvention: The nature of evolution during policy diffusion. Policy Studies Journal, 24(4): 551–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertel-Fernandez, A (2014) Who passes business’s “model bills”? policy capacity and corporate influence in u.s. state politics. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3): 582–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansa, JM, Hansen, ER and Gray, V (2019) Copy and paste lawmaking: Legislative professionalism and policy reinvention in the states. American Politics Research, 47(4): 739–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karch, A (2007) Democratic Laboratories: Policy Diffusion Among the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kousser, T (2005) Term Limits and the Dismantling of Legislative Professionalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kreitzer, RJ (2015) Politics and morality in state abortion policy. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 15(1): 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreitzer, RJ and Boehmke, FJ (2016) Modeling heterogeneity in pooled event history analysis. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 16(1): 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linder, F, Desmarais, BA, Burgess, M and Giraudy, E (2020) Text as policy: Measuring policy similarity through bill text reuse. Policy Studies Journal, 48(2): 546–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litten, K (2016) How a typo almost doomed the Louisiana sales tax increase. New Orleans Times-Picayune, https://www.nola.com/politics/2016/03/typosalestaxlegislature:html (accessed 8 June 2019).Google Scholar
Makse, T and Volden, C (2011) The role of policy attributes in the diffusion of innovations. Journal of Politics, 73(1): 108–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallinson, DJ (2019) Who are your neighbors? The role of ideology and decline of geographic proximity in the diffusion of policy innovations. Policy Studies Journal, Early View: 1–22. doi: 10.1111/psj.12351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintrom, M (1997) Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3): 738–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, CZ and Lee, M-H (1995) Legislative morality in the American states: The case of pre-roe abortion regulation reform. American Journal of Political Science, 39(3): 599–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson-Crotty, S (2009) The politics of diffusion: Public policy in the American states. Journal of Politics, 71(1): 192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Dell, R and Penzenstadler, N (2019) You elected them to write new laws. They’re letting corporations do it instead. USA Today, https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/04/03/abortion-gun-laws-stand-your-ground-model-bills-conservatives-liberal-corporate-influence-lobbyists/3162173002/ (accessed 8 June 2019).Google Scholar
Owens, R and Wedeking, J (2011) Justices and legal clarity: Analyzing the complexity of supreme court opinions. Law & Society Review, 45(4): 1027–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potthast, M, Stein, B, Eiselt, A, Barron-Cedeno, A and Rosso, P (2011) Overview of the 3rd international competition on plagiarism detection. In Petras, V. and Clough, P. (Eds.), Notebook Papers of Clef 2011 Labs and Workshops. Amsterdam, September 19–22.Google Scholar
Rogers, EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations (Third ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Sibley, R (2012) 10 states copied Florida’s ’stand your ground’ law. Sunlight Foundation, https://sunlightfoundation.com/2012/03/28/10-states-copied-floridas-stand-your-ground-law/ (accessed 8 June 2019).Google Scholar
Spirling, A (2016) Democratization of linguistic complexity: The effect of franchise extension on parliamentary discourse. Journal of Politics, 78(1): 120–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, P (1992) Legislative professionalization and membership diversity in state legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17(1): 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, JK, Lewis, DC, Jacobsmeier, ML and DiSarro, B (2012) Content and complexity in policy reinvention and diffusion: Gay and transgender-inclusive laws against discrimination. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 12(1): 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volden, C (2006) States as policy laboratories: Emulating success in the children’s health insurance program. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2): 294–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkerson, J, Smith, D and Stramp, N (2015) Tracing the flow of policy ideas in legislatures: A text reuse approach. American Journal of Political Science, 59(4): 943–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Hansen and Jansa Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/K4AJYW
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Hansen and Jansa Supplementary Materials

Hansen and Jansa Supplementary Materials

Download Hansen and Jansa Supplementary Materials(PDF)
PDF 1.2 MB