Policy Learning and the Diffusion of Stand‐Your‐Ground Laws

Butz, Adam M.; Fix, Michael P.; Mitchell, Joshua

doi:10.1111/polp.12116

Cited by 32 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure illustrates the rate of cumulative adoption over time, which generally appears to follow the traditional s‐shape diffusion curve, with adoption patterns that appear to be “more gradual” and less steep than other policies (Rogers , 23). Some states were early SPP innovators then others eventually followed, many during a period of relatively rapid policy spread, but without the immediately accelerated adoption patterns observed for morality policies, such as death penalty (Mooney and Lee ), stand‐your‐ground policies (Butz, Fix, and Mitchell ), and same‐sex marriage bans (Haider‐Markel ). SPP is arguably more intricate functional policy that requires some period of contract preparation, administrative adjustment and various managerial complications, and thus does not follow the consistently rapid diffusion of relatively straightforward first‐principles morality policies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aside from economic competition, law makers may not necessarily be tuned into tangible fiscal spillovers and advantages, and therefore, adoptions may be more likely not when states compete, but when states can learn about SPP from administrative experimentation among similar states, rather than for purely competitive reasons. Ideological variables have been employed in recent policy diffusion research to model neighboring learning or regional learning effects (see e.g., Butz, Fix, and Mitchell ; Grossback, Nicholson‐Crotty, and Peterson ; Sylvester and Haider‐Markel ). Specifically, policy makers are expected to be more likely to learn about SPP administrative approaches from their most ideologically similar neighbor as opposed to learning from each neighboring state equally.…”

Section: Policy Diffusion and Sppmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After the adopting year, the state drops out of the sample due to the nature of event history. This model is appropriate when data calls on this type of distribution and EHA has been used repeatedly in diffusion studies (see e.g., Berry and Berry 1990;Butz, Fix, and Mitchell 2015;Mooney 2001;Sylvester and Haider-Markel 2015). First, we tested our data to assure that it does not violate the proportional hazards assumptions.…”

Section: Modeling Spp Diffusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Social Control Meets New Public Management: Examining the Diffusion of State Prison Privatization, 1979‐2010

Mitchell

Butz

2019

Politics & Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the merits and perils of privatization have remained a contentious and often polarizing debate, privatization of public services remains commonplace throughout the world. For instance, over the last several decades, U.S. governments at all levels have routinely pursued contracting arrangements for corrections management, known popularly as prison privatization. In this article, state prison privatization (SPP) is examined in three ways. First, we use an externally focused policy diffusion framework to help explain the adoption of SPP‐enabling legislation across U.S. states. Second, we explore the extent to which the American Legislative Exchange Council has influenced the adoption of prison privatization legislation. Third, we explore the role of state wealth inequality in determining a state's propensity to adopt prison privatization policies. Examining state‐level data from 1979 to 2010, this article finds empirical support for each of these key theoretical assertions. Furthermore, we find evidence that the external diffusion effect may vary depending on the political orientation of the state. Related Articles Butz, Adam M., Michael P. Fix, and Joshua L. Mitchell. 2005. “Policy Learning and the Diffusion of Stand‐Your‐Ground Laws.” Politics & Policy 43 (3): 347‐377. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12116 Gerlach, John David, Laron K. Williams, and Colleen E. Forcina. 2013. “The Science‐Natural Resource Policy Relationship: How Aspects of Diffusion Theory Explain Data Selection for Making Biodiversity Management Decisions.” Politics & Policy 41 (3): 326‐354. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12017 Morris, John C. 2007. “Government and Market Pathologies of Privatization: The Case of Prison Privatization.” Politics & Policy 35 (2): 318‐341. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00062.x Related Media American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio. 2015. “Prisons for Profit: 18 Months in the Life of the Nation's First Prison Sold for Profit.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQcZzS7eqfY Now on PBS. 2008. “Prisons for Profit.” https://www.pbs.org/now/shows/419/video.html Sullivan, Eileen. 2016. “PBS News Hour: Obama Administration Set to End Use of Private Prisons.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/obama-administration-end-use-private-prisons

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Policy Diffusion and Sppmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modeling Spp Diffusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social Control Meets New Public Management: Examining the Diffusion of State Prison Privatization, 1979‐2010

Mitchell

Butz

2019

Politics & Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Policy diffusion, or how policies spread among jurisdictions, has been studied at the state (Berry and Berry 1990;Boehmke and Witmer 2004;Butz, Fix, and Mitchell 2015;Boushey 2010;Karch 2007), county (Bouché and Volden 2011;Mitchell and Stewart 2014), city Volden 2006, 2008) and district levels (Rincke 2007). Regardless of the unit of analysis, the usual determinants of policy diffusion include both internal and external characteristics of the adopting jurisdiction.…”

Section: Tobacco Policy Policy Diffusion and The Mass Mediamentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining media markets’ influence on the diffusion of antismoking legislation in US counties

Mitchell

2016

Local Government Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article assesses the role of mass media markets in the diffusion of antismoking legislation in the state of Missouri in the US. Testing multiple diffusion theories, this study finds that media markets can facilitate the diffusion of policies among local jurisdictions by exacerbating intercounty competition. More attention should be given to media markets when assessing policy diffusion mechanisms at the local level. Media markets can be an important source for policy information conveyance among counties over a large geographic area. Furthermore, traditional diffusion studies that rely on geographical contiguity measures may not be completely capturing the existence of diffusion by excluding media markets.

show abstract

“…Gun laws were also enforced selectively in the South, and elsewhere, in a manner that privileged whites (Cook and Goss , 166; Cramer , 13). In fact, there is some evidence that race continues to influence the adoption of policies related to firearms, specifically “Stand Your Ground Laws,” but this only seems to be the case in the South (Butz, Fix, and Mitchell ).…”

Section: The Changing Ideological Politics Of Gun Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Changing Ideological Politics of U.S. State Firearms Regulation

McLean

Sorens

2019

Politics & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are the components of policy ideology in the American states fixed, or do they change over time? We document a change in the ideological loading and internal consistency of state firearms laws. While state policy liberalism has long correlated positively with restrictive gun regulation, this relationship strengthened over the 1986‐2016 period. Moreover, states' gun policy regimes have become more internally consistent since 1986, and newly salient issues, such as concealed‐carry laws and assault weapons bans, have been enfolded into the existing dimension of regulatory restrictiveness. This process also corresponds to a shift in the geographic bases of the Republican and Democratic Parties toward nonurban and urban areas, respectively. The changes in gun policy patterns across states reflect dynamic representation of voter ideology. The results suggest that certain modeling assumptions used to generate cardinal state policy ideology scores in prior research ought to be revised. Related Articles Joslyn, Mark R., and Donald P. Haider‐Markel. 2018. “Motivated Innumeracy: Estimating the Size of the Gun Owner Population and Its Consequences for Opposition to Gun Restrictions.” Politics & Policy 46 (6): 827‐850. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12276 Smith‐Walter, Aaron, Holly L. Peterson, Michael D. Jones, and Ashley Nicole Reynolds Marshall. 2016. “Gun Stories: How Evidence Shapes Firearm Policy in the United States.” Politics & Policy 44 (6): 1053‐1088. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12187 Tucker, Justin A., James W. Stoutenborough, and R. Matthew Beverlin. 2012. “Geographic Proximity in the Diffusion of Concealed Weapons Permit Laws.” Politics & Policy 40 (6): 1081‐1105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00399.x

show abstract

Policy Learning and the Diffusion of Stand‐Your‐Ground Laws

Cited by 32 publications

References 50 publications

Social Control Meets New Public Management: Examining the Diffusion of State Prison Privatization, 1979‐2010

Social Control Meets New Public Management: Examining the Diffusion of State Prison Privatization, 1979‐2010

Examining media markets’ influence on the diffusion of antismoking legislation in US counties

The Changing Ideological Politics of U.S. State Firearms Regulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About