The Public Policy Process among Southeastern States: Elaborating Theories of Regional Adoption and Hold‐Out Behavior

Abstract

Having been adopted by legislatures in over a dozen states, postsecondary merit aid programs are largely concentrated in the southeastern United States. The observed clustering pattern seems to support previous evidence that policies spread between proximate states, a phenomenon referred to by political scientists as policy diffusion. Often, however, policy diffusion is not complete, and one or more states in a region fail to adopt. By interviewing policymakers throughout the southeastern United States—including actors in the three states in the region without merit aid—the study addresses the following question: Why do diffusion pressures lead to adoption in some states but not in others? Studying state “hold‐outs” promises not only to uncover the reasons for failed legislation in specific state contexts but also to better our understanding of the limits of diffusion theory.

Public entrepreneurs and the adoption of broad-based merit aid beyond the Southeastern United States

“…In contrast to previous research of merit aid in the Southeast US (Ingle, Cohen-Vogel, & Hughes, 2007), informants from Alaska indicated that their state economy and coffers were in poor shape and that the University of Alaska System had serious enrollment and funding issues when work on UA Scholar began. As one Alaskan informant explained:…”

“…Research has suggested that favorable economic conditions (strong economy, budget surpluses, dedicated revenue source) were factors that supported the adoption of broad-based merit aid in the Southeast. Conversely, poor state fiscal health and competing spending priorities mitigated the likelihood of passage in non-adopting states in the region (Ingle, Cohen-Vogel, & Hughes, 2007). In our present study, informants from only two of four adopting states outside the Southeast (Michigan and Nevada) reported healthy state economies and the availability of a funding source (tobacco settlement) as factors contributing to the adoption of merit aid.…”

“…For that matter, policymakers must not only secure the votes necessary for the program's authorization, but also find acceptable ways to fund it. An example of this can be found in Alabama, a state surrounded by merit aid adopters that actually passed merit aid legislation on two separate occasions, but both were subject to referenda on funding proposals (Ingle, Cohen-Vogel, & Hughes, 2007). Both failed and merit aid implementation went no further.…”

“…Public entrepreneurs must have the requisite communication abilities and technical knowledge about the innovation they are seeking to advance. Even with considerable access, technical skills, and communication abilities, placement on the agenda does not guarantee that the problem will be taken up by policymakers (Cobb & Elder 1972;Cobb, Ross, & Ross, 1974;Hays & Glick, 1997;Ingle, Cohen-Vogel, & Hughes, 2007;Mintrom, 1997). Notably, Mintrom (1997) found that the presence and actions of advocates for school choice options frequently gained legislative consideration, but policymakers often stopped short of legislating school choice options.…”

“…Researchers also have examined adoption and non-adoption of broad-based merit aid in the Southeast Ingle, Cohen-Vogel, & Hughes, 2007;Ness & Mistretta, 2010). These researchers have suggested that internal determinants facilitated or prevented the adoption of broad-based merit aid, or made the adoption of such a program more or less necessary in their state contexts.…”