IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v61y2017i1p37-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ideology, Learning, and Policy Diffusion: Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel M. Butler
  • Craig Volden
  • Adam M. Dynes
  • Boris Shor

Abstract

We introduce experimental research design to the study of policy diffusion in order to better understand how political ideology affects policymakers’ willingness to learn from one another's experiences. Our two experiments–embedded in national surveys of U.S. municipal officials–expose local policymakers to vignettes describing the zoning and home foreclosure policies of other cities, offering opportunities to learn more. We find that: (1) policymakers who are ideologically predisposed against the described policy are relatively unwilling to learn from others, but (2) such ideological biases can be overcome with an emphasis on the policy's success or on its adoption by co‐partisans in other communities. We also find a similar partisan‐based bias among traditional ideological supporters, who are less willing to learn from those in the opposing party. The experimental approach offered here provides numerous new opportunities for scholars of policy diffusion.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel M. Butler & Craig Volden & Adam M. Dynes & Boris Shor, 2017. "Ideology, Learning, and Policy Diffusion: Experimental Evidence," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(1), pages 37-49, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:61:y:2017:i:1:p:37-49
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12213
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12213?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nicholas Carnes & John Holbein, 2019. "Do public officials exhibit social class biases when they handle casework? Evidence from multiple correspondence experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-9, March.
    2. Stadelmann, David & Torrens, Gustavo & Portmann, Marco, 2020. "Mapping the theory of political representation to the empirics: An investigation for proportional and majoritarian rules," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 548-560.
    3. Barbara Vis & Sjoerd Stolwijk, 2021. "Conducting quantitative studies with the participation of political elites: best practices for designing the study and soliciting the participation of political elites," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(4), pages 1281-1317, August.
    4. Charles Crabtree & John B. Holbein & J. Quin Monson, 2022. "Patient traits shape health-care stakeholders’ choices on how to best allocate life-saving care," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(2), pages 244-257, February.
    5. Prysmakova, Palina, 2020. "Generation learning framework: Applying Margaret Mead's typology to agenda-setting stage of policy diffusion," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 7(2), pages 1-25, July.
    6. Zhang, Zhenbo & Wang, Jingwen, 2022. "Undermining or remodeling: Effects of leadership rotation on the effectiveness of authoritarian environmentalism in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    7. Xiaohan Li & Yang Lv & Md Nazirul Islam Sarker & Xun Zeng, 2022. "Assessment of Critical Diffusion Factors of Public–Private Partnership and Social Policy: Evidence from Mainland Prefecture-Level Cities in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, February.
    8. Hassan Danaeefard & Fatemeh Mahdizadeh, 2022. "Public Policy Diffusion: A Scoping Review," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 455-477, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:61:y:2017:i:1:p:37-49. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.