Regional leaders in the diffusion of tort innovations among the American states

Publius: The Journal of Federalism

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 39-58

  Lutz, James M ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY FORT WAYNE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039504022     PISSN: 00485950     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a029896     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Jack L. Walker, "The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States," American Political Science Review 63 (September 1969): 880-899.
2. Robert L. Savage, "Policy Innovativeness as a Trait of American States," Journal of Politics 40 (February 1978): 212-224; Savage, "When a Policy's Time Has Come: Cases of Rapid Policy Diffusion in 1983-1984," Publius: The Journal of Federalism 15 (Summer 1985): 111-125
3. Robert L. Savage, "Policy Innovativeness as a Trait of American States," Journal of Politics 40 (February 1978): 212-224; Savage, "When a Policy's Time Has Come: Cases of Rapid Policy Diffusion in 1983-1984," Publius: The Journal of Federalism 15 (Summer 1985): 111-125
4. James M. Lutz, "Regional Leadership Patterns in the Diffusion of Public Policies," American Politics Quarterly 15 (July 1987): 387-398.
5. Henry R. Glick and Scott P. Hays, "Innovation and Reinvention in State Policymaking: Theory and the Evolution of Living Will Laws," Journal of Politics 53 (August 1991): 835-850.
6. Russ Allen and Jill Clark, "State Policy Adoption and Innovation: Lobbying and Education," State and Local Government Review 13 (January 1981): 18-25; Jill Clark, "Policy Diffusion and Program Scope: Research Directions," Publius: The Journal of Federalism 15 (Fall 1985): 61-70; and Jill Clark and J. Lawrence French, "Innovation and Program Content: The Nature of the Relationship for State Tax Policies," State and Local Goverment Review 16 (Winter 1984): 11-16.
7. Russ Allen and Jill Clark, "State Policy Adoption and Innovation: Lobbying and Education," State and Local Government Review 13 (January 1981): 18-25; Jill Clark, "Policy Diffusion and Program Scope: Research Directions," Publius: The Journal of Federalism 15 (Fall 1985): 61-70; and Jill Clark and J. Lawrence French, "Innovation and Program Content: The Nature of the Relationship for State Tax Policies," State and Local Goverment Review 16 (Winter 1984): 11-16.
8. Russ Allen and Jill Clark, "State Policy Adoption and Innovation: Lobbying and Education," State and Local Government Review 13 (January 1981): 18-25; Jill Clark, "Policy Diffusion and Program Scope: Research Directions," Publius: The Journal of Federalism 15 (Fall 1985): 61-70; and Jill Clark and J. Lawrence French, "Innovation and Program Content: The Nature of the Relationship for State Tax Policies," State and Local Goverment Review 16 (Winter 1984): 11-16.
9. Clark, "Policy Diffusion and Program Scope," and Glick and Hays, "Innovation and Reinvention," 837.
10. Clark, "Policy Diffusion and Program Scope," and Glick and Hays, "Innovation and Reinvention," 837.
11. Walker, "The Diffusion of Innovation," 881, 891-892.
12. Glick and Hays, "Innovation and Reinvention."
13. Marsha Puro, Peter J. Bergerson, and Steven Puro, "An Analysis of Judicial Diffusion: Adoption of the Missouri Plan in the American States," Publius: The Journal Federalism 15 (Fall 1985): 85-97.
14. James M. Lutz, "The Spatial Temporal Diffusion of Selected Licencing Laws in United States," Political Geography Quarterly 5 (April 1986): 141-159; Lutz, "Regional Leadership Patterns."
15. James M. Lutz, "The Spatial Temporal Diffusion of Selected Licencing Laws in United States," Political Geography Quarterly 5 (April 1986): 141-159; Lutz, "Regional Leadership Patterns."
16. Alfred R. Light, "Intergovernmental Source of Innovation in State Administration," American Politics Quarterly 6 (April 1978): 147-166, and Patricia K. Freeman, "Interstate Communication among State Legislators Regarding Energy Policy Innovation," Publius: "The Journal of Federalism 15 (Fall 1985): 99-111.
17. Alfred R. Light, "Intergovernmental Source of Innovation in State Administration," American Politics Quarterly 6 (April 1978): 147-166, and Patricia K. Freeman, "Interstate Communication among State Legislators Regarding Energy Policy Innovation," Publius: "The Journal of Federalism 15 (Fall 1985): 99-111.
18. Frances Strokes Berry and William D. Berry, "State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis," American Political Science Review 84 (June 1990): 395-415.
19. David L. Huff, James M. Lutz, and Rajendra Srivastava, "A Geographical Analysis of the Innovativeness of States," Economic Geography 64 (January 1988): 137-146.
20. Andrew J. Krmenec, "Economic Development Policy Adoption in a Regional Context: A Study of the Industrial Revenue Bond," Urban Geography 10 (May-June 1989): 251-269.
21. Dale H. Poel "The Diffusion of Legislation among the Canadian Provinces," Canadian Journal of Political Science 9 (December 1976): 605-626.
22. James M. Lutz, "Emulation and Policy Adoption in the Canadian Provinces," Canadian Journal of Polical Science 22 (March 1989): 147-154.
23. Freeman, "Interstate Communication among State Legislators," 109-110.
24. Glick and Hayes, "Innovation and Reinvention," 848; Huff et al., "A Geographical Analysis"; Lutz, "Regional Leadership Patterns"; Lutz, "The Spatial and Temporal Diffusion."
25. Glick and Hayes, "Innovation and Reinvention," 848; Huff et al., "A Geographical Analysis"; Lutz, "Regional Leadership Patterns"; Lutz, "The Spatial and Temporal Diffusion."
26. Glick and Hayes, "Innovation and Reinvention," 848; Huff et al., "A Geographical Analysis"; Lutz, "Regional Leadership Patterns"; Lutz, "The Spatial and Temporal Diffusion."
27. Glick and Hayes, "Innovation and Reinvention," 848; Huff et al., "A Geographical Analysis"; Lutz, "Regional Leadership Patterns"; Lutz, "The Spatial and Temporal Diffusion."
28. Henry R. Glick, "Innovation in State Judicial Administration: Effects on Court Management and Organization," American Politics Quarterly 9 (January 1981): 46-69.
29. Puro et al., "An Analysis of Judicial Diffusion."
30. Gregory A. Caldeira, "The Transmission of Legal Precedent: A Study of State Supreme Courts," American Political Science Review 79 (March 1985): 83-108.
31. Bradley C. Canon and Lawrence Baum, "Patterns of Adoption of Tort Law Innovations: An Application of Diffusion Theory to Judicial Doctrines," American Political Science Review 75 (December 1981): 975-987.
32. Richard Rose, Lesson-Drawing in Public Policy: A Guide to Learning Across Time and Space, (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1993), p. 42.
33. John C. Domino, "Judical Innovation in the Fifty States: The Diffusion of Seven Privacy Doctrines," (paper presented at Midwest Political Science Association meeting, Chicago, April 1990).
34. James M. Lutz and Georgia W. Ulmschneider, "Spatial Context for the Adoption of Judicial Innovations in the American States," Spatial and Contextual Models of Politics, ed. Munroe Eagles (New York: Taylor and Francis, 1995), pp. 63-83.
35. Munroe Eagles, "The Promise of Spatial and Contextual Analyses in Political Reseach," Spatial and Contextual Models of Politics, ed. Munroe Eagles (New York: Taylor and Francis, 1995), p. 281.
36. Canon and Baum, "Patterns of Adoption of Tort Law Innovations," 985.
37. Henry R. Glick, "Policy Making and State Supreme Courts," The American Courts: A Critical Assessment, eds. John B. Gates and Charles A. Johnson (Washington, D.C, CQ Press, 1991), p. 114.
38. Savage, "When a Policy's Time Has Come," 125.
39. Canon and Baum, "Patterns of Adoption," 984.
40. For example, New Jersey had a traditional doctrine that municipal governments were liable (thus, not requiring abrogation of the doctrine). Similarly, Louisiana, with its Roman law background, accepted implied warranties by builders or vendors without a court decision.
41. In the case of the charitable immunity doctrine, three legislative adoptions were quite late. In most cases, the judiciaries of the neighboring states had already adopted the doctrine.
42. Of these eight torts, Hawai'i had not adopted any by 1975 and Alaska had adopted two. Given their late entrance into the union, it is not surprising that they were not among the judicial leaders for adoptions.
43. Canon and Baum, "Patterns of Adoption," 980-981.
44. Ibid.
45. Lutz and Ulmschneider, "Spatial Context for the Adoption of Judicial Innovations in the American States," 79.
46. Cf. Richard I. Hofferbert, "Socioeconomic Dimensions of the American States," Midwest Journal of Political Science 12 (August 1968): 401-418.
47. Ibid.
48. 2 statistic is thus very misleading with ranked data since the hypothetical example just used would be totally supportive of the research hypothesis. F-ratios derived from a comparison of means with the ranked data are also understand given the larger amount of within group variance that of necessity is present.
49. Huff et al, "A Geographical Analysis of the Innovativeness of States."
50. The states in the Four Corners area of the Southwest (i.e., Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico) were considered to share common borders with each other.
51. The categories could have been changed so that, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, and 7.5 were included, and the binomial could have been used with an n of 16 instead of 8. In probabilistic terms, however, half scores representing ties were less likely to have appeared in the actual distribution, and there was no theoretical reason for assuming ties to be as likely as first adoptions for the derivation of the expected distribution. Further, the 8-0 scores would have become 16-0, a possibility even more improbable than the significant results achieved with the more conservative number of categories. Further, since there were relatively few ties, 5.5, for example, was less probable than 6.0 in the actual distribution. This artificial disparity between actual and expected frequencies would have increased the chi-square even more.
52. The total observations in Table 3 sum to more than 107. The bottom half of the table would have included 45 cases of dyads where a state adopted first 3 times, 18.5 cases of 2-6 adoptions, 10.5 cases of 1-7, and 6.5 cases of 0-8. There were a total of 53 cases of 4-4 adoptions - 26.5 with state i adopting first and 26.5 cases with state j adopting first. The total of 53 predicted by the binominal was used for the calculation of the chi-square given the progressive increase in expected numbers of observations. Using the mirror image categories below the 4-4 group would have added three degrees of freedom and artifically raised the chi-square value.
53. Calderia, "The Transmission of Legal Precedent."
54. Type of selection is based on the system in place circa 1970 [Cf. Henry R. Glick and Kenneth N. Vines, State Court Systems (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall 1973)] for the highest court (some states used different selection criteria for different levels of the court system). Selection processes have changed over time; therefore, the discussion of the patterns of judical selection among leaders and followers is general and would not necessarily hold true for states in past time periods if they had altered their selection process.
55. Lutz, "Regional Leadership Patterns."
56. Walker, "The Diffusion of Innovations."
57. Huff et al., "A Geographical Analysis of the Innovativeness of States."
58. Gregory A. Caldeira, "On the Reputation of State Supreme Courts," Political Behavior 5 (Spring 1983): 83-108.
59. Savage, "Policy Innovativeness as a Trait of America States."
60. Lutz, "Regional Leadership Patterns," had a figure for the interwar years permitting a calculation of regional leadership scores. There was no figure provided for the postwar era, but it was possible to calculation the leadership scores among states from the other two time periods and from the figure for all the legislative adoptions.
61. Lutz and Ulmschneider, "Spatial Context for the Adoption of Judicial Innovations in the American States," 80.
62. Glick, "Policy Making and State Supreme Courts," 114.