Cognitive and normative determinants of state policymaking behavior: Lessons from the sociological institutionalism

Publius: The Journal of Federalism

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 191-216

  Miller, Edward Alan ^a   Banaszak Holl, Jane ^b  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 25144518759     PISSN: 00485950     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/publius/pji008     Document Type: Review

References (107)

1. For examples of pioneering studies, see Richard E. Dawson and James A. Robinson, "Inter-Party Competition, Economic Variables, and Welfare Policies in the American States," Journal of Politics 25 (May 1963): 265-289;
2. Thomas R. Dye, Politics, Economics, and the Public (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966);
3. Richard I. Hofferbert, "Ecological Development and Policy Change in the American States," Midwest Journal of Political Science 10 (November 1966): 464-483;
4. Jack L. Walker, "The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States," American Political Science Review 63 (September 1969): 880-899;
5. Virginia Gray, "Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study," American Political Science Review 67 (December 1973): 1174-1185.
6. For comprehensive overviews, see Frances Stokes Berry and William D. Berry, "Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research," Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Paul A. Sabatier (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999), pp. 169-200;
7. William Blomquist, "The Policy Process and Large-N Comparative Studies," Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Sabatier, pp. 201-230;
8. Virginia Gray, "Competition, Emulation and Policy Innovation," New Perspectives in American Politics, eds. Lawrence C. Dodd and Calvin Jillson (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1994), pp. 230-248;
9. Edward Alan Miller, "Advancing the State of Comparative State Policy Research: Toward Conceptual Integration and Methodological Expansion," State and Local Government Review 36 (Fall 2004): 35-58.
10. John L. Campbell argues that this is true of policy research more generally. He points out that although political sociologists and political scientists "have focused on how the pursuit of self-interest affects politics and policy making in advanced capitalist societies," they "have paid far less attention to how ideas, that is, theories, conceptual models, norms, world views, frames, principled beliefs, and the like . . . affect policy making." John L. Campbell, "Ideas, Politics, and Public Policy," Annual Review of Sociology 28 (2002): 21-38.
11. For examples of early studies examining sociological influences, see Ruth C. Young and Jose A. Moreno, "Economic Development and Social Rigidity: A Comparative Study of the Forty-Eight States," Economic Development and Cultural Change (July 1965): 439-452;
12. Hofferbert, "Ecological Development and Policy Change in the American States," 464-483;
13. Ira Sharkansky and Richard I. Hofferbert, "Dimensions of State Politics, Economics, and Public Policy," American Political Science Review 63 (September 1969): 867-879.
14. See, for example, David J. Fairbanks, "Religious Forces and 'Morality' Policies in the American States," Western Political Quarterly 30 (September 1977): 411-417;
15. David R. Morgan and Kenneth J. Meier, "Politics and Morality: The Effect of Religion on Referenda Voting," Social Science Quarterly 61 (June 1980): 144-148.
16. See, for example, Robert L. Savage, "Policy Innovativeness as a Trait of American States," Journal of Politics 40 (February 1978): 212-224;
17. Walker, "The Diffusion of Innovations," 880-899.
18. See, for example, Robert L. Savage, "Patterns of Multilinear Evolution in the American States," Publius: The Journal of Federalism 3 (Spring 1973): 75-108;
19. Robert L. Savage, "Policy Traditions in American State Politics," Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 10 (June 1983): 203-229.
20. See, for example, Keith Boeckelman, "Political Culture and State Development Policy," Publius: The Journal of Federalism 21 (Spring 1991): 49-61;
21. Charles A. Johnson, "Political Culture in American States: Elazar's Formulation Examined," American Journal of Political Science 20 (August 1976): 491-509;
22. John Kincaid, ed., Political Culture, Public Policy, and the American States (Philadelphia, PA: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1982).
23. rd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1992), pp. 117-118.
24. M. Tina Dacin, "Isomorphism in Context: The Power and Prescription of Institutional Norms," Academy of Management Journal 40 (February 1997): 46-81.
25. For exceptions, see Pamela S. Tolbert and Lynne G. Zucker. "Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880-1935," Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (March 1983): 22-39;
26. Ryken Grattet, Valerie Jenness, and Theodore R. Curry, "The Homogenization and Differentiation of Hate Crime Law in the United States, 1978 to 1995: Innovation and Diffusion in the Criminalization of Bigotry," American Sociological Review 63 (April 1998): 286-307.
27. The following are highly stylized accounts of the historical and rational choice institutionalisms. We include them so that political scientists and other readers might better appreciate the characteristics of the sociological institutionalism relative to the distinguishing elements of other institutional approaches. It should be pointed out, however, that as stylizations, our descriptions abstract away the nuances of individual studies subsumed under either approach. See also W. Richard Scott, Institutions and Organizations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995), pp. 24-31;
28. Peter A. Hall and Rosemary C. R. Taylor, "Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms," Institutions and Social Order, eds. Karol Soltan, Eric M. Uslaner, and Virginia Haufler (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998), pp. 15-43.
29. Scott, Institutions and Organizations, p. 26.
30. Gerald Gamm, Urban Exodus: Why the Jews Left Boston and the Catholics Stayed (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
31. See also Ester R. Fuch's study, which concluded that long-term political and structural factors contribute to variations in urban fiscal policies that undermine or promote fiscal stability. Ester R. Fuchs, Mayors and Money: Fiscal Policy in New York and Chicago (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).
32. Terry M. Moe, "An Assessment of the Positive Theory of 'Congressional Dominance,'" Legislative Studies Quarterly 12 (November 1987): 475-520.
33. In general, this brand of institutionalism arose from studies of congressional and executive branch behavior and has borrowed heavily from transaction-cost economics and agency theory. Also see Kenneth A. Shepsle and Barry R. Weingast, "Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions," Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions, eds. Kenneth A. Shepsle and Barry R. Weingast (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995), pp. 5-35.
34. Moe, "Positive Theory of 'Congressional Dominance,'" 475-520.
35. Nancy Burns, The Formation of American Local Governments: Private Values in Public Institutions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).
36. See also John H. Aldrich's study, which argues that politicians create or reform political parties to solve problems, including uncertainty over future outcomes, coalition formation, and political mobilization. John H. Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).
37. Elinor Ostrom, "Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework," Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Sabatier, pp. 35-71.
38. Paul A. Sabatier, "Policy Change Over a Decade or More," Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993), pp. 13-39.
39. See also Hugh Heclo, "Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment," The New American Political System, ed. Anthony King (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1978), pp. 87-124.
40. John W. Meyer, "Rationalized Environments," Institutional Environments and Organizations: Structural Complexity and Individualism, eds. W. Richard Scott, John. W. Meyer, and Associates (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994), pp. 29-54.
41. Dacin, "Isomorphism in Context," 48.
42. Campbell, "Ideas, Politics, and Public Policy," 22-25.
43. Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell, "The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality," The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, eds. Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. 147-160.
44. nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1957);
45. James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958);
46. Charles Lindblom, "The Science of Muddling Through," Public Administration Review 19 (Spring 1959): 79-88;
47. Richard M. Cyert and James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963).
48. Walker, "The Diffusion of Innovations," 888-891.
49. For a general discussion of the contributions of the decision-making literature to the sociological institutionalism, see Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell, "Introduction," The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, eds. DiMaggio and Powell, pp. 1-40.
50. John W. Meyer and Brian B. Rowan, "Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony," American Journal of Sociology 83 (September 1977): 340-363.
51. Walker, "The Diffusion of Innovations," 888-890.
52. While briefly summarizing Walker's argument, Berry and Berry write about a general pressure for states to conform to nationally or regionally accepted standards, and they contrast that to rational explanations for why states might emulate each other, such as to achieve a competitive advantage or to avoid being disadvantaged. This is the extent of their discussion though, nor do they explain why states might feel the general pressure to conform that Walker observes. Berry and Berry, "Innovation and Diffusion Models," p. 171.
53. Walker, "The Diffusion of Innovations," 890-891.
54. nd ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 1995);
55. Michael D. Cohen, James G. March, and Johan P. Olsen, "A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice," Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (March 1972): 1-25.
56. Uncertainty refers to the inability to accurately predict an event. Ambiguity refers to the existence of multiple meanings, definitions, or thinking about the same event or phenomenon. While gathering more information may or may not reduce uncertainty, it does not resolve ambiguity. Nikolaos Zahariadis, "Ambiguity, Time, and Multiple Streams," Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Sabatier pp. 73-93.
57. Theodore H. Poister and Gary T. Henry, "Citizen Ratings of Public and Private Service Quality: A Comparative Perspective," Public Administration Review 54 (March/April 1994): 155-160.
58. David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, Reinventing Government (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992);
59. Laura A. Wilson and Robert F. Durant, "Evaluating TQM: The Case for a Theory Driven Approach," Public Administration Review 54 (March/April 1994): 137-146.
60. DiMaggio and Powell, "The Iron Cage Revisited," p. 70.
61. I b i d.
62. See, for example, John E. Chubb, "The Political Economy of Federalism," American Political Science Review 79 (December 1985): 994-1015;
63. Kurt D. Cline, "Influences on Intergovernmental Implementation: The States and the Superfund," State Politics and Policy Quarterly 3 (Fall 2003): 66-83;
64. Susan Welch and Kay Thompson, "The Impact of Federal Incentives on State Policy Innovation," American Journal of Political Science 24 (November 1980): 715-729.
65. Lauren B. Edelman and Mark C. Suchman, "The Legal Environments of Organizations," Annual Review of Sociology 23 (1997): 479-515.
66. That the literature downplays the role of the federal government has been pointed out by a number of researchers. See, for example, Gray, "Competition, Emulation and Policy Innovation," pp. 231, 244-245;
67. Blomquist, "The Policy Process," pp. 212-214;
68. and Miller, "Advancing the State of Research," 44-47.
69. See, for example, Frank Dobbin, John R. Sutton, John W. Meyer, and W. Richard Scott, "Equal Opportunity Law and the Construction of Internal Labor Markets," American Journal of Sociology 99 (September 1993): 396-427;
70. John R. Sutton, Frank Dobbin, John W. Meyer, and W. Richard Scott, "The Legalization of the Workplace," American Journal of Sociology 99 (January 1994): 944-971.
71. Tobert and Zucker, "Institutional Sources of Change," 27.
72. Frank Dobbin and Timothy J. Dowd, "How Policy Shapes Competition: Early Railroad Foundings in Massachusetts," Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (September 1997): 501-529;
73. Neil Fligstein, "The Spread of the Multidivisional Form among Large Firms, 1919-1979," American Sociological Review 50 (June 1985): 377-391;
74. Neil Fligstein, "Markets as Politics: A Political Cultural Approach to Market Institutions," American Sociological Review 61 (August 1996): 656-673.
75. Jeffrey A. Alexander and Tom D'Aunno, "Alternative Perspectives on Institutional and Market Relationships in the US Health Care Sector," Advances in Health Care Organization Theory, eds. Stephen S. Mick and Mindy E. Wyttenbach (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2003), pp. 45-77.
76. Edelman and Suchman, "The Legal Environments of Organizations," 496.
77. Lauren B. Edelman, "Legal Environments and Organizational Governance: The Expansion of Due Process in the American Workplace," American Journal of Sociology 95 (May 1990): 1401-1440;
78. Lauren B. Edelman, "Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures: Organizational Mediation and Civil Rights Law," American Journal of Sociology 97 (May 1992): 1531-1576.
79. See Timothy J. Conlan, New Federalism: Intergovernmental Reform from Nixon to Reagan (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press, 1988);
80. John J. Dilulio Jr. and Richard P. Nathan, "Introduction," Medicaid and Devolution: A View from the States, eds. Frank J. Thompson and John J. Dilulio (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press, 1998), pp. 1-13.
81. See, for example, Gray, "Innovation in the States";
82. Donald C. Menzel and Irwin Feller, "Leadership and Interaction Patterns in the Diffusion of Innovations among the American States," Western Political Quarterly 30 (December 1977): 528-536.
83. See, for example, Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones, Agendas and Instability in American Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993).
84. Edward Miller performed the interviews analyzed. Interviews were semistructured, providing information on subjects' perceptions regarding Medicaid nursing-facility reimbursement. Interviews were transcribed professionally and edited by Miller, who checked the tapes for accuracy and coded the transcripts. To the degree that the interview subjects represented a variety of different roles and locations, overlap in their perceptions and descriptions was taken as a reasonably accurate portrayal of the policy process studied.
85. To recruit state experts Miller usually tried to contact the director of the state Medicaid agency and executive director of the state affiliate of the American Health Care Association, the nation's largest and most active nursing home association. He asked them or someone in their office to nominate an appropriate individual to be interviewed. Sometimes it was the director; other times it was a reimbursement specialist or other employee. The sampled states are Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
86. Patricia H. Thornton, "Accounting for Acquisition Waves: Evidence From the U.S. College Publishing Industry," The Institutional Construction of Organizations: International and Longitudinal Studies, eds. W. Richard. Scott and Soren Christensen (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995), pp. 199-225.
87. Medicaid long-term care reached $82.2 billion or approximately 34 percent of total Medicaid expenditures of $243.5 billion in 2002, with approximately 70 percent of that being directed toward institutional care. Brian Burwell, Kate Sredl, and Steve Eiken, Medicaid Long Term Care Expenditures in FY 2002 (Cambridge, MA: The MEDSTAT Group, 2003).
88. Laura A. Dummit, Testimony before the Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate: Nursing Homes-Aggregate Medicare Payments Are Adequate Despite Bankruptcies (Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 5 September 2000), GAO/T-HEHS-00-192.
89. W. Richard Scott, "The Adolescence of Institutional Theory," Administrative Science Quarterly 32 (December 1987): 493-511.
90. See, for example, Dacin, "Isomorphism in Context";
91. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, "Agency- and Institutional-Theory Explanations: The Case of Retail Sales Compensation," Academy of Management Journal 31 (September 1988): 488-511;
92. Paul N. Gooderham, Odd Nordhaug, and Kristen Ringdal, "Institutional and Rational Determinants of Organizational Practices: Human Resources and Management in European Firms," Administrative Science Quarterly 41 (September 1999): 1-28.
93. Because sociological institutionalists traditionally focus on passive acquiescence to institutional pressures, they tend to highlight processes of structural conformity while neglecting the role of interest and agency in organization-environment relations. Paul DiMaggio, "Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory," Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, ed. Lynne. G. Zucker (Cambridge, MA: Harper and Row, 1988), pp. 4-21;
94. Christine Oliver, "Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes," Academy of Management Review 16 (January 1991): 145-179.
95. W. Richard Scott and John W. Meyer, "The Organization of Societal Sectors: Propositions and Early Evidence," The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, eds. DiMaggio and Powell, pp. 108-142.
96. Alexander and D'Aunno, "Alternative Perspectives on Institutional and Market Relationships in the US Health Care Sector," pp. 45-77.
97. See, for example, Fred W. Grupp Jr. and Alan R. Richards, "Variations in Elite Perceptions of American States as Referents for Public Policy Making," American Political Science Review 69 (September 1975): 850-858;
98. Menzel and Feller, "Leadership and Interaction Patterns," 528-536;
99. Alfred R. Light, "Intergovernmental Sources of Innovation in State Administration," American Politics Quarterly 6 (April 1978): 147-165;
100. Frances Stokes Berry, "Innovation in Public Management: The Adoption of State Strategic Planning," Public Administration Review 54 (July/August 1994): 322-329;
101. Saundra K. Schneider, and William G. Jacoby, "Influences on Bureaucratic Policy Initiatives in the American States," Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6 (October 1996): 495-522.
102. See, for example, Grupp and Richards, "Variations in Elite Perceptions," 850-858;
103. Menzel and Feller, "Leadership and Interaction," 528-536;
104. Light, "Intergovernmental Sources of Innovation," 147-165;
105. Patricia K. Freeman, "Interstate Communication among State Legislators Regarding Energy Policy Innovation," Publius: The Journal of Federalism 15 (Fall 1985): 99-111.
106. A similar point has been made elsewhere. See Gray, "Competition, Emulation and Policy Innovation," pp. 230-248;
107. Miller, "Advancing the State of Research," 49-51.