The Diffusion of Legislation among the Canadian Provinces: A Statistical Analysis

Canadian Journal of Political Science

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 1976, Pages 605-626

  Poel, Dale H ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84971147058     PISSN: 00084239     EISSN: 17449324     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0008423900044723     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Innovations in the States: A Diffusion Study,” American Political Science Review LXVII (December 1973), 1174-85
2. “The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States,” American Political Science Review LXIH (September 1969), 880-99.
3. Most of this sociological research is discussed in Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York, 1962); Everett M. Rogers and F. Floyd Shoemaker, Communication of Innovation: A Cross-Cultural Approach (New York, 1971); and Robert Hamblin, R. Brooke Jacobsen, and Jerry L.L. Miller, A Mathematical Theory of Social Change (New York, 1973).
4. Walker, ”Diffusion of Innovations,” 881
5. By” ‘the determinants of state policy’ area” I mean the comparative state research of which the following are examples: Richard E. Dawson and James A. Robinson, ”Inter-party Competition, Economic Variables and Welfare Policies in the American States,” Journal of Politics xxv (May 1963), 265-89; Thomas R. Dye, Politics, Economics and the Public: Policy Outcomes in the American States (Chicago, 1966); Ira Sharkansky, Spending in the American States (Chicago, 1968); Charles F. Cnudde and Donald J. McCrone, ”Party Competition and Welfare Policies in the American States,” American Political Science Review LXIII (September 1969), 858-66; and Bernard H. Booms and James R. Halldorson, ”The Politics of Redistribution: A Reformulation,” American Political Science Review LXVII (September 1973), 924-33.
6. Jack L. Walker, ”Comment: Problems in Research on the Diffusion of Policy Innovations,” American Political Science Review LXVII (December 1973), 1187
7. “Diffusion of Innovation,” 884.
8. Ibid., 887
9. Ibid., 898
10. “Innovations in the States,” 1175
11. “Innovations in the States,” 1179
12. An earlier version of this paper pursued both directions. In that paper, and in subsequent polynomial regression analysis, the distinction between the logistic and decaying exponential diffusion patterns was not strong. The results of the polynomial regression suggest that only three of the twenty-five policy items approximate a logistic curve. See Dale H. Poel,”The Diffusion of Legislation Among the Canadian Provinces: A Mathematical and Statistical Analysis,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Edmonton 1975
13. Determinants of Innovation in Organizations,” American Political Science Review LXIII (March 1969), 111-26
14. ibid., 114
15. Ira Sharkansky and Richard I. Hofferbert,”Dimensions of State Politics, Economics, and Public Policy,” American Political Science Review LXIII (September 1969), 867-79.
16. The concept and the literature are briefly discussed in Mohr,”Determinants of Innovation in Organizations,” 122-3
17. Cited in ibid., 122
18. The best known is probably Seymour Lipset's Agrarian Socialism: The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Saskatchewan (expanded ed., New York, 1968).