Policy Diffusion: The Issue-Definition Stage

Fabrizio Gilardi1 Charles R. Shipan2 Bruno Wüest1

1University of Zurich2University of Michigan

IBEI, BarcelonaMarch 18, 2019

(Updated March 18, 2019)

1 / 24

2 / 24

PolicyAdoption

PolicyAdoption

3 / 24

IssueDefinition

PolicyAdoption

4 / 24

Issue definition and policy frames

≻ Issue definition: “policy problems are not a priori givens but rather arematters of definition; what is at issue in the agenda-building process isnot just which problems will be considered but how those problems willbe defined” (Elder and Cobb 1984, 115)

≻ Policy frames: “the presentation or discussion of an issue from aparticular viewpoint to the exclusion of alternate viewpoints”(Baumgartner, De Boef, and Boydstun 2008, 106)

5 / 24

(https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/10/17222062/mark-zuckerberg-testimony-graham-facebook-regulations)

6 / 24

7 / 24

8 / 24

watson, 29.8.2016 Die Welt, 6.12.2016(https://goo.gl/TzfkeI) (https://goo.gl/185E0x)

9 / 24

Main argument

Issue definition within a state

⇑

Prior adoptions by other states within that state’s diffusion network

10 / 24

Expectations

1. Diffusion: Prior adoptions by other states within that state’s diffusionnetwork predict the prevalence of policy frames within a state.

2. Learning: Prior adoptions within a state’s diffusion network predict theprevalence of policy frames that are based on practical, empiricallyverifiable consequences.

3. Emulation: There is a negative correlation between policy adoptionwithin a state’s diffusion network and the prevalence of policy framesthat are based on normative arguments.

4. Complexity: The co-occurrence of policy frames is related to policyadoption within a state’s diffusion network.

11 / 24

Empirical approach

≻ Smoking bans in US states, 1996–2013≻ 560,000 newspaper articles, 49 newspapers, 49 states≻ Supervised classification to identify relevant paragraphs (< 5%)≻ Supervised classification to measure sentiment≻ Unsupervised text analysis of newspaper paragraphs (topic modeling,

STM) (Roberts, Stewart, and Airoldi 2016)

12 / 24

Outcome variable: topics

≻ Aspects of smoking bans that are emphasized in a text≻ Topics←→ frames (DiMaggio, Nag, and Blei 2013)≻ More precisely:

· Topics as building blocks of frames· Topic correlations as indicator of complexity of frames

13 / 24

Main covariate: policies in “other” states

Prior adoptions by other states within a state’s diffusion network(Desmarais, Harden, and Boehmke 2015)

14 / 24

Other covariates

1. “Sentiment” of a paragraph2. Months (spline)3. Newspaper ID4. Policies in state itself5. Month in which policies were enacted6. Number of months before and after enactment (spline)7. % smokers (US only)8. Unified Democratic government9. Unified Republican government10. % Democrats in state house11. Ideological slant of newspapers (Gentzkow and Shapiro 2010).

15 / 24

Results: Estimated topics

air

airport

alley

allow

also

area

bowl

build

clean

design

employe

enclos

establish

exceptfacil

hallhome

hotelinclud

indoor

insid

light

must

nonsmok

nosmok

offic

onli

outdoor

outsid

permit

place

privatprohibit

public

requir

restaur

restrict

room

seat

sectionsepar

shop

smokesmokefre

smoker

spacestore

system

ventil

workplac

accord

air

americanassoci

ban

bar

california

cancer

caus

cigarettdeath

diseas

effect

exposurfoundgroup

health

heart

hospit

increas

indoor

law

lung

nationnonsmok

number

percent

place

prevent

protect

public

rate

report

research

restaur

risk

secondhand

show

smokesmokefre

smoker

societi

statestudi

support

survey

tobacco

workerworkplac

year

abstract

arizona

austin

ballot

ban

bar

befor

busi

call

campaign

candid

citi council

democrat

district

elect

group

includindiana

indianapoli

initi

issu

kentucki

last

louisvillmayor

membermetro

need

new

oppon

oppos

ordin

pass

petit

place

politpresid

propos

public

republican

resid

signatur

smoke support

temp

two

votevoter

year

allow

alsoappeal

attorney

author

banbar

becaus

board

busi

case

challeng

club

complaint

compli

counticourtdepart

effect

enforc

establish

exempt

file

fine

first

health

issu

judg

law

lawsuit

legallicens

local

new

offens

officoffici

owner

polic

post

privatpublic

regul

requir

rule

sign

smokestate

take

violat

ani

ban

becaus

believ

busi

cant

children

choic

come

doe

doesnt

dont

even

get

good

governissu

just

know

let

like

live

make

mani

much

need

now

peopl

person

place problempublic

put reallireason

right

see

seem

smoke

smoker

take

thing

think

time

triveri

want

way

whiwork

administr

advertis

also

antismok

ban

billboard

bloomberg

call

campaign

cigarett

clinton

compani

congress

correct

countri

drug

fat

feder

first

flightfood

govern

gun

includ

industri

inmat

last

market

morri

nationnew

newyork

nicotin

offic

offici

presid

prison

product

propos

public regul

restrict

sale

sell

state

tobacco

unit

use

world

year

away

back

banbar

becaus

busi

cafe

cigar

cigarett

club

come

custom

day

dont

drink

eat

effect

even

food

get

just

last

light

like

manag

mani

new

night

nonsmok

now

open

outsid

owner

patronpeopl

photo

place

pub

restaur

servsinc

smokesmoker

stillstreet

tabl

timetwo

went

year

also

associ

ban

bar

becaus

budget

busicasino

citi cost

cut

dollar

drop

econom

economi

effect

exempt

fall

gamblgameincreas

industri

job

last

licens

liquor

loss

lost

lotteri

machin

millionmoney

month

nevada

new

oper

pay

percent

rais

revenusale

sinc

slot

smoke

spend

state

tavern

tax

video

year

also

board

build

campuscenter

children

class

colleg

communiti

counti

depart

develop

director

district

educ

employe

fund

health

help

highhospit

includ

informmedic

meet

member

minor

new

offic

offici

oklahoma

plan

polici

product

program

properti

provid

public

school

servic

staff

state

studenttobacco

town

univers

use

work

year

youth

adopt

antismok

approv

ban

barboardbusi

citi

committe

communiti

consid

council

councilman

counti

discuss

effect

exempthealth

hear

includ

issu

last

local

loui

mayor

measur

meetmember

monday

month

municip

offici

ordin

owner

pass

place

plan

propospublic

resid

restaursmoke

support

take

town

tuesday

two

vote

week

year

allow

amendapprov

assembl

ban

bar

befor

bill

capitol

chang

committe

debat

democrat

exempt

general

gov

govern

governor

hous

includ

introduc

issu

last

law lawmak

leader

legisl

legislatur

lobbyist

local

measur

pass

place

propos

public

rep

republican

sen

senat

session

sign

smoke

sponsor

state

statewidsupport

vote

week

workplac

year

also

areaban

beach

burn

butt

center

cigarett

citicounti

effect

feet

field

fire

firework

includ

iowa

keno

lake

light

limit

lincoln

lot

near

nebraska

offici

omaha

open

ordin

outdoor

outsid

park

playground

prohibit

properti

publicrecreat

resid

restrict

sidewalk

sign

smoke

smoker

stadium

street

town

use

vehicl

within

year

Electoral politics Tobacco companies Schools and universities Outdoors

Health Freedom Casinos State legislation

Regulations Enforcement Bars and restaurants Local legislation

0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 0.8 0.9

0.925 0.950 0.975 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.9

0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.85 0.90 0.95 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95

0.9990

0.9995

1.0000

0.9990

0.9995

1.0000

0.9990

0.9995

1.0000

0.9990

0.9995

1.0000

0.9990

0.9995

1.0000

0.9990

0.9995

1.0000

0.9990

0.9995

1.0000

0.9990

0.9995

1.0000

0.9990

0.9995

1.0000

0.9990

0.9995

1.0000

0.9990

0.9995

1.0000

0.9990

0.9995

1.0000

Exclusivity

Fre

quen

cy

a

a

a

a

a

a

Casino legislation

Interest groups

Normative

Politics

Regulations

Spaces

16 / 24

Results: Average prevalence and time trends

Regulations Outdoors Casinos Electoral politics

Tobacco companies Enforcement State legislation Schools and universities

Freedom Bars and restaurants Local legislation Health

2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

Year

Topi

c pr

eval

ence

Casino legislation

Interest groups

Normative

Politics

Regulations

Spaces

17 / 24

Results: Diffusion

Electoral politics Tobacco companies Schools and universities Outdoors

Health Freedom Casinos State legislation

Regulations Enforcement Bars and restaurants Local legislation

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.000.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.000.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.000.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

0.06

0.09

0.12

0.06

0.09

0.12

0.06

0.09

0.12

Share of prior policy adoptions within a state's diffusion network

Topi

c pr

eval

ence

Casino legislation

Interest groups

Normative

Politics

Regulations

Spaces

18 / 24

Results: Diffusion and topic correlations

overall

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Health

Regulations

Freedom

Outdoors

Schools anduniversities

Locallegislation

Statelegislation

Electoralpolitics

Enforcement

Tobaccocompanies

Bars andrestaurants

Casinos

spatial lag <= 0.5

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

Health

Regulations

Freedom

Outdoors

Schools anduniversities

Locallegislation

Statelegislation

Electoralpolitics

Enforcement

Tobaccocompanies

Bars andrestaurantsCasinos

spatial lag > 0.5

●●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Health

Regulations

Freedom

Outdoors Schools anduniversities

Locallegislation

Statelegislation

Electoralpolitics

Enforcement

Tobaccocompanies

Bars andrestaurants

Casinos

Pearsons' r 0.1190.002

19 / 24

What have we learned? Substance

Policy diffusion and policy frames in the case of smoking bans:1. How smoking bans are framed is predicted by the prevalence of thepolicy within a state’s diffusion network (“diffusion”)…

2. …in particular for topics regarding practical, observable consequences ofsmoking bans (“learning”)

3. Topics that capture normative aspects of the debates over this policyarea are unaffected by earlier adoptions (“emulation”)

4. The complexity of policy frames increases with diffusion (“complexity”)

20 / 24

What have we learned? Theory

Importance of the issue-definition stage for policy diffusion:1. Effects of diffusion come into evidence well before the adoption stage, oreven the agenda-setting stage

2. Policy diffusion can affect policymaking by shaping how issues aredefined

3. The reach of diffusion processes is even larger than currently assumed

21 / 24

What have we learned? Methods

A new approach to study policy diffusion:1. How to study the issue-definition stage in a policy diffusion perspective2. How to study the diffusion of policies that are not (yet) widespread orare difficult to measure or compare

22 / 24

Extensions for future projects

1. Replicate and unpack adoption-to-frame diffusion2. Develop ways to study frame-to-frame-diffusion3. Combine topics and sentiment in a coherent outcome variable4. Causal inference (challenge: observational + text)

23 / 24

Thank you for your attention!Paper https://fabriziogilardi.org/wip/

24 / 24

ReferencesBaumgartner, F. R., S. L. De Boef, and A. E. Boydstun (2008).The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Desmarais, B. A., J. J. Harden, and F. J. Boehmke (2015).Persistent policy pathways: Inferring diffusion networks in the american states.American Political Science Review 109(2), 392–406.

DiMaggio, P., M. Nag, and D. Blei (2013).Exploiting affinities between topic modeling and the sociological perspective on culture: Application to

newspaper coverage of us government arts funding.Poetics 41(6), 570–606.

Elder, C. D. and R. W. Cobb (1984).Agenda-building and the politics of aging.Policy Studies Journal 13(1), 115–129.

Gentzkow, M. and J. M. Shapiro (2010).What drives media slant? evidence from us daily newspapers.Econometrica 78(1), 35–71.

Roberts, M. E., B. M. Stewart, and E. M. Airoldi (2016).A model of text for experimentation in the social sciences.Journal of the American Statistical Association 111(515), 988–1003.

1 / 6

Newspaper State Articles Paragraphs FilteredAlbuquerque Journal NM 4,953 25,464 849Argus Leader SD 3,801 25,339 1,150Arizona Republic AZ 9,405 44,455 2,013Atlanta Journal-Constitution GA 23,281 114,843 1,486Austin American-Statesman TX 12,573 86,686 1,033Baltimore Sun MD 14,264 86,647 1,621Billings Gazette MT 235 1,416 92Birmingham Newsa AL 1,914 9,000 12Bismarck Tribune ND 10,251 40,867 1,411Boston Globe MA 19,337 112,465 2,257Burlington Free Press VT 1,938 10,607 407Charleston Gazette-Mail WV 18,228 116,099 1,832Chicago Tribune IL 31,855 157,102 3,183Clarion-Ledger MS 3,206 17,005 443Courier-Journal KY 10,593 7,1887 2,752Daily News NY 14,202 60,828 777Dayton Daily News OH 9,767 45,444 784Democrat-Gazettea AR 4,678 16,422 76Denver Post CO 13,088 79,843 1,292Des Moines Register IA 5,750 41,160 857Deseret News UT 15,884 58,817 879Detroit Free Press MI 11,309 115,380 761Hartford Courant CT 14,821 83,980 731Honolulu Star-Advertiser HI 1,465 8,282 180Idaho Falls Post Register ID 2,082 11,083 95Indianapolis Star IN 11,432 92,001 2,346Journal Sentinel WI 16,040 81,146 1,005Las Vegas Review-Journal NV 9,430 56,605 1,135Los Angeles Times CA 29,597 196,061 1,881News Journal DE 5,426 31,177 1,220North Jersey Record NJ 19,453 95,395 1,368Oklahoman OK 12,250 44,793 1,093Omaha World-Herald NE 12,295 72,506 1,711Oregoniana OR 3,406 17,154 141Philadelphia Inquirer PA 18,975 105,861 1,374Portland Press Herald ME 5,374 27,796 718Post and Couriera,b SC 13859 28362 7Providence Journal RI 15,264 89,549 1,349Richmond Times-Dispatch VA 23,237 141,295 923Seattle Times WA 16,820 79,862 910St.Louis Post-Dispatch MI 27,516 137,830 2,821Star Tribune MN 13,693 120,220 1,840Tampa Bay Times FL 22,369 162,254 1,271Tennessean TN 5,475 36,611 608Times-Picayunea LA 3,600 17,776 90Topeka Capital-Journal KS 5,976 32294 564Union Leadera NH 975 3,944 43Wilmington Star-News NC 6,863 34,211 515Wyoming Tribune Eagle WY 2,024 13,526 769Total 560,229 3,159,350 52,675

2 / 6

Appendix: Sentiment

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●Casinos

Bars and restaurants

Enforcement

Tobacco companies

Electoral politics

Outdoors

State legislation

Schools and universities

Local legislation

Regulations

Freedom

Health

−0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10

Difference in topic prevalence (pro sentiment − anti or no sentiment)

● ● ● ● ●Casinos Legislation Locations Normative Other Regulations & Enforcement

3 / 6

Appendix: Month of enactment

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Local legislation

Tobacco companies

Electoral politics

Health

Schools and universities

Outdoors

Enforcement

Regulations

Freedom

Bars and restaurants

Casinos

State legislation

−0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

Difference in topic prevalence (month of enactment − other months)

● ● ● ● ●Casinos Legislation Locations Normative Other Regulations & Enforcement

4 / 6

Appendix: number of months before and after enactment

Regulations Schools and universities State legislation Tobacco companies

Freedom Health Local legislation Outdoors

Bars and restaurants Casinos Electoral politics Enforcement

−48 −24 0 24 48 −48 −24 0 24 48 −48 −24 0 24 48 −48 −24 0 24 48

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.04

0.08

0.12

Number of months before/after smoking ban was enacted

Topi

c pr

eval

ence

Casinos Legislation Locations Normative Other Regulations & Enforcement

5 / 6

Appendix: Electoral politics

Unified Democratic government Unified Republican government

Percent smokers within a state Share Democrats in state lower house

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

15 20 25 30 0 25 50 75

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

Pre

vale

nce

of th

e to

pic

'Ele

ctor

al p

oliti

cs'

6 / 6