The Diffusion of Policy Perceptions
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Diffusion of Policy Perceptions: Evidence from a Structural Topic Model∗ Fabrizio Gilardi† Charles R. Shipan‡ Bruno Wueest§ June 22, 2015 Abstract Policy diffusion means that policies in one unit (such as states, cantons, and cities) are influenced by policies in other units. The literature has established convincingly that diffusion is an important determinant of policy choices, but the same process can also shape how policies are perceived, both before and after they are adopted, if they are adopted at all. This paper studies this process in the case of smoking bans in U.S. states. It relies on an original dataset of over 370,000 articles published in sixteen American newspapers between 1996 and 2014 and uses structural topic models to estimate how smoking bans have been perceived and how perceptions changes as a function of policy adoption in nearby states. The preliminary results show how the structural topic model can be used to study the diffusion of policy perceptions. ∗We thank Katrin Affolter, Nina Buddeke, Sarah Däscher, Jeremy Gelman, Andrea Häuptli, Geoff Lorenz, Adriano Meyer, Christian Müller, and Thomas Willi for excellent research assistance, Klaus Rotherhäusler for his help with the implementation of the computational linguistic methods, and Jude Hays for helpful comments. The financial support of the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant nr. 100017_150071/1) is gratefully acknowledged. †Department of Political Science, University of Zurich (http://www.fabriziogilardi.org/). ‡Department of Political Science, University of Michigan ([email protected]). §Department of Political Science, University of Zurich ([email protected]). 1 1 Introduction A large number of studies have examined how policies in one country, state, or city are shaped by policies in other countries, states, or cities—that is, how policies diffuse, cross-nationally or sub-nationally (Dobbin, Simmons and Garrett, 2007; Gilardi, 2012; Graham, Shipan and Volden, 2013; Maggetti and Gilardi, 2015). The literature has established convincingly that diffusion occurs in a wide range of policy areas. There is strong evidence that policies in one unit are influenced by policies in other units. However, the interdependencies driving policy diffusion matter not only for policy adoption, but also for shaping the way in which policy problems and solutions are defined and understood. In this paper, we study how the perception of policy problems and solutions changes as a function of the adoption of policies elsewhere. We thereby rely on the concept of frames, namely, patterns of justifications linking specific policies with selective interpretations of their causes and consequences (Entman, 1993; Helbling, Hoeglinger and Wueest, 2010). Frames can be identified by looking at the words, images, and phrases that are used when conveying information about a policy (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989). In the context of policy diffusion, frames allow us to identify whether policy makers connect a policy with different types of outcomes in relation to the experience of other units. We focus on smoking bans—policies restricting smoking in public places—in the United States. This choice is motivated by several considerations. First, several American studies (e.g., Shipan and Volden, 2006b, 2008; Pacheco, 2012), as well as abundant anecdotal evidence indicate that smoking bans have indeed been subject to a diffusion process. This allows us to concentrate on the nature of the process instead of its mere existence. Second, smoking bans have been adopted in a convenient time frame (about ten years), which is long enough to detect variations and to supply sufficient information but short enough to be practically manageable. Third, the policy has well-defined characteristics and is comparable across units. Fourth, there was significant uncertainty on the consequences of the policies with respect to their economic consequences, popular support, interest group support, and ease of implementation. Our empirical analysis relies on an original dataset of over 370,000 articles published in sixteen American newspapers between 1996 and 2014 and uses structural topic models (Roberts et al., 2014; Roberts, Stewart and Airoldi, 2015) to estimate how smoking bans have been perceived in the states and how perceptions changes as a function of policy adoption in nearby states. Preliminary results from an analysis of sixteen American newspapers shows how the structural topic model can be used to 2 study the diffusion of policy perceptions. 2 Frames as indicators of policy diffusion We define policy diffusion in terms of interdependence. That is, we consider that policy diffusion occurs if the policy choices of one unit (such as countries, states, cities, etc.) are influenced by the policy choices of other units (Dobbin, Simmons and Garrett, 2007; Gilardi, 2012). Diffusion processes are driven by three broad classes of mechanisms: competition, learning, and emulation (Simmons, Dobbin and Garrett, 2006; Braun and Gilardi, 2006; Dobbin, Simmons and Garrett, 2007; Gilardi, 2012). First, competition means that a unit reacts to the policies of other units in an attempt to attract resources. Second, learning means that the experience of other units is used to estimate the consequences of policy choices. Third, emulation is the idea that the socially constructed properties of policies and their relationship with dominant norms, instead of their objective characteristics, drive policy diffusion. Thus, some policies may become accepted as appropriate regardless of their actual consequences. Emulation can also be seen as a process in which the “burden of proof” shifts from the proponents to the opponents of the policy. When a policy is new or heterodox, its proponents must fight against prevailing norms. However, as the policy becomes more accepted, opponents of the policy (that is, defenders of the status quo) are under greater pressure to make their case. We argue that the frames used in public discourses can be used as indicators of diffusion. Frames can be defined as patterns of justifications linking specific policies with certain beliefs (Entman, 1993; Helbling, Hoeglinger and Wueest, 2010). Empirically, they can be measured through the words, images, and phrases used when conveying information about a policy (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989). Frames inform us on how a given policy is perceived in a given unit. This perception changes as a function of the policy being adopted elsewhere, thereby informing us on the nature of the diffusion process. Regardless of whether the media reflect or influence how policies are framed in public debates, they can be used as an accurate source for ways in which smoking bans are perceived in a given unit—and, crucially, how this perception changes as a function of the adoption of smoking bans in other units. In our context, frames allow us to identify patterns of justifications that link smoking bans with certain expectations about their effectiveness or appropriateness. As with any other issue, smoking bans allow for a variety of competing frames (Chong and Druckman, 2007, 112–115). Although most of the existing literature on the media coverage of smoking bans tends to focus on tobacco-related 3 news in general or on specific medical issues such as the health consequences of passive smoking, it provides some useful guidelines for the development of our classification (Champion and Chapman, 2005; Nelson et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2008; Foster et al., 2012; Champion and Chapman, 2005). In particular, Champion and Chapman (2005, 680) identify frames related to health, economics, public opinion, or practical arguments and distinguish positive, neutral, and negative tones. Building on these insights, we expect to observe seven frames. each connects smoking bans with a different topic, namely: 1. The health of employees in businesses subject to smoking bans, or of the general population; 2. The economic implications of smoking bans for businesses subject to the ban; 3. Public support for smoking bans; 4. The implications of smoking bans for politicians; 5. Interest group support for smoking bans; 6. The implementation and enforcement of smoking bans; 7. The implications of smoking bans for individual freedom. Table 1 shows four excerpts from newspaper articles that can be linked to the frames defined above. Excerpt A contains the “health” frame, while excerpt B exemplifies the “economic implications” frame. We use these frames in two steps. First, we identify the frames empirically and look descriptively at their distribution, both cross-sectionally and over time. This allows us to establish, for instance, which frames are most used, whether their “mix” (for instance, the ratio of different frames or another composite measure) varies over time, whether the frames used focus less on economic consequences over time, and whether states used the same frames found in similar states. Second, we analyze frames as a function of policy adoption in other units. There are two ways in which the frames can be connected with the process by which policies diffuse. If the frame “implementa- tion,” for instance, becomes less prevalent or assumes a more positive tone after adoption by other units, then we would consider this to be evidence of diffusion because the perception of a given consequence of the policy changes as a reaction to the experience of others. Moreover, we could examine whether arguments in favor of smoking bans are more frequent than those against them in earlier periods, but the frequency reverses over time. If that is the case, it would suggest that the “burden of proof” shifts 4 A North Carolina, the nation’s largest grower of tobacco, will soon prohibit smoking in restaurants and bars. The ban, signed into law on Tuesday by Gov. Bev Perdue, is another defeat for the ailing tobacco industry on home turf in the South. [...] “This is a historic day for North Carolina,” said Governor Perdue, a Democrat. “By banning smoking in our restaurants and bars, we will greatly reduce the dangers of secondhand smoke and lower health care costs for families.” [...] Since March, smoking has been banned in most bars and restaurants in Virginia, where tobacco has been grown for 400 years.