Morality Policy and Federalism: Innovation, Diffusion and Limits

Diffusion and Typology: The Invention and Early Adoption of Medicinal Marijuana and Offshore Wind Policies

“…Hollander and Patapan (2017) argue that framing of marijuana policy in terms of patients and medicine was critical to the rapid diffusion of MM laws, corroborated by Hannah and Mallinson (2018), finding that changes in external norms encouraged MM policy diffusion. And, critically, as MM policy diffused, the federal government's posture became increasingly hands‐off.…”

“…Murder, abortion, and drug use have existed for much or all of human history—well before they were regulated by an explicit policy. And, fourth, morality policy debates “are framed as general matters of principle and therefore demand that they be advocated (or repudiated) irrespective of their territorial constraints” (Hollander and Patapan, 2017:16). Generally, one either supports legalization of MM everywhere or opposes it everywhere.…”

Policy Diffusion in a Redistributive Policy: Affordable Housing and State Housing Trust Funds

“…Lowi (1964)'s categorization of policies by the distributive, regulative, constituent, and redistributive has been useful to decipher how mechanisms of diffusion vary by policy area. Additionally, Hollander and Patapan (2017) outline the ways that federalism can enable but also at times stifle policy innovation and diffusion in morality policies. The context of housing policy highlights policy adoption in a redistributive policy area, leading to its own unique obstacles to innovation and diffusion of policies (Shipan and Volden 2012).…”

The Diffusion of Morality Policies

“…A recent, notable exception to the single-case morality policy studies was carried out by Hollander and Patapan (2016). With a qualitative research design, where they analyze whether federalism supports innovation and diffusion of morality policies, for which they select two distinct policies enacted at the state-level in the USA.…”

“…Regarding the first question, I argue that it is especially likely that citizens demand government responses regarding morality policies, which in turn makes it more likely that legislators cannot ignore, but rather respond to these demands. One plausible explanation is that support and opposition to these laws is less likely to remain local (Hollander and Patapan 2016). When it comes to support/opposition to legislation that addresses non-negotiable core values-whose passage (rejection) is frequently interpreted as a categorical denial of/affront towards the moral values of its advocatespeople are more likely to organize and mobilize (Mooney and Lee 2000, 229), however not limited to their locality, but in every location where a policy that contradicts their first principles emerges, especially because the intractability of these issues shapes the advocacy efforts in a way that actors strive for conclusive resolutions to policies that 30 cast doubt on their core values.…”