rethinking policy diffusion: the interstate spread of “finance innovations”
Post on 20-Jan-2017
Embed Size (px)
Rethinking Policy Diffusion: The Interstate Spreadof Finance Innovations
T. Austin Lacy David A. Tandberg
Received: 1 April 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Recently a number of studies have focused on states adoptions of postsec-ondary-specific policies. Cutting across much of this research is the presence and influence
of interstate diffusion of policy adoptions, a phenomenon for which support is scant. This
paper seeks to address this through broadening the categorization of policies beyond the
discrete form traditionally used to one that encompasses a larger conception of finance
policy. Our sample uses 131 finance innovations for 47 states over a 29 year period,
finding that upon broadening our definition, we can detect the process of diffusion.
However, the findings are striking, showing that while states do learn from one another, the
process is dynamic and shifts across time.
Keywords State policy adoption Postsecondary finance Diffusion Eventhistory analysis
Historically, state policymakers have attempted to keep tuition low through direct
appropriations to public colleges and universities. Since the nineteenth century, the states
were the predominant funders of public colleges and universities, a commitment accel-
erated by the federal land grant acts, the development of teachers colleges, community
colleges, the expansion of public research universities and further federal action such as the
GI Bill (Johnson 1987). However, as early as the 1940s, policymakers became concerned
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study ofHigher Education, Charlotte, NC. We thank Jim Hearn and Michael McLendon for their comments on anearly draft and continued support. All errors contained are our own.
T. A. Lacy (&)The University of North Carolina System Office, Chapel Hill, NC, USAe-mail: email@example.com
D. A. TandbergFlorida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
Res High EducDOI 10.1007/s11162-014-9330-2
with higher educations escalating costs to students.1 In 1965 the federal government
passed the Higher Education Act (HEA) which included the seeds of the federal, need-
based financial aid program that would later evolve into the Pell Grant Program. In the first
reauthorization in 1972, the Act also included the State Student Incentive Grant program
[later renamed the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) program],
which provided federal matching funds for state-run, need-based grants. The LEAP pro-
gram resulted in a flurry of state policymakers developing such grants, with all states
adopting a program by the end of the decade (Heller 2002).
During the 1980s, college costs and prices began to rise at an even accelerated rate,
exceeding annual increases in governmental appropriations, inflation, personal income, and
state and federal financial aid. In this environment, the burden of paying for college
increasingly moved from states to students while the discourse among policymakers shifted
to higher education as a private, rather than a public, good (Lyall and Sell 2006). It was
against this changing backdrop that state postsecondary officials began experimenting with
new market-based higher education policies as well as other, alternative means for
financing colleges and universities (Titus 2006; Paulsen and Smart 2001; Wellman 2006;
Hemsley-Brown 2011). Identifying the factors associated with states adopting one or more
of this class of policy innovations is the focus of this study.
To examine this line of inquiry, postsecondary education researchers have drawn from
the comparative state political science and public policy literatures to study states
adoptions of postsecondary policies, often centering on questions of geographical policy
diffusion (e.g., McLendon et al. 2005, 2006, 2007; Doyle 2006; Hearn et al. 2008).
Geographical policy diffusion argues that the policies ultimately enacted in states tend to
mimic the policies of their neighbors and, as one state adopts a policy, it increases the
likelihood that officials in proximate states will follow suit. While support for geographical
diffusion has been found in other domains, studies testing hypotheses in the context of
postsecondary policies have found little support for this phenomenon (Sponsler 2010).
In studying the development of state postsecondary finance innovations, researchers
have chosen to be discrete in defining very specific policies (e.g., performance funding,
merit aid). While these distinctions have tangible differences in states policy landscapes
and their effects on colleges and universities, this deep parsing of larger policy categories
may obscure geographical policy diffusions influence.2 In this study, we wish to test the
influence of diffusion after taking a broader view of postsecondary policy types. Specifi-
cally, we look at the spread of finance innovations as a category, under the rationale that
they are frequently driven by similar motivations and goals. Though most of these policies
have been studied individually, we have yet to find a study which attempted to analyze the
diffusion of these finance innovations as a whole.3
Our argument for combining these policies under the term finance innovations stems
from two sources: First, as we detail later, these policies fall under the umbrella of what
some articulate as market-based approaches to financing higher education (Teixeira et al.
2006). Second, combining innovations in this manner may better mirror what individuals in
states respond to when they look across their borders; in the case of postsecondary
1 This is perhaps best described in the final report of the 1947 Presidents Commission on Higher Education.2 As noted by Boehmke and Skinner (2012), the tendency to focus on discrete, single policies is also aphenomenon in the political science field.3 See McLendon et al. (2006) for Performance Funding; Doyle et al. (2010) for 529 Savings Plans andPrepaid tuition; Deaton (2006) and Warne (2008) for Tuition Decentralization; and Doyle (2006) for MeritAid.
Res High Educ
education, policy emulation might not follow the discrete technocratic policies, but rather
broad categories that seek similar outcomes. That is, while the distinctions are important in
their mechanics, we hypothesize that these differences may not be apparent, or even
meaningful, for public officials to whom problems and solutions do not always precede in a
linear fashion. From this perspective problems may be matched with any relevant options
from a broad category of solutions, or even multiple solutions at once (Kingdon 1984). In
the current national landscape, studying postsecondary policy diffusion may yield insights
as to policy creation in general and the influence of higher educations unique mix of actors.
As the federal government, large foundations, non-profit associations, and intermediary
organizations attempt to scale best practices across state lines, looking at the origins of
existing policies will point towards enabling conditions and barriers to adoption.
State Postsecondary Finance Innovations
Over the past thirty years state policy increasingly utilized market-based approaches to the
financing and governance of the public sector (Rabovsky 2012). In state higher education
finance policy, market-based approaches are those that: (1) attempt to incentivize personal or
institutional behavior towards certain larger outcomes deemed important by state policymakers
(as opposed to regulations and other top down directive policy approaches); and/or (2) shift the
burden of paying for college from the state to the individual. The specific innovations under this
umbrella are: tuition decentralization, voucher programs, 529 savings plans, pre-paid tuition
programs, performance funding, and broad-based merit aid programs (Titus 2006; Hauptman
2006; McLendon et al. 2009; Protopsaltis 2008; Wellman 2006; Hemsley-Brown 2011).
One of the primary arguments supporting the decentralization of tuition authority was
that markets should drive prices and, once freed from artificial price controls, institutions
would be able to compete on quality and students would vote with their feet (Wellman
2006). Spurred by new economic and political realities, in some states tuition authority has
become decentralized from central state offices, allowing institutionsas opposed to
postsecondary governing structures or legislaturesto set their own tuition rates which
predictably led to increased tuition (Lyall and Sell 2006). Realizing that enrollments
continued to grow even in the face of increasing costs, state legislatures have continued to
disinvest in higher education, support other public priorities, and allow institutions to
increase tuition (Breneman and Finney 1997; Hovey 1999). Between 1987 and 2006, 18
states decentralized tuition setting authority.
Perhaps one of the most innovative approaches to reorganizing the financial relationship
between the state, students, and institutions was the creation of the Colorado Opportunity
Fund, a program that functions as a voucher program for higher education. Using money
that otherwise would be appropriated directly to institutions, Colorado established a sti-
pend available to all lawfully present C