Search

Previous research has failed to adequately address why we should expect the diffusion of policy innovations in the realm of gun policy. As a social regulatory policy, gun policy may be highly influenced by policy adoptions in neighboring regions, in part due to the high likelihood of spillover effects. This article discusses under what conditions we should expect policy diffusion to occur from neighboring jurisdictions. We use event-history analyses to evaluate impact of neighboring states diffusion pressure on the adoption of 'shall issue' concealed weapons laws between 1974 and 2007. Neighboring diffusion pressure has a significant effect on policy adoption even when controlling for National Rifle Association membership and a previous adoption of a similar policy ('may issue' permit). We provide a rationale why scholars should find neighboring diffusion effects in some policy areas but not others. Keywords: Policy Adoption and Diffusion, Gun Policy, Firearms Control, United States, 'Shall Issue' Concealed Weapons Permits, Event-History Analysis, Social Regulatory Policy, Trans-Jurisdictional Policy Problems. Investigaciones anteriores no han tenido exito en evaluar el por que se deberia esperar la difusion de politicas innovadoras en el ambito de la regulacion de armas. Vista como una politica regulatoria social, la regulacion de armas puede ser altamente influenciada por las regulaciones adoptadas en las regiones adyacentes, en parte debido a la alta probabilidad de efectos de propagacion. Este estudio analiza bajo que condiciones deberiamos esperar la difusion de politicas en jurisdicciones adyacentes. Usamos un Analisis de Eventos Historicos para evaluar el impacto de la presion en la difusion de estados adyacentes en la adopcion de politicas 'Shall Issue' para armas encubiertas entre 1974 y 2007. La presion en la difusion de estados contiguos tiene un efecto significativo en la adopcion de regulaciones aun cuando se controla por membresia en la NRA y previas adopciones de politicas similares (permisos 'May Issue'). Brindamos una explicacion del por que se deberian de encontrar efectos de difusion adyacentes en algunas politicas pero no en otras., Unfortunately, gun violence occurs far too frequently in America. Occasionally, events like the 'Batman' shooting in Aurora Colorado on July 20, 2012 (Brown 2012) or the attack at Virginia Tech [...]

The theoretical and empirical debate over the ability of the U.S. Supreme Court to influence public opinion through its decisions is far from settled. Scholars have examined the question using a variety of theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence, but there is no theoretical consensus, nor are the empirical studies without methodological weaknesses. We enter this debate in an attempt to bring some clarity to the theoretical approaches, overcome some of the methodological shortcomings, and bring a yet unstudied issue area, Court decisions on gay civil rights, under scrutiny. We argue that the ability of Court decisions to influence public opinion is a function of the salience of the issue, the political context, and case specific factors at the aggregate level. At the individual level these factors are also relevant, but citizen characteristics must also be taken into consideration. Our analysis of aggregate level and individual level opinion does indeed suggest that Court decisions can influence public opinion. However, the ability of Court decisions to influence public opinion is conditional. Our findings lend support to the legitimation hypothesis and the structural effects model. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings and suggestions for future research.

Stakeholders include scientists, interest groups, leaders, professionals, government and NGO employees, and activists; they are individuals or groups that play an increasingly important role in public policy. As such, stakeholders are frequently used as a source to better inform public decision making. Given the growing importance of stakeholders’ understanding and thus communication concerning the issues on which they inform the public, it is timely to ask: How do stakeholders comprehend, or mentally construct an understanding of the policy issues upon which they are asked to weigh in? In an attempt to address this issue, this paper uses a case study of a policy issue, river restoration. Results from a survey of 85 stakeholders and a follow up interview of 20 stakeholders shed light on whether stakeholders predominantly prefer to think of river restoration in terms of science or through policy narratives. The findings indicate that stakeholders prefer explanations that use science and the engaged citizen narrative when they think about the river’s restoration. Additionally, stakeholders who work for government particularly emphasize that the river should be described in scientific terms. We use this data to further analyze what elements of science and narratives are divisive to stakeholders and which are not and conclude with advice on how stakeholders can speak in a non-divisive way to the public and other stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For policy-making to address public risk perceptions effectively, policy-makers must have a clear understanding of the nature of public risks. Public opinion polls regularly solicit perceptions of risk toward a variety of topics. These assessments, though, tend to be general with no specificity offered for a nuanced interpretation. Yet, there is good reason to assume that risk perceptions are not based on the same criteria. If true, policy-makers may be unable to address risks adequately without a better understanding of the drivers of risk perceptions. This project focuses on two primary research questions: (1) Does the public weigh the risk associated with global climate change differently in specific sub-domains? (2) If so, which climate change sub-domains are various members of the public most concerned about when offering a general assessment of global climate change risk? We assess public risk perceptions of climate change in three sub-domains—public health, economic development, and environment—and find that two of the three sub-domains are predictors of a general assessment of risk. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]