Acta Politica

, Volume 52, Issue 2, pp 133–155 | Cite as

Explaining cross-national policy diffusion in national parliaments: A longitudinal case study of plenary debates in the Dutch parliament

  • Rik De Ruiter
  • Jelmer Schalk
Original Article
  • 186 Downloads

Abstract

In parliamentary debates, members of a national parliament (MPs) often refer to the policy experiences of other countries addressing similar problems to those with which the MPs are confronted. When MPs make such references, the diffusion of policy ideas from one country context to another can occur. This article explores policy diffusion in plenary debates by answering the following questions: to what extent do references by MPs to the policies of other countries change over time and across policy areas; and what are the country- and policy-specific drivers of, respectively, the number of references to other countries and how MPs use information on policy experiences from other country contexts? The results of the analysis of Dutch Lower House debates on education and environmental policies for the period 1995–2012 show that the cross-national diffusion of policy ideas by MPs follows a punctuated equilibrium logic. Moreover, Dutch MPs refer more often to policies of larger countries and of EU member states. Finally, in policy fields with a high likelihood of externalities, the diffusion of policy ideas from the three countries most referred to by MPs occurs mainly through the mechanism of interdependence.

Keywords

policy diffusion national parliaments the Netherlands European Union 

References

  1. Auel, K. and Raunio, T. (eds.) (2014) Introduction: Connecting with the electorate? Parliamentary communication in EU affairs. Journal of Legislative Studies 20(1): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagehot, W. (2009 [1867]) The English Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baumgartner, F.R. (2001) Political agendas. In: N.J. Smelser and P.B. Baltes (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavorial Sciences: Political Science. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 288–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, F.R. et al (2009) Punctuated equilibrium in comparative perspective. American Journal of Political Science 53(3): 603–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braun, D. and Gilardi, F. (2006) Taking ‘Galton’s problem’ seriously. Towards a theory of policy diffusion. Journal of Theoretical Politics 18(3): 298–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cameron, A.C. and Trivedi, P.K. (2013) Regression Analysis of Count Data. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carley, K.M., Columbus, D. and Landwehr, P. (2013) AutoMap User’s Guide 2013, Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Institute for Software Research, Technical Report, CMU-ISR-13-105.Google Scholar
  8. Case, A.C., Rosen, H.S. and Hines, J.R. (1993) Budget spillovers and fiscal policy interdependence: Evidence from the states. Journal of Public Economics 52(3): 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cobb, R.W. and Elder, C.D. (1971) The politics of agenda-building: An alternative perspective for modern democratic theory. The Journal of Politics 33(4): 892–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crum, B. and Fossum, J.E. (2009) The multillevel parliamentary field: A framework for theorizing representative democracy in the EU. European Political Science Review 1(2): 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crum, B. and Fossum, J.E. (2013) Practices of Inter-Parliamentary Coordination in International Politics. The European Union and Beyond. Colchester, CT: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cooper, I. (2012) A ‘virtual third chamber’ for the European Union? National parliaments after the treaty of Lisbon. West European Politics 35(3): 444–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper, I. (2014) Parliamentary oversight of the EU after the crisis: On the creation of the article 13 interparliamentary conference, Paper presented at the PADEMIA Conference, 12–13 June, Brussels.Google Scholar
  14. De Ruiter, R. (2013a) Under the radar? National parliaments and the ordinary legislative procedure in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 20(8): 1196–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Ruiter, R. (2013b) Full disclosure? The open method of coordination, parliamentary debates and media coverage. European Union Politics 14(1): 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fraga, A. (2005) After the convention: The future role of national parliaments in the European Union (and the day after . . . nothing will happen). Journal of Legislative Studies 11(3): 490–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Füglister, K. (2012) Where does learning take place? The role of intergovernmental cooperation in policy diffusion. European Journal of Political Research 51(3): 316–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilardi, F. (2010) Who learns from what in policy diffusion processes? American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 650–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilardi, F. (2012) Transnational diffusion: Norms, ideas and policies. In: W. Charsnaes, T. Risse and B. Simmons (eds.) Handbook of International Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 453–477.Google Scholar
  20. Herranz-Surralles, A. (2014) The EU’s multilevel parliamentary (battle)field: Inter-parliamentary cooperation and conflict in foreign and security policy’. West European Politics 37(5): 957–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones, B.D. and Baumgartner, F.R. (2005) The Politics of Attention. How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jones, B.D., Sulkin, T. and Larsen, H.A. (2003) Policy punctuations in American political institutions. American Political Science Review 97(1): 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jordan, A. and Adelle, C. (eds.) (2012) Environmental Policy in the European Union. Actors, Institutions and Processes. Abingdon, VA: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Karlas, J. (2012) National parliamentary control of EU affairs: Institutional design after enlargement. West European Politics 35(5): 1095–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kiiver, P. (2006) The composite case for national parliaments in the European Union: Who profits from enhanced involvement? European Constitutional Law Review 2(2): 227–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kiiver, P. (2011) The early-warning system for the principle of subsidiarity: The national parliament as a Conseil d’Etat for Europe. European Law Review 36(1): 98–108.Google Scholar
  27. Kingdon, J.W. (1984) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
  28. Kreilinger, V. (2013) The new inter-parliamentary conference for economic and financial governance. Policy paper Notre Europe – Jacques Delors Institute, Berlin.Google Scholar
  29. Long, J.S. and Freese, J. (2014) Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, 3rd edn. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  30. López-Santana, M. (2006) The domestic implications of European soft law: Framing and transmitting change in employment policy. Journal of European Public Policy 13(4): 481–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lord, C. (2013) No representation without justification? Appraising standards of justification in European parliament debates. Journal of European Public Policy 20(2): 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martens, K., Rusconi, A. and Leuze, K. (2007) New Arenas of Education Governance. The Impact of International Organizations and Markets on Educational Policy Making. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Mill, J.S. (1998) [1861]) Considerations on Representative Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Neunreither (2005) The European parliament and national parliaments: Conflict or cooperation. Journal of Legislative Studies 11(3–4): 466–489.Google Scholar
  35. Schäfer, A. (2006) A new form of governance? Comparing the open method of co-ordination to multilateral surveillance by the IMF and the OECD. Journal of European Public Policy 13(1): 70–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shipan, C. and Volden, C. (2012) Policy diffusion: Seven lessons for scholars and practitioners. Public Administration Review 72(6): 788–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simmons, B.A. (2001) The international politics of harmonization: The case of capital market regulation. International Organization 55(3): 589–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simmons, B.A., Dobbin, F. and Garret, G. (2006) The globalization of liberalization: Policy diffusion in the international political economy. American Political Science Review 98(1): 171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Strøm, K. (1990) A behavioural theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science 34(2): 565–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Volden, C. (2006) States as policy laboratories: Emulating success in the children's health insurance program. American Journal of Political Science 50(2): 294–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Volden, C., Ting, M.M. and Carpenter, D.P. (2008) A formal model of learning and policy diffusion. American Political Science Review 102(3): 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rik De Ruiter
    • 1
  • Jelmer Schalk
    • 1
  1. 1.Leiden UniversityThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations