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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Specifically, geodesic distances are calculated following the great circle formula, which uses the geographic coordinates of the capital cities. This variable incorporates internal distances based on area. Although The Hague, rather than Amsterdam, is where the government resides, the point is to select a pivotal geographic reference location for a country, along political as well as economic, financial and demographic, dimensions. In this sense, Amsterdam is a logical reference point.
A test of the alpha parameter in a negative binomial model including all independent variables and year dummies (standard errors clustered in countries) confirms this statement (ln(α)=0.46; P<0.05).
The data contain many zeros (42 and 65 per cent for environmental and education policy, respectively). Zero-inflated negative binomial and Poisson models have been developed to address excess zeros (Long and Freese, 2014). However, a key assumption in these models is that these zeros are ‘inflated’ because of different processes leading to the zero values. We can think of no plausible alternative process that would explain why some countries would be subject to a different process and not (or never) be mentioned in Dutch parliamentary debates. Hence, we do not fit zero-inflated models to our data.
References
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.
Bagehot, W. (2009 [1867]) The English Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Baumgartner, F.R. et al (2009) Punctuated equilibrium in comparative perspective. American Journal of Political Science 53(3): 603–620.
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.
Cameron, A.C. and Trivedi, P.K. (2013) Regression Analysis of Count Data. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Crum, B. and Fossum, J.E. (2013) Practices of Inter-Parliamentary Coordination in International Politics. The European Union and Beyond. Colchester, CT: ECPR Press.
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.
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.
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.
De Ruiter, R. (2013b) Full disclosure? The open method of coordination, parliamentary debates and media coverage. European Union Politics 14(1): 95–114.
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.
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.
Gilardi, F. (2010) Who learns from what in policy diffusion processes? American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 650–666.
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.
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.
Jones, B.D. and Baumgartner, F.R. (2005) The Politics of Attention. How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Jones, B.D., Sulkin, T. and Larsen, H.A. (2003) Policy punctuations in American political institutions. American Political Science Review 97(1): 151–169.
Jordan, A. and Adelle, C. (eds.) (2012) Environmental Policy in the European Union. Actors, Institutions and Processes. Abingdon, VA: Routledge.
Karlas, J. (2012) National parliamentary control of EU affairs: Institutional design after enlargement. West European Politics 35(5): 1095–1113.
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.
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.
Kingdon, J.W. (1984) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.
Kreilinger, V. (2013) The new inter-parliamentary conference for economic and financial governance. Policy paper Notre Europe – Jacques Delors Institute, Berlin.
Long, J.S. and Freese, J. (2014) Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, 3rd edn. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
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.
Lord, C. (2013) No representation without justification? Appraising standards of justification in European parliament debates. Journal of European Public Policy 20(2): 243–259.
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.
Mill, J.S. (1998) [1861]) Considerations on Representative Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Neunreither (2005) The European parliament and national parliaments: Conflict or cooperation. Journal of Legislative Studies 11(3–4): 466–489.
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.
Shipan, C. and Volden, C. (2012) Policy diffusion: Seven lessons for scholars and practitioners. Public Administration Review 72(6): 788–796.
Simmons, B.A. (2001) The international politics of harmonization: The case of capital market regulation. International Organization 55(3): 589–620.
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.
Strøm, K. (1990) A behavioural theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science 34(2): 565–598.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
De Ruiter, R., Schalk, J. Explaining cross-national policy diffusion in national parliaments: A longitudinal case study of plenary debates in the Dutch parliament. Acta Polit 52, 133–155 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2015.29
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2015.29